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.
No, the idea was that for Tzap's analogy to be true, that members in a group can not be mutually exclusive, then she must argue that triangles and squares must have the same number of sides. As that is clearly false, the analogy was inapt, as well as inept.
So in other words, if you close the parameters to what you desire and ignore logic, she was wrong.
No...it changes and updates and clarifies all the time because of clashing minds.
"Science" is not static.
Science is a practice. A method. (Or...includes a method. The Scientific Method...by no coincidence. ) It is not "a thing" and it does not stay still with what was discovered at any given point in time.
I love science, BTW, and am not sure how this got into "science v. theology" (can't remember now) but it is obvious that the two are not the same, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive either. In order to prove that they were, you would need to unilaterally prove that no religious beliefs match scientific beliefs or vice versa, and that isn't true.
Nevertheless, the whole "science v. theology" thing is silly because it attempts to shove all people into one corner or another. Many scientists have been religious and many theologians have been interested in science, right down to the priest who was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory (without calling it that).
So "Duh, religious people are stupid and science appreciators are smart" simply doesn't work. Yes, it feels more comfortable to some. Yes, it is the fallback. Unfortunately it's baloney. It's a self-soother that falls apart upon scrutiny.
Abrahamic religions also have variety of perceptions and ways of beliefs. Let me introduce you to St.Augustine whose thoughts have been discussed here as well. He is only one of many among all religions, East and West.
1) St.Augustine, as someone who argued for the truth of his religion, proves my point.
2) If you wish to refute an argument, try using a relevant rebuttal, and not an irrelevant misdirection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Most atheists in the west cling to a very narrow set of Abrahamic beliefs which makes it easy to beat up on. As smart as you are I believe you know this very well. And yet….?
No...it changes and updates and clarifies all the time because of clashing minds.
"Science" is not static.
Science is a practice. A method. (Or...includes a method. The Scientific Method...by no coincidence. ) It is not "a thing" and it does not stay still with what was discovered at any given point in time.
I love science, BTW, and am not sure how this got into "science v. theology" (can't remember now) but it is obvious that the two are not the same, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive either. In order to prove that they were, you would need to unilaterally prove that no religious beliefs match scientific beliefs or vice versa, and that isn't true.
Nevertheless, the whole "science v. theology" thing is silly because it attempts to shove all people into one corner or another. Many scientists have been religious and many theologians have been interested in science, right down to the priest who was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory (without calling it that).
So "Duh, religious people are stupid and science appreciators are smart" simply doesn't work. Yes, it feels more comfortable to some. Yes, it is the fallback. Unfortunately it's baloney. It's a self-soother that falls apart upon scrutiny.
It's disappointing to see some of these differences of opinion described and summarized the way you do, though there are always people who will have these various "takes" about science and/or religion that tend to veer the discussion into the gutter. I love science too, BTW, and for some that means something very limited compared to what it means to me.
I happen to be reading a rather comprehensive book about Leonardo da Vinci right now that like most biographies and history books about those times tends to tell and confirm the same story. Religion and science have some significant historical roots. No question, but I think all too many religious people (and others) tend to blur that history and interpret those connections in ways that are not well justified.
Just because there can be some parallels drawn between past religious thinking and observations with what we now know thanks to modern day science does not mean the differences should be minimized, less understood or misrepresented. Science in many ways has helped us understand what we should accept about religion, but perhaps more importantly what we should reject. Reject and/or recognize as not true or reality. Contrary to what religion all too often wants to teach or claim is the truth of these matters regardless the facts. Many of which have been truths confirmed by way of the scientific method.
No, if you provide an example she claims can not exist, then she is wrong. I provided that example.
Your example has nothing to do with me, but I will presume you have forgotten the original argument, and are not deliberately straw manning.
"Straw man" is getting old...just saying. Unless actually used to describe an actual, real straw man argument, it's an old saw dragged out to attempt to shut down a discussion. Of course I wasn't providing a straw man, if you're asking in a genuine way.
Religion and science are not unilaterally mutually exclusive, and "science" (if you can reduce it to one single entity like that) does change. We are not relying on the same science we utilized in the 18th century.
