That's even sillier than your thoughtless generalization.And yet in religion everything in their little black book is FACT, and they don't even have any reasonable proof.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's even sillier than your thoughtless generalization.And yet in religion everything in their little black book is FACT, and they don't even have any reasonable proof.
That's even sillier than your thoughtless generalization.
Not quite as silly as your meaningless one liners.
you know what i like? The humbleness inherent in science. They call things basically proven theories. And yet in religion everything in their little black book is FACT, and they don't even have any reasonable proof.
DarkSun said:Indeed, the main difference between traditional religion, and other schools of thought such as science and law, is that religious belief generally comes down to faith, while scientific belief comes down to experimental data. However, I would argue that the justification for such Faith is not fundamentally blind, but comes from a form of logic called "inductive reasoning", or "reasoning based on past experience".
Let me preface what I am about to say with this sentiment: people who see a beautiful rainbow or a brilliant sunset don't need to be told that these things are beautiful. They just know. This knowledge is innate, because no one needs to tell you that the sun is beautiful. A newborn child's grip on its mother and its knowledge of where to get fed is also innate knowledge: no one needs to tell the child where the milk is. Some things, we just know.
Religion is often one of these things that we inherently know to be true, just as we know that gravity is a very real force even when we don't know the scientific explanation for gravity. But other things are learned. We learn mathematics. We learn science. We learn Law. This knowledge is not intrinsic.
Which brings me to inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning, as I have said, is knowledge that is based on past experience, and an example would be religion. Deductive reasoning is knowledge which is based on evidence and data, and examples would include Law, Science and Applied Mathematics. Both are equally valid forms of reasoning; however, they are very different.
Religious beliefs are justified dually by a person's own innate experience and that individuals interpretation of that experience in retrospect. In that sense, religion is the manifestation of an individuals own inductive reasoning, because in essence, it is based on their intuitive explanation of that which they have witnessed in the world.
While religious belief is intuitive, scientific belief however, is concerned with facts, figures and objective interpretation of experimental results. It allows for testability, repeatability and criticism. This is something which inductive reasoning and religion cannot allow, which is a credit to scientific thought. However, in a sense, the deductive reasoning of science is limited by its inability to prove or disprove the knowledge established by religious belief and inductive reasoning.
But after all that, I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that religion and science both have an underlying form of reasoning. But both forms of justification are disparate, even though they can coexist if the individual permits. Yes, the only thing which can prevent the amalgamation of inductive and deductive reasoning is stubborn Fundamentalism.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/78527-love-root-all-evil-7.html
... Except... space is not a vacuum. And the reason we can't breath there is because the concentration of O2 in any one place is extremely low when you're in space.
But besides that, I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Denying evolution is like denying that the sky is blue. It's silly.
If I told you the OP was a koranic literalist would that help you understand?To try and see the the OP's point of view.
But yeah, I don't understand a statement like "evolution is a lie". I could just as easily turn round and say " The Quaran is a lie"
As for your two different types of reasoning, i disagree with the entire premise, that religion is inbuilt. If this were true, why are there so many disparate religions? Why are there people like me who don't even believe at all?
I never just naturally knew. You are talking about instinct, i would say, and im pretty sure it doesn't apply to philosophical thought. Which is basically what religion comes down to. It may be true, i'll ALWAYS allow for that, to do any less would be arrogant. BUT, as far as i can tell, it isn't, and that just makes talking about god and religion a philosophical discussion that doesn't really mean anything, other than to get the juices flowing.
A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.
A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.
Please don't join the conversation when it's obvious you have no idea what the theory of evolution is, or says. There aren't even words to describe how flawed your perception of evolution is. Of course cats don't turn into dogs and vice versa, evolution doesn't even address that issue. I don't even know what your trying to convey.
A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.
A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.