Total Members Voted: 89
Quote from: adehmar on June 01, 2006, 09:01:47 AMIn the sense you'd like me to accept it, there is no alternative to faith; everything we could ever say or believe is 'faith' in your sense. well of course it is. that's the point. you acknowledge what you choose to take on faith and proceed from there.
In the sense you'd like me to accept it, there is no alternative to faith; everything we could ever say or believe is 'faith' in your sense.
Yes, my belief in empiricism constitutes a choice on my part.
Religion just enables "but God is on our side, drop the bombs." It's impossible to be wrong. And a system in which it's impossible to be wrong is... clearly not the right one.
science is empirical and universalreligion is internal and individualthere's overlap but the differences overshadow the similarities.someone else probably said thisim trying to adopt a new style of posting
Science beats religion because science tastes like chocolate, and religion is purple. Chocolate beats purple everytime. Science, or the scientific method, is a set of beliefs; religion is too. Althouth it may seem that science is better because it is based on the observation of 'facts', it can easily be shown that if you eliminate the basic rules of logic, science looses much of its appeals. Understand me ...that's not my view. But I have once heard someone use such an argument when confronted with gross contradictions in his holy text: "truth is not so much a reality as a state of mind". Thus, if proposition A can be true and false at the same time, science can no longer said to be better than religion. The belief that traditional aristotelean logic is valid is part of the axioms of science. So, if logic cannot be used, you can't settle arguments with facts and deductions, and the concept of truth takes on a new definition. And maybe Q is running the universe after all. And then, you can use the argument at the beginning of this post ... and it all makes sense. Sort of.