McBell
Unbound
He is not very good at back peddling...
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You have employed this logical fallacy repeatedly, as I have repeatedly shown you.Therefore?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The claims I've made are not arguments from ignorance, that's your fictional assumption. More nonsense.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Eg, the "complexity of life requires a designer" = "god of the gaps"/"argument from ignorance"
leibowde84
Veteran Member
They are based on the absence of an alternative plausible theory, correct? If so, that is a logical fallacy.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, the problem is that you haven't shown anything, but seem to think that you have presented an argument. Since I'm not going to entertain this nonsense, and there is no argument on this thread, being presented, I'm going to end this dialogue.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'll take that as a win, as I have provided multiple supporting arguments for my claim that the god of the gaps is a logical fallacy. Hooray!!
McBell
Unbound
Bull ****.
He has shown you your use of fallacies.
That you refuse to see them doe snot make them go away.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Also, you haven't asked me what part of my claim regarding the god of the gaps argument I have failed to "show", so that is completely on you. All you have to do is ask for it and I will provide it.
Yes.
But it's not the sort of answer you're looking for, so I decided not to bother with this game. I don't wager folks who want to beat down "creationism" as they understand it want to hear "science textbooks are religious texts in my path, because they tell us oodles of things about the gods and our relationships to them; the sciences an excellent platform for weaving deeply meaningful, religious narratives and this is a major part of my religion."
If you don't consider sciences definitive proof, then this is truly an exercise in futility. Funny thing is, I don't consider sciences definitive. I consider nothing definitive. We're all just dumb apes making up maps of territory as we go along. I just really like the mythic narratives that come out of the sciences, and to me, they're equivalent of sacred religious texts (see this book for what I mean by this).
But it's not the sort of answer you're looking for, so I decided not to bother with this game. I don't wager folks who want to beat down "creationism" as they understand it want to hear "science textbooks are religious texts in my path, because they tell us oodles of things about the gods and our relationships to them; the sciences an excellent platform for weaving deeply meaningful, religious narratives and this is a major part of my religion."
If you don't consider sciences definitive proof, then this is truly an exercise in futility. Funny thing is, I don't consider sciences definitive. I consider nothing definitive. We're all just dumb apes making up maps of territory as we go along. I just really like the mythic narratives that come out of the sciences, and to me, they're equivalent of sacred religious texts (see this book for what I mean by this).
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Reminds of this quote:
"'Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions" - Oscar Wilde
I wouldn't go so far as to state that the sciences are the equivalent of sacred religious texts though; that's an incredible reach even in consideration of what you're basing that on.
That's a total misuse of the term "mythic narratives" if I've ever seen one.
I'm genuinely interested: what "mythic narrative" have you ever derived from the sciences.
serp777
Well-Known Member
Proof only exists in mathematics and logic based on some initial assumption. No good scientist thinks scientific theories are absolutely true. Science deals in evidence and probability. The best you can do in science is a theory, but rather a theory with a probability of 5 sigma like the higgs boson.
Science textbooks cannot by definition be religious texts since they change based on new observations. But another great thing about science is that humans don't make it up like religion, we discover it! We didn't make up the speed of light or quantum physics. These things are determined from concrete observation showing that they already operated that way at the beginning of the universe (probably). I think to call them sacred is a contradiction because the thing that is supposedly sacred in science will be chucked out with yesterdays trash when and if it is shown to be wrong. Something sacred can surely not be so callously dismissed, which is why the religious won't modify their God created books--they're sacred so they're immutable.
Most people wouldn't. Part of that is because the way we think about religion in the West is penned in by Abrahamic paradigms, which are fairly limiting in their approach to religiosity. Personally, I take the view that anything and everything can be a source of religious inspiration, and the works that are especially inspiring to you are your "sacred texts." No, these aren't "sacred texts" in the narrow view of being scripture intended to be taken as dogma, but if you're limiting religious texts to that, well... again, that mostly goes back to being too penned in by Abrahamic notions of what religion is.
Why? The purpose of mythologies is to convey meaningful tales about the universe and our place in it. The sciences can do this as well as (if not better) than "traditional" religious mythologies. I find significantly more inspiration and meaning from the narratives that emerge from the sciences than I tend to form traditional mythos. Probably because I just like the sciences and find them fascinating on the whole.
I think the easiest example of this is to read a couple books that really helped open my eyes to the fact that sciences can be used as mythic narrative. One of those is Connie Barlow's "Green Space, Green Time; The Way of Science" and the other is David Suzuki's "The Sacred Balance" that I linked to earlier. Both basically take scientific information about our world and see deep meaningfulness in it. That sense of meaningfulness is not scientific, but the inspiration is. In that sense, the sciences become one's sacred texts and a basis for mythos. If you can't get ahold of these works at your local public library, Barlow has a site that goes into some of it, though it's unfortunately not very well-designed. A short excerpt that might convey what this is all about:
"The Great Story (also known as the Universe Story, Epic of Evolution, or Big History) is humanity's common creation story. It is the 14 billion year science-based sacred story of cosmic genesis, from the formation of the galaxies and the origin of Earth life, to the development of self-reflective consciousness and collective learning, to the emergence of comprehensive compassion and tools to assist humanity in living harmoniously with the larger body of life."
So can sacred texts. Nothing about a sacred text demands it remain unchanged. Remember, dogmatism and other Abrahamic-style approaches are not the be-all and end-all of how written works can be regarded in religions. The idea of sacred texts being immutable is actually pretty foreign to other religions. In Pagan traditions, not only do sacred texts and stories change, they are expected to change over time.