It's disappointing to see some of these differences of opinion described and summarized the way you do, though there are always people who will have these various "takes" about science and/or religion that tend to veer the discussion into the gutter. I love science too, BTW, and for some that means something very limited compared to what it means to me.
I happen to be reading a rather comprehensive book about Leonardo da Vinci right now that like most biographies and history books about those times tends to tell and confirm the same story. Religion and science have some significant historical roots. No question, but I think all too many religious people (and others) tend to blur that history and interpret those connections in ways that are not well justified.
Just because there can be some parallels drawn between past religious thinking and observations with what we now know thanks to modern day science does not mean the differences should be minimized, less understood or misrepresented. Science in many ways has helped us understand what we should accept about religion, but perhaps more importantly what we should reject. Reject and/or recognize as not true or reality. Contrary to what religion all too often wants to teach or claim is the truth of these matters regardless the facts. Many of which have been truths confirmed by way of the scientific method.
Nor does it mean religion should be thrown out since it does not 100% jibe with (current) scien(tific understanding).
I'm sorry to disapopint you with reality...what can I say? Trying to make one prove the other is silly, since that's not the intent of religion, as far as I know, and trying to disprove one based on the entirety not jibing (with what we currently scientifically know, at any given time) is also futile.
That's not a minimizing of differences. It is the literal opposite. I'm pointing out WHY they're different, and how that shouldn't get in the way of either scientifc investigation, or religious belief.
No...it changes and updates and clarifies all the time because of clashing minds.
"Science" is not static.
Science is a practice. A method. (Or...includes a method. The Scientific Method...by no coincidence. ) It is not "a thing" and it does not stay still with what was discovered at any given point in time.
I love science, BTW, and am not sure how this got into "science v. theology" (can't remember now) but it is obvious that the two are not the same, but are not necessarily mutually exclusive either. In order to prove that they were, you would need to unilaterally prove that no religious beliefs match scientific beliefs or vice versa, and that isn't true.
Nevertheless, the whole "science v. theology" thing is silly because it attempts to shove all people into one corner or another. Many scientists have been religious and many theologians have been interested in science, right down to the priest who was the first to propose the Big Bang Theory (without calling it that).
So "Duh, religious people are stupid and science appreciators are smart" simply doesn't work. Yes, it feels more comfortable to some. Yes, it is the fallback. Unfortunately it's baloney. It's a self-soother that falls apart upon scrutiny.
Well, as a person with two degrees in geology, I know perfectly how science works. And, exactly, it works because clashing minds continuously change and update science because science seeks a more perfect understanding of some phenomenon. For example, we are constantly learning more about covid, and part of that is due to different scientists saying, in essence, "I think that...", and then it's explored and refined.
Unfortunately, theology is often (though not always) the antithesis of that. We have people right here on this forum who talk about the bible in exactly the same way it was talked about in the 1950s when I was kid and was starting to be taken to Methodist church every Sunday.
Nor does it mean religion should be thrown out since it does not 100% jibe with (current) scien(tific understanding).
I'm sorry to disapopint you with reality...what can I say? Trying to make one prove the other is silly, since that's not the intent of religion, as far as I know, and trying to disprove one based on the entirety not jibing (with what we currently scientifically know, at any given time) is also futile.
That's not a minimizing of differences. It is the literal opposite. I'm pointing out WHY they're different, and how that shouldn't get in the way of either scientifc investigation, or religious belief.
I don't see very many people saying that religion "should be thrown out", although the more some of you post, the more I begin leaning in that direction.
I don't see very many people saying that religion "should be thrown out", although the more some of you post, the more I begin leaning in that direction.
Sure, it's my fault.
If you feel a certain way, own it.
As for people not saying religion should be thrown out, come on now. We have religion literally being called a virus and a cancer. Are you saying they're explaining that some virusus and cancers are A-ok, just a little bit off and in need of a little correction so that they're better viruses and better cancers, or something? But heck, they can stay, that's all good?
Let's be grownups about this, shall we?
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.
) It is not "a thing" and it does not stay still with what was discovered at any given point in time.
Unless actually used to describe an actual, real straw man argument, it's an old saw dragged out to attempt to shut down a discussion. Of course I wasn't providing a straw man, if you're asking in a genuine way.
