Quote:
Originally Posted by overcastg4
Two things can contain the religion property while as a whole not inheriting the properties and characteristics that each one has as a result of all the properties combined.
|
If I get your point, you are saying that science and atheism have the 'properties' of religion (dogmatism, blind faith) without the 'result' - being true.
If so, it's one of the neatest bits of apologetic rhetoric I have ever heard.
But it is unsound. Firstly because science is not dogmatic (otherwise why would theist apologists say "it is always changing its' mind"?). Neither is atheism Faith, blind or not, or why do the believers ask: "Don't you believe in anything?"
As to what is true, on all the evidence, science has the best track record for getting it right. Religion has chronically had to give up debunked claims, one after another. It has not too long since lost the claim to morality. All that is left to it is Faith. Either faith that they 'know" what is not known, or faith that what is evidently wrong is actually right. Or of course, both at once.
Science and atheism have no such Faith. And that is the main difference.
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.
