Jenna said:
Yes I think your
NEED to comment gives you away H8 double 8
While I know this comment was tongue-in-cheek, let's please try to avoid psychoanalyzing each other via a discussion board. There was enough of that nonsense over on the "Is the Bible 100% truth?" thread.
Jenna said:
I read what you posted and yes your logic and argument is beyond reproof but one of the vagaries of science in its attempts to rebutt the truths of religion as I would see it arises from the actual similarity of science to the religion it despises...
Jenna, you're collapsing science and scientism. The former is a methodological process of discovering truth, the latter is a philosophical ideology (which has its roots in 18th century materialism).
As such, science proper does not "despise" religion. Science is a methodological means of testing truth-claims. If your truth-claims lack methodological grounding, then science will rebuke them, regardless of whether they're "religious" in content or not. In fact, since science is an impersonal experimental process, it really doesn't
care about the nature of your claims one way or the other.
Also, as I said before, religion makes use of science quite nicely on its own. This imaginary dichotomy of the two that you are erecting is just that --- imaginary.
Jenna said:
and I think despise is not too strong a term but where you are claiming absolute proof and yes FAITH in scientific principles I might say that these "proofs" are dependent upon metrics and laws "tested" and formulated yes but by mere MEN who err as humans in much the same way as you might need to argue that the bible is written not by God but by mere men and thus subject to contradiction
No offense, but this is a rather silly argument.
Science is openly self-correcting and privy to communal peer review. The notion that the claims of a given scientist are just taken on "faith" is ludicrous, as no theory is given weight among scientific communities unless it has been methodologically replicated. In fact, there is typically quite a lot of debate and discussion in science. Things are not just taken on "faith".
Simply saying that because humans designed them that they're intrinsically flawed and inaccurate makes about as much sense as to say that because a black person designed a social science experiment that it is intrinsically biased against non-blacks. In both cases, you are ignoring the actual arguments and methods while merely attacking the character of the persons in question. This is a non-argument.
Jenna said:
I can argue that HUMAN scientific effort has given us arbitrary definitions of what is a force what is mass what constitutes gravity and where the nitty gritty of gravitational attractions are still an ongoing proof these things are subject to interpretation just as is the bible and you can argue over absolutes and beat folk over the head and attempt to indoctrinate them with the inescapable "truths" of scientific labours just exactly as they would have done to the heretics of old who claimed the earth was actually round in the face of overwhelming "evidence" and "proof" to say it was flat as a pancake but I will say I do not believe there are absolutes and science is flawed when chasing down religion under the flag of self-righteousness and yes plain scientific piety
With all due respect, Jenna, you clearly don't have any clue what you're talking about. For the umpteenth time, science does not deal in absolutes. Its truths are
propositional and
self-correcting.
Jenna said:
And I know you will take this as objectively and IMpersonally as do all folk with science bias which is good because I use "you" third person as suggesting a representative of the science community I am not interested in slinging mud..... though I do not mind a food fight especially with chocolate muffins, ha!
Are you suggesting that you
want this discussion to devolve into a name-calling contest??
Jenna said:
But I imagine mister heretic you have stopped reading at hearing such triviality which is your prerogative naturally though I cannot help but wonder if you believe it is possible to expand your mind in ONE direction and by ONE vehicle only.. I mean you are a very interesting character if for nothing else other than how dogmatically faithful you are in your BELIEFS and if I had any appreciation of irony I might be drawing attention to it but since I do not......
Okay, Jenna, it's fairly obvious you didn't actually read the post I made where I explained what "science" is and is not (as represented by your numerous Straw Man arguments), so allow me to reiterate. . .
Science is not just done in the laboratory!!!
As I said before, science is a methodological process that involves communal peer review. Biology is a science, history is a science, psychology is a science, logic is a science, and (yes) meditation/contemplation is a science. They all involve this process.
This isn't some special ideology that only secular types have, nor is it the secret knowledge of the academic elite. This is the fundamental, essential way of discovering and validating truth in the world. Any truth-claims that fall outside this process are in the category of the absurd.
The "truths" you are defending are dogmatic assertions. They cannot be falsified (that is, disproven) and, as such, are outside the purview of logic and science. Because we have
no way of testing or validating them, they remain nothing more than "because I said so!" arguments. This is nonsensical.
Of course, all of this is really beside the point because, as I said before, the "religion" you are defending is actually a pale, anemic caricature of religion. Religion makes use of science in its theological arguments (i.e., logic), its historical research (i.e., archeology), its charity work (i.e., medicine), and its spiritual exploration (i.e., contemplation). What you are portraying is the anti-intellectual idiocy that gets passed off for "religion" so often in the United States.
Read up on some religious scholars and writers, Jenna. They take it for granted that subjects like theology or contemplation are sciences. There is no dichotomy between the science and religion.
Laterz.
