Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, death. Do you think the fear of death may motivate ancient man to manufacture stories in an attempt to reduce this fear?
Possibly.
But to turn this into an argument that because belief in God originated from some sense of fear of the unknown and therefore the belief is false, is to commit the genetic fallacy.
Hopefully, you will not try to do that.
How true.
When you see this; science is a religion, it usually means, the one making the statement has run out of ammo and is in a bit of desperation mode.
Science is not perfect, but it is certainly rigorous enough to correct it's imperfections over time. I always ask myself the question; where would we be today without science?
Since I have never said science was a religion, I will assume you are talking about someone else.
Science is only as rigorous and honest as those who engage in it. Science tells us nothing. Scientists are the ones that relay to the general public what they believe their findings signify.
I am arguing against the belief that scientists are totally objective and free from bias. I am arguing against the belief that scientists are fundamentally different than every other human being in that they engage in their work free of presuppositions.
The method is like any other thing subject to use by humans. It can be used correctly, or abused.
Science by nature is reliable in the sense that it only seeks to examine the physical, natural, observable world that is subject to investigation via empirical means.
Science by nature is subject to abuse in that those who engage in it are prone, like in any other aspect, to interpret data according to their presuppositions.
Whenever scientists overstep their bounds and begin making authoritative pronouncements on domains outside of their area of expertise, they are abusing science and using their mantle of authority to cloak this from the unaware public.
No human is without bias, none.
With that said, the scientific method, has a way of correcting bias over time and the culture of science, does not allow garbage to last for very long, before it gets exposed. History has proven this with science.
Where do you think we would be today, without science?
while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons
Well, while science has been debated on an internet website that operates based on scientists' designs, we've created non-invasive retinal scanning for Alzheimer's detection, cured type 2 diabetes, and created the first 2 millimeter wide microphone that could revolutionize hearing aides.
Now we just need to invent a cure for Jeremy's under siege moments.
while it is true that science has given us many great things like medicine,technology and a greater understanding of our world it has also given us many weapons like the atomic bomb and biological weapons
And, religion has given us people who kill others because they say God commanded them to, or people who think they are so superior to others that don't agree with their beliefs, that they make other people's lives miserable and they treat them with disrespect. Some use their beliefs in a positive way, some use them as a weapon.
Do we throw out everything in this world that can be used in a negative way? If so, nothing much would be left.
Fire is used to warm villages and to burn them down. Based on our improved world, the better of the uses was employed more often.
Well, when I examine stories from thousands of years ago, one thing that floats around my mind is; potential motivations.
Motivations are the key to just about everything humans do or don't do, based on their own personal psychology.
i agree but we must not make one method of understanding the truth to be superior or to think it is the one way to understand reality
hmm what an intriguing question.well science does a good job of explaining the material cause of an object but has a harder time with the final cause. for example,science is able to explain what chemical compounds make up the pages and the cover of a book and such but the sciences will never understand the meaning of a book. while the sciences will be able to explain the chemical make up of the art on the Sistine chapel they will never be able to explain what makes it beautiful. my point is that the universe has much more than the physical objects and events that the sciences can explain. im thinking of truth or beauty which is something only religion and philosophy can explain or at least try to explain. so science alone will never explain all of reality.
if you had read my earlier comments you would see that i agree science is the best way of understanding the natural world but science commits suicide when it goes into the area reserved for philosophy and so it can not understand all things.You are free to use any means you like to determine truth. If you are looking for truths in regards to understanding the natural world, if you have a better method than the science and it's reliance on empirical evidence, then please let us know what that is.
And, religion has given us people who kill others because they say God commanded them to, or people who think they are so superior to others that don't agree with their beliefs, that they make other people's lives miserable and they treat them with disrespect. Some use their beliefs in a positive way, some use them as a weapon.
Do we throw out everything in this world that can be used in a negative way? If so, nothing much would be left.
And you are right in thinking about these things.
When I read works from ancient Greek and Roman historians for example, or the works from Jewish historians, one of the things I think about is what their possible motives could have been for writing what they did.
Everyone that does anything does so because they are motivated to do so.
Scientists who have been guaranteed a continuation of funding for their research programs if they publish reports on a particular investigation with certain "conclusions" may be motivated by the desire to secure funding for their research.
Clergy who have been guaranteed a continuation of power and authority if certain conclusions are reached regarding the investigation of whether or not the heavenly bodies revolve around the earth may be motivated by the desire to maintain and secure their positions of authority and power. Here I am thinking of the censure of Galileo by the Catholic Church.
Historians who desire to buttress their presuppositions about certain matters may be motivated to make pronouncements of historical data and documents that portray their own views in a favorable light.
So what do we do?
Do we throw our hands up and say that we can't know anything about anything because everything we reference could be potentially marred by the motivations of those in authority?
That is silly. We take a holistic approach and look at all sides of the issue while making sure WE are being as objective as possible.
So we see that both science and religion are capable of being beneficial and harmful to humanity.
St. Augustine enjoins us to not judge a philosophy by its abuse.
You are free to use any means you like to determine truth. If you are looking for truths in regards to understanding the natural world, if you have a better method than the science and it's reliance on empirical evidence, then please let us know what that is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?