It is good to speak with someone with whom I agree, though I don't think our agreement goes as far as you think. Part of that, I am sure, is that I love a good debate.:-)
I would go further (than your statement above) and say that human knowledge can only exist as a probability. All assumptions we make about our surroundings could be incorrect if we were to discover our senses are not "real". But that is further down the rabbit hole.
You imply that religion can tell us more than the probability of something. Please explain, or provide an example.
There are always things that science does not yet address. The difference is between what science calls unknown and what theology calls unknowable.
Theology always tries to squeeze into the gap of the unknown. At first, it fit easily because there was so much unknown. Now, comparitively, there is very little room left. What happens when the gap is made smaller by new knowledge, and theology no longer fits? Some might argue that this is already the case - I would, for some specifically defined religious beliefs. In any event, if there is any truth in religion, the scientific method will find it.
Saying that something cannot be explained scientifically implies that we have evidence which needs to be explained. You seem to take that for granted. Exactly which evidence are you trying to explain? How many other possible (non-religious) explanations for this evidence have you ruled out in considering religion the better explanation? Finally, how did you select your religion as the best source for information compared to all of the others?
The word "faith" has two popular meanings: 1. Belief in something without evidence. (Somethimes called Blind faith when used in a negative context, but always called "faith" in a positive context - Theists gets to have things both ways!;-) ex: I have faith in God.
2. Trust in something, based on evidence ex: I have faith that this surgery will be a success.
In #2, we have real, quantified justification that our expectation will be consistent with our belief. We have past results to go on, experience and advice from others, and we have a pretty good understanding of what will occur, when, the odds of success, and how our faith is justified.
Lumping them together ignores this major difference. The "real" (Practical and/or useful component) in "Faith in Science" is the evidence - the real world results which justify our trust in science. Religion does not have this premiss to build upon. If it did, the statement that "God Exists" would be as obvious as "Pine Trees Exist" and we would have no argument!
If God existed and answered prayers, we would have had world peace 2000 years ago.
I don't know that I would agree with regard to a final resolution between creation and evolution. It is virtually undisputed that evolution is a proccess that has changed developing life on earth. Even the Catholic Pope admits that much. There may yet be some debate as to the details, and as to how evolution started - however there is already such overwhelming evidence for evolution that there is no real question that it took place.
Besides, if God is the sole creator, then why is he creating antibiotic-resistent diseases? God just wanted to keep us on our toes? Or perhaps he just wanted to help us out with our overpopulation problem!;-)
Religion is defined by belief in something. The scientific process is just something people came up with to find out the truth of how things work in the world around them.
There are no required dogmas, teachings or moral requirements in belief in science, no doctrine to follow. No creed, No worship, no prayer. Ones belief in science requires no other prerequisites. It begins and ends with the scientific process, and even that can and will be refined if we discover a "better" method of finding truth.
Ones trust in a religion does have these components. Discarding them is to discard the religion. Truely, religion and science have very litte in common.
Calling Science "Religion" is like calling "Bald" a hair color.
Who taught us the truth about electricity? Bible? No, science.
Who took us to the moon? Religion? No, science.
Who taught us how to create energy from splitting atoms? Koran? No, science.
Do you see a pattern developing here?
Name any ONE (1) truth that religion has tought us, disproving the method of science. Remember, the scientific process allows and compensates for human errors via public disclosure and independent verification - so the very knowledge that scientists messed something up in the past is evidence of the scientific process working to correct itself.
Religion has no such correction method, and is not by its nature truth-seeking.
Belief in the scientific method is quite warranted. The system has proven itself, and contains a feedback loop to correct any problems that do occur. Why shouldn't a rational person trust or believe in it? This trust is justified by evidence that the system works. You can call them belief systems if you want, but that really doesn't help the religious position any. Science and religion both being "Belief systems" does not say anything about the available evidence supporting either proposition.
Theories are truth. If they were proven untrue, then they would no longer be valid theories!
Everything humans profess to know is at some level a "theory", because there is always a possibility (though infinately small) that we are all wrong.
Once evidence becomes overwhelming for a given theory, it is considered a fact, yet the possibilty of error is not zero. This should not cause a problem for a rational person, as the margin of error becomes so small as to be negligable. Examples of such facts include: "the Earth is Round", or "a major process of change on earth in the past has been the process of evolution".
PS: Isn't it supposed to be: You don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your Church?
Why not sell an "anti-censorship" filter.
The same thing as existing filters, but blocks nothing (or almost nothing). As long as the censorship application is installed and in place, the law is not violated...
You may need to block one URL so that it could still be classified as a blocking program...
