Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by chopperdudes

dishonest bout what?? are you saying that in your point of view openly attacking religion is acceptable? dunno what you mean.

You stated as fact in all scenarios something that you saw happen in some. As it doesn't happen in all (even many) such scenarios, such a statement is dishonest.

That is, you stated that when religion is attacked, people become defensive, rude, etc., and that most certainly doesn't happen all the time. Not only are such generalizations dishonest and therefore not critical thinking, it was your first sentence, and so it made a very poor first impression.

the lack of falsifiability of relgion & god just makes it useless in terms of predicting, an unfalsifiable claim should stop at just being that, a claim, it does nothing and therefore should not be kept (not saying the morals etc, just ie. events described in genesis for ppl who take them literally).

Ah, see, now you're getting it. One key element in the scientific method is the prediction of outcomes (another being falsifiability). Without that, there's no science! Religious claims are inscrutable and should therefore be discarded. That is the very reason why science has no place analyzing religion and the very reason it cannot and should not be held to the same scrutiny as science (as the OP suggests).

if an idea make claims and statements, then yes it does need to be supported by provable facts and empirical evidences.

No, sir. Only if the claim can be tested does it need provable facts to support its claim. The instant a construct is introduced, a scientist must throw up his hands and proclaim, "I want nothing to do with this!"

Tell a group of philosophers, theologians, and metaphysicists to prove the existence of God and they'll get hard to work, mounting piles upon piles of (religious) evidence for and against it.

Tell a group of scientists to prove the existence of God and they'll sit on their hands.

That's how it should be, too. As soon as you attempt to falsify or verify a construct, you have left the realm of science.

actually, i believe science actually does it's own thing, it's own discoveries, it's own testings, etc. however, when science found something against the believes of theists, they (theists) will tread on science's toes. if you didn't know, creationists tried to advance religion into the education curriculum, therefore renamed it as Intelligent Design (ID), and established it as a "contraversy" to evolution.

That's a stark generalization of what actually happened, but that's neither here nor there.

And yes, proponents who would have ID taught in science classes (do note that distinction; there's nothing wrong with teaching ID in school, so long as it's taught in some sort of religious studies class and not in a science class) are making the same grave error as those who somehow think that science and evolution can disprove the Bible. Those are both disgusting claims that have absolutely no intellectual merit.

I'll also point out that your example of the ID-in-school has no bearing on my statement that it addressed. Just because some religious people don't understand science and thus claim that they do interfere with each other doesn't mean that they actually do.

the unfalsifiability of ID alone makes it pseudoscience

Carefulcarefulcareful with your terminology here. Firstly, you're making a very broad generalization of ID there, and I'd encourage you to find out more about the various types of ID and what the different types claim before blanketing them all together. ID is religious in nature, and thus based on a construct (not scientific in nature). Pseudoscience is reserved for those beliefs that claim to be scientific nature, but have failed to hold up to scientific rigor (astrology, chiropractics, acupuncture, homeopathy, telekinesis)

theists have attacked evolution by saying it teaches an immoral way of life and tells us to behave like animals.

Careful not to derail your own thread.

the facts are the facts, i might say or not believe i'm a male, but it is a fact that i am one.

Ahh, here we open up a new door to another very important distinction between science and religion, one of truth.

Ask a Christian how the universe actually came into existence. The likely response? "God created it."

Ask a scientist the same question, and his first words should be, "I don't know." That should, however, be followed by, "But the evidence suggests that..."

Science cannot tell you what actually happened; all it can do is show you what all the evidence suggests. Hypotheses are formed, refuted, revamped, and supported as more facts and evidence are presented. This can lead to a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence that points to one extremely likely outcome, but can science ever be 100% sure? No. It can be so sure that you'd be a fool to not believe the evidence, but it cannot be certain.

Religion, on the other hand, claims to know the truth. It DOES make those claims of 100% certainty.

Which is right? Nobody knows.

It is due to that uncertainty that many people can logically justify a belief in a Genesis-like creation. They would, however, be at a significant disadvantage if they tried to justify their claim in a scientific environment.

Faith versus evidence. Believe what you want, but you can't justify that you're certainly right.

so you don't think creation overlaps with evolution? you don't think genesis overlaps with any facts in the science and geology field? you don't think the impossibility of noah's ark overlaps with anything at all? or in your opinion they shouldn't be taken literally?

My opinion is irrelevant. An educated religious man knows how to and where to draw the line, though.

CT is a place to debate / make points. aren't you supposed to make a stance and defend it? i was making my stance i'm pretty sure you noticed, and i don't see anything wrong with the validity of that flow chart. it is just an easier way of showing how things work. is that not how science work and religion work?

Like I said earlier, it was an intellectually dishonest oversimplification created either out of ignorance of methodology or a desire to make a snide jab at a side.

Given the very strict requirements of the Critical Thinking forum, it was entirely inappropriate for an OP.

ps. Guido please i don't see why you're coming across so hot.

I know why, but don't sweat it. One reason is to see if you're willing and able to reasonably defend your points, which you seem to be doing well enough so far.

Just don't take it personally, okay? =)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com