Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by tristann
Religion is based on faith not empiria. You believe what you want to believe.
Did Adam and Eve existed or is is just an allegory aimed at fragile brains of people few thousand years ago? Did Noah exist or was he just an allegory concoted for the same reason?
I simply don't care. Religion/theology does not require a scientific proof or empirical evidence. It requires faith.
There is no need to pitch religion against science, there are very different animals.
It's like pitching one philosophical school of thought against another? What is the point?
So religion requires faith just like astrology requires faith, right? It has nothing to do with truth or reality?
There is no concept of "truth" in mainstream science. There is concept of theory which attempts to explain certain phenomena but it is still considered a theory and often newer theories replace older theories.
Science does not deal with the concept of "truth" or "reality". Religion does and "truth" in religion is what you want to believe or rather "accept as truth" Religion is much closer to philosophy than any other science and in philosophy the concept of "truth" and "reality" is not so black and white. There are different theories
Why? Do you think modern science would existed if it wasnt for philosophers? Most early scientist were both scientists and philosophers.
Don't you think quantum physics is getting very close to philosophy?
I know some people who are very respcted scientist with publications etc etc and still I see them in chruch every morning. There is no contradiction here unless you want to treat science like religion or religion like science
There are some naive scientist and naive believers who see world in black and white and deny the other side any reason for existence
Why? Do you think modern science would existed if it wasnt for philosophers? Most early scientist were both scientists and philosophers.
Yes. I do.
But I can see how one would come to a different conclusion if one is intent on anachronistically equivocating over the label of "philosopher." One can certainly define themselves into a seemingly plausible defense of your thesis there. But one cannot reason there without doing violence to the language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristann
Don't you think quantum physics is getting very close to philosophy?
No, frankly. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristann
I know some people who are very respcted scientist with publications etc etc and still I see them in chruch every morning. There is no contradiction here unless you want to treat science like religion or religion like science
As noted in a previous post, the ability of human beings to hold simultaneous contradictory beliefs is completely unremarkable. That said you are attacking a straw man which is not justified by anything I have actually written in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristann
There are some naive scientist and naive believers who see world in black and white and deny the other side any reason for existence
Let us work with a philosopher you may have in mind.
You want a early scientist / philosopher try Pythagoras (you heard about him, haven't you? ) or much later Carl Jung who is considered both a philosopher and a founder of analytical psychology.
Now before you go any further I have some advice: just accept what I said about diffferences between religion and science and learn to live with that, but if you think you are going to solve this science vs. religion dilemma keep in mind that brains much bigger than your and mine spent years debating with no real results...
There is no concept of "truth" in mainstream science. There is concept of theory which attempts to explain certain phenomena but it is still considered a theory and often newer theories replace older theories.
Science does not deal with the concept of "truth" or "reality". Religion does and "truth" in religion is what you want to believe or rather "accept as truth" Religion is much closer to philosophy than any other science and in philosophy the concept of "truth" and "reality" is not so black and white. There are different theories
This is mostly semantics. Science is about accuracy, which means being in accordance with fact. Otherwise, known as truth.
I'm using these terms pretty much interchangeably. Maybe you're defining them differently. Also, just because a person wants to believe something is true doesn't make it true or factual. So, I disagree with that definition of truth.
The basic concept of science is that if enough people observe something, it can be considered true.
The basic concept of religion is that if enough people believe something, it can be considered true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
