You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Modern Science Is A Religion! Prove Me Wrong...
Chuckle. No idea what 'loaded for Bear' means... :)
Science is a mess. People are a mess. TV is the perfect example, you're right about that... Right about rationalising too - that's 'thinking' for the permanently asleep...
I've read plenty theology. I know what they think, and I disagree with most of it. And there's a better answer too... None of it's rocket science, just simple logic.
Humans can be either logical or illogical, we have two brains and two minds to choose from. Yin is illogical and competitive, Yang is logical and cooperative. It's our choice, but Yin is the default.
The Yang mind is the one we should be working on. That's the path to freedom... :)
Your definition of logic rests solely on empirical data. My definition of logic goes beyond our flawed human ability to describe the universe -- because it has to. There are many things that science cannot explain, and some things that science will likely never explain. Modern science had to adopt faith because technology has opened and shut too many doors for foot planting conclusions to occur more than rarely. This is due to the fact that some things defy what you or I would define as "logical". An exhausting argument in semantics is all we have without considering the supernatural. Our universe is not as black and white as your argument is trying to make it seem.
You're entitled to disagree with all the theology you want, but that doesn't make it false. That only makes it your opinion against their experience. Science can only describe. It cannot explain.
Hi @madmovond, are you saying that you think science and superstition are compatible?
I think science is absolutely about black and white. It's about facts, right & wrong, true & false... That's it's whole purpose.
What things do you think defy logic? I can't think of any.
If one can prove a theory/theology wrong by logic, then that does make it false, so I'd have to say you're wrong about that.
Science absolutely can explain things, in terms of cause and effect. It'd be useless if it couldn't.
Hello @veritopian! I do think that science and superstition/religion are compatible. They are separate in many ways, but very much intertwined and compliment each other often in my experience.
There are a lot of people who have stories of things that defy any known logic. I've had experiences that land in that category. Now, in a world of skeptics, who is going to believe these stories unless they were there too? You have to experience the illogical for yourself to grasp that there is a supernatural element to our universe. If you haven't, you have no reason to believe it because it's in opposition to your own confirmation bias.
I mentioned that the universe is not as black and white as you make it seem. Science, by definition, is black and white. Cause and effect. Observations and theories based on other observations, causes, and effects. But I stand by the fact that is not explaining anything. It's merely describing how natural laws are being played out. It doesn't explain why the universe is structured the way it is. We ultimately don't know why things are the way they are through science alone. We just know that things act a certain way in certain situations due to scientific experiments and observations. The argument is there that it's only a matter of time before we get to the bottom of it, but that is a subjective argument just the same as saying science will never get to the bottom of it because God is too big for a microscope (so to speak).
Let me suggest two books for you that I found very relevant for this discussion in the past. As a believer they're both from my side, of course, but you might find them interesting if you can get through them objectively.
The Insanity of God by Nik Ripkin. The author's name is a pseudonym, but the stories he tells are from his actual experiences as a missionary in Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe. Many of the stories defy logic, it's just up to you if you want to believe them.
The other book is Who Made God by Edgar Andrews. Andrews is a respected physicist was the first person to debate Dawkins in a live setting. That debate is worth a listen, too if you have the chance. But the book is a very scientific approach to evidence that there is a God.
"Modern science", and science as actual personal knowledge are obviously two different things... I love science, but despair over modern-science.
If you're suggesting that psychic phenomena(?) are illogical, then what's the basis for that? Surely, if real, these things follow cause & effect like anything else. If modern-science doesn't deal with it - it doesn't mean it's illogical. Modern-science isn't logical.
Logic leads directly to God, so anyone arguing against the existence of God is a religious devotee, not a scientist. They absolutely have no idea what they're talking about, and are in fact being the biggest hypocrites it's possible to be...
This is the whole point of the article right? :)
I note no-one has put forward any substantive refutation of my logic. Nada.
Science says God doesn't exist, but 'random' does. That's illogic on the verge of lunacy...
And the sad indictment of humanity is that no-one ever thinks it through for themselves. (Well, I did, but I was bored.)
:)
I'm not sure you can safely make a objective distinction between "modern" science and what you're calling "science as actual personal knowledge". Science has a standard definition, then we all just add whatever baggage we want to it so that it fits our worldview. If you're delineation is subjective, it doesn't hold any water considering my point of view is different and there are thousands of other points of view different than either of ours.
Psychic phenomena occurrences are illogical according to empirical science, but they're not impossible. This would be a category that researchers would just label as "we're not really sure". That category exists in all major branches of science, so it's not scientific to say that supernatural occurrences are impossible. Illogical, sure. But logic has a dynamic definition that changes with technology, philosophy, theology, and many other "ology"'s. That being said, there is no such thing as a non-modern science that holds all of the logic. There's just your opinion based on what you consider logical based on a definition of science that you have adopted to suit your personal tastes. This is essentially what many people do to varying degrees. The real challenge is to try and push through bias and seriously consider all applicable angles to our life and universe.
There are qualified and degree'd scientists that believe in God. They guy who mapped the human genome believes in God. I would say these believing scientists have found a level playing field with logic and God on the same team if they're that entrenched and didn't throw out supernatural possibilities. Science does not say God doesn't exist.
Christianty says this is the heresy of Manicheeism, to see everything in terms of black and white. I don't know why you say we have two brains, last time I looked I only had one. Take care now.