Slashdot Mirror
It is good to speak with someone with whom I agree, though I don't think our agreement goes as far as you think. Part of that, I am sure, is that I love a good debate. :-)
;-)
;-)
I would go further (than your statement above) and say that human knowledge can only exist as a probability. All assumptions we make about our surroundings could be incorrect if we were to discover our senses are not "real". But that is further down the rabbit hole.
You imply that religion can tell us more than the probability of something. Please explain, or provide an example.
There are always things that science does not yet address. The difference is between what science calls unknown and what theology calls unknowable.
Theology always tries to squeeze into the gap of the unknown. At first, it fit easily because there was so much unknown. Now, comparitively, there is very little room left. What happens when the gap is made smaller by new knowledge, and theology no longer fits? Some might argue that this is already the case - I would, for some specifically defined religious beliefs. In any event, if there is any truth in religion, the scientific method will find it.
Saying that something cannot be explained scientifically implies that we have evidence which needs to be explained. You seem to take that for granted. Exactly which evidence are you trying to explain? How many other possible (non-religious) explanations for this evidence have you ruled out in considering religion the better explanation? Finally, how did you select your religion as the best source for information compared to all of the others?
The word "faith" has two popular meanings:
1. Belief in something without evidence. (Somethimes called Blind faith when used in a negative context, but always called "faith" in a positive context - Theists gets to have things both ways!
ex: I have faith in God.
2. Trust in something, based on evidence
ex: I have faith that this surgery will be a success.
In #2, we have real, quantified justification that our expectation will be consistent with our belief. We have past results to go on, experience and advice from others, and we have a pretty good understanding of what will occur, when, the odds of success, and how our faith is justified.
Lumping them together ignores this major difference. The "real" (Practical and/or useful component) in "Faith in Science" is the evidence - the real world results which justify our trust in science. Religion does not have this premiss to build upon. If it did, the statement that "God Exists" would be as obvious as "Pine Trees Exist" and we would have no argument!
If God existed and answered prayers, we would have had world peace 2000 years ago.
I don't know that I would agree with regard to a final resolution between creation and evolution. It is virtually undisputed that evolution is a proccess that has changed developing life on earth. Even the Catholic Pope admits that much. There may yet be some debate as to the details, and as to how evolution started - however there is already such overwhelming evidence for evolution that there is no real question that it took place.
Besides, if God is the sole creator, then why is he creating antibiotic-resistent diseases? God just wanted to keep us on our toes? Or perhaps he just wanted to help us out with our overpopulation problem!
Religion is defined by belief in something. The scientific process is just something people came up with to find out the truth of how things work in the world around them.
There are no required dogmas, teachings or moral requirements in belief in science, no doctrine to follow. No creed, No worship, no prayer. Ones belief in science requires no other prerequisites. It begins and ends with the scientific process, and even that can and will be refined if we discover a "better" method of finding truth.
Ones trust in a religion does have these components. Discarding them is to discard the religion. Truely, religion and science have very litte in common.
Calling Science "Religion" is like calling "Bald" a hair color.
Lets see.
Who taught us the truth about electricity? Bible? No, science.
Who took us to the moon? Religion? No, science.
Who taught us how to create energy from splitting atoms? Koran? No, science.
Do you see a pattern developing here?
Name any ONE (1) truth that religion has tought us, disproving the method of science. Remember, the scientific process allows and compensates for human errors via public disclosure and independent verification - so the very knowledge that scientists messed something up in the past is evidence of the scientific process working to correct itself.
Religion has no such correction method, and is not by its nature truth-seeking.
Belief in the scientific method is quite warranted. The system has proven itself, and contains a feedback loop to correct any problems that do occur. Why shouldn't a rational person trust or believe in it? This trust is justified by evidence that the system works. You can call them belief systems if you want, but that really doesn't help the religious position any. Science and religion both being "Belief systems" does not say anything about the available evidence supporting either proposition.
Theories are truth. If they were proven untrue, then they would no longer be valid theories!
Everything humans profess to know is at some level a "theory", because there is always a possibility (though infinately small) that we are all wrong.
Once evidence becomes overwhelming for a given theory, it is considered a fact, yet the possibilty of error is not zero. This should not cause a problem for a rational person, as the margin of error becomes so small as to be negligable. Examples of such facts include: "the Earth is Round", or "a major process of change on earth in the past has been the process of evolution".
PS:
Isn't it supposed to be:
You don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your Church?
Why not sell an "anti-censorship" filter. The same thing as existing filters, but blocks nothing (or almost nothing). As long as the censorship application is installed and in place, the law is not violated... You may need to block one URL so that it could still be classified as a blocking program...
Yes if I do it, No if she does! ;-)