Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And the older the ancient text is, and the less we know about the people who started it, the more true it is.
-
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!
The Absolutism of Science
- Thread starter deeoracle
- Start date
And the older the ancient text is, and the less we know about the people who started it, the more true it is.
Sure, if you somehow are omniscient - in the old-fashioned way or however else - then by all means make use of that gift.
For the rest of us, science is by far the best there is.
Which is why I think you lack a working understanding of what science is.
Plural, first of all.
Second of all, the sciences are various fields that engage in the scientific method of deduction.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I often use the word discipline as substitute.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thing is, with education we see the origins and plagiarisms of much of the mythology we know today.
Deduction, deductive reasoning- everything about science speaks to its frivolity, its limitation of reasoning
But nearly everything outside of mathematics is probabilistic. "Old fashion absolute truth" is a lie told to children. When you grow up, you should put aside childish things.
To have limitations does not preclude usefulness.
Harry Callahan addresses the topic....
[youtube]tIfGPEB0W-s[/youtube]
A Man's GOT to Know His Limitations - Clint Eastwood - YouTube
That's fine, but not all disciplines are science. Astrology is a discipline, for instance.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Good one.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Science changes daily, regardless of the price. It just seems to move further and further away from your unchanging hide-bound religious views. I knew you'd choose wrong.
outhouse
Atheistically
And ancient mens mythology gives us so much to study in these modern times???
It is the same as a child with down syndrome with no education, trying to teach advanced algebra in a university.
I'm still waiting for you to reveal to us a methodology to replace science with that can actually achieve absolute knowledge. If you could, for example, tell astronomers how to know an exoplanet's mass absolutely without using the scientific method, I'm sure they'd be thrilled.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No it lacks the proper attributes: it is not falsifiable (in the sense of being testable) and it is not reproducible.
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
Given that creationism is by nature a singular concept, perhaps this explains why some of its proponents appear to struggle so mightily with multifaceted issues?
Meanwhile, science is anything but absolutist. Unlike monotheistic worldviews, which tend to paint reality in strictly black-and-white / us-vs-them / heaven-or-hell terms, most science deals with "truth" on a scale that is composed entirely of shades of gray. Certainly, some of these grays are sometimes so light as to be almost indistinguishable from white and so dark as to be practically black ... but this isn't absolutism.
In fact, if there's any sort of black and white dichotomy here, it is that science is amendable by nature and religion is not.
...
It might be asking too much of many religiously-minded people to put down the "God Did It" pacifier and join us at the big table for adult conversation.
Perhaps.
Meanwhile, science is anything but absolutist. Unlike monotheistic worldviews, which tend to paint reality in strictly black-and-white / us-vs-them / heaven-or-hell terms, most science deals with "truth" on a scale that is composed entirely of shades of gray. Certainly, some of these grays are sometimes so light as to be almost indistinguishable from white and so dark as to be practically black ... but this isn't absolutism.
In fact, if there's any sort of black and white dichotomy here, it is that science is amendable by nature and religion is not.
...
It might be asking too much of many religiously-minded people to put down the "God Did It" pacifier and join us at the big table for adult conversation.
I don't think so. I'm religiously-minded, and never use the "God-Did-It" excuse. Being a polytheist does help, though; the nature of reality is already multifaceted in that theology, and so it's easy to fully accept the shades of gray. My religion is absolutely amendable by nature, as well as other things. We have no set Scripture, and nothing set in stone. The way I view my King Woden has shifted in certain degrees since I started practicing, and that's perfectly fine.
However, that chart is not wholly accurate itself. It doesn't show all faith, just blind faith. Not all faith is blind. I'm not a member of the scientific community, and don't have the tools or expertise to perform the experiments they can; as a result, I basically have to take it on "faith" that they're telling the truth. But that faith isn't in them; I have faith, rather, that if I were to perform those experiments and make those observations, I'd reach the same conclusions. It's faith because it's untested except in areas where I can make observations myself (such as the biological mechanics necessary for evolution; I can see those for myself in the simple fact that we look different from our parents, and the existence of breeding programs.) Call it... "educated faith". Frankly, "faith" shouldn't be a dirty word.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Science is empirical and usually inductive rather than deductive. I have never known it to be frivolous.
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
One out of how many millions? Whoop-dee-doo.
I suppose it might. It allows one to handily avoid the problem of evil that monotheists are obliged to grapple with.
However, polytheism seems a bit like Nonsense By Committee. Baloney to the Nth Power.
Sounds like an oral tradition.
King Woden? Whatever gets you through the night, I suppose.
What other sort of faith is there?
You'll need to elaborate on that claim. Until then, I'm not the least bit inclined to accept it.
The whole "King Woden" thing was the first clue. Pardon the interruption. By all means continue.
That's nonsense. It's an entirely different proposition and you're probably aware of it at some level (which might explain why you felt to add the quotation marks around the word "faith"). You could certainly go and witness a demonstration of a scientific experiment ... and there tends to be a surfeit of documentation in most scientific studies. Believing in the reported results of science is NOT an exercise in faith.
That isn't faith. It's rational thought. The mere fact that it's testable should serve as ample evidence that what you're talking about isn't faith.
...
Meanwhile, what does religion have to say on this issue? Observe:
Matthew 4:7 said:
One might be forgiven for thinking that that one lone line of scripture would be sufficient to keep Christianity out of the science discussion altogether.
Exactly.
Faith isn't a dirty word. It's simply a tell-tale sign that evidence will be lacking (or simply non-existent).