Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[paarsurrey]

I think you should throw out your little pamphlets from the watchtower; it's obvious that they've already lied way to much to you. Time for you to start reading something else.

The word "observe" certainly does not mean "to directly see with your own little eyes"
The word "observe", from The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Observe: 1. Keep, follow adhere to, perform duly (law, command, appointed time, method, principle, science, rite, anniversary, etc.
2. perceive, mark, watch, take notice of, become conscious of (person, thing, that, how)
3. examine or note (phenonema), without aid of experiment.
4. say, esp. in way of comment
5. make remark
6. Hence ~able.

I don't say The Oxford Dictionary is always right, they do make mistakes, but they do tend to fix those mistakes when informed that they are wrong.

The watchtower pamphlets, though, just keep on lying, edition after edition, even if it is demonstrated that they are wrong. Their answer in such a case is to just lie even more.

They need to improve.

 

[paarsurrey]

I mean the medicine was invented, and you decried anything made and not 'natural'.

No; in a sense everything even if it is called "invented" is natural:

1. It is made from the stuff, human brain also included, already available in the nature.
2. Human faculties are also being evolved naturally, so, the “inventions” being made though seem inventions are not really invention but a part of the natural evolution.

 

[paarsurrey]

Man creates disease, to fight other disease.

Its...a bacteria fest.

It is only figuratively that it is described as having been created; strictly speaking it is not a creation as it is not from annihilation. Like a clothes designer describes his design as a creation of him.

 

[paarsurrey]

Blind faith follows all aspects and dimensions of thought, how certain schools and trains of thought function solely depend on the product it produces.

Religion is more likely to produce "blind faith" as defined by most people simply because religion requires a following and not much else.

Science itself is a product of blind faith, but what it produces is fairly certain considering the goal of most sciences. But with that being said, science requires a following and not much else.

In essence, the faith required to make both aspects operant is purely confidence and doubt.

So you have equated both the religion and the science with following.

Following religion is with Word of the one true creator God, which appeals to reason.

Following science that is deaf and dumb could be just blind faith.

 

[Sir Doom]

Hmmn I disagree... blind faith in science is even MORE deplorable, for it goes against the very foundations of science, the scientific method... to suspend critical examination within science is akin to some sort of gross hybrid of apostasy and blasphemy within religion.

I agree with this completely.

I will add the caveat (I'm sorry if this has been done already) that skepticism is not necessarily disbelief, but is more often tentative acceptance of a theory until new data can be observed and tested.

If I'm honest with myself, this is basically where every scientific "fact" that I believe resides:

Working so far, no new data available.

Then again, I'm no scientist

 

[paarsurrey]

Hmmn I disagree... blind faith in science is even MORE deplorable, for it goes against the very foundations of science, the scientific method... to suspend critical examination within science is akin to some sort of gross hybrid of apostasy and blasphemy within religion. On the other hand, blind faith within religion is less deplorable, because it is sometimes a necessity while often a virtue - at least to those internal, to those external it is something else entirely.

Faith used in lieu of reason is always potentially destructive, to advocate blind faith, be it in science or religion is to intentionally (at least subconsciously) forgo information where it contradicts your current beliefs... it is irrational at all times; for those who adhere to science this is inexcusable, for those who adhere to religion that is not always so.

I agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

My examples were to counter the notion that Nature rules science and not vice versa. Regardless of outcome it is known that science can have some dominion over nature. Whether it be for good or bad was not my concern in my original rebuttal.

I don't agree with you.

Nature is the master and scientific discoveries are always corrected to correspond with it, in my opinion.