A religion? AND before you say that I'm flaming, I don't mean all of science. I mean mostly things about the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's all theoretical right? And theoretical things haven't been proven. Please post thoughts, and remember that I'M NOT FLAMING.
And the first one is very vague, (like Walker said). You could think of various monsters while you read the description of the Behemoth.
Or that any dinosaur which even loosely fit the physical description doesn't eat grass. Just like the bible insinuates that rabbits chew cud. Seriously, wouldn't God know the difference?
I know, but give him at-least a chance of explaining his thoughts
True enough. I wouldn't be adverse to laughing at another link like the one on the last page, that was amusing. In all seriousness, i'm not closed to the idea, I just have never, no, not once, found an instance where religion makes more sense and can be backed up by anything other than vague speculations and heresay.
This certainly isn't the first time that an objection has been mounted that "science" (whatever that is) requires a certain amount of faith. We have to have faith that the basic presuppositions of, say, physics are true - that the world is pretty much how we perceive it, laws of causation hold, etc. So I thought I'd give a philosopher's response.
There are no fields of science that necessarily require belief. Thus, we don't need faith to believe in these propositions. You can believe that something is a reasonable and justified explanation, but you don't have to believe the explanation itself. Example: for a while, I held religious belief to be in this category. I thought it was reasonable and, on some level, justified. But I didn't believe it myself. There's been a big push in the philosophy of science to move away from talk of belief. Rather, when a physicist or biologist asserts something - that's all they're doing. There is no relation between the mental state of the person directly to the proposition they're asserting. This ends up getting around a lot of serious problems when trying to justify scientific claims. It also has the effect of avoiding the "science as a religion" question entirely.
There is a minor difference bteween science and religion. Religion is an outdated belief system that is obviously false. Science is when somebody comes up with a theory, tests it a lot and then tells other scientists about it who then test it and many people will probably oppose it. Science is based on fact and religion is based some stupid priests crazy idea thousands of years ago
Well, there is an enormously difference between religion and science. I'm sure you noticed, that religious people have their traditions, holy places, and so on. That is an important element of religion. You see, Cristians have Christmas, Eastern and Jerusalem, Muslims have Mekka, Jewish have the Sabbat.
1.000.000$ Question: If Science is a religion where are its holy places and why don't we celebrate Newtons Birthday?
Answer: It's not a religion. Unbelivable.
And the deism is just an explination of some people who cannot imagine what happened BEFORE the Big Bang. What's easier? Think about something you cannot understand or just saying "God did it". At least this people doesen't listen to books, written thousands of years before.
Maybe somebody here (me) should define the expression "Religion" in a philosophical way: I think religion is a kind of thinking which doesn't have to base on facts.
BTW I think that most of the users here are atheists. Am I right?
This certainly isn't the first time that an objection has been mounted that "science" (whatever that is) requires a certain amount of faith. We have to have faith that the basic presuppositions of, say, physics are true - that the world is pretty much how we perceive it, laws of causation hold, etc. So I thought I'd give a philosopher's response.
This is more like "the chair will support my weight" faith. It's based on something. Also it's accepting that tomorrow those laws may not hold, but given nothing within our data indicates they won't we have no reason to believe this is so. So I'm not really sure if the term faith in this context really is applicable.
Buh Bam. That should sum it up there for you
I'm not clear as to what your summing up here?
BTW I think that most of the users here are atheists. Am I right?
I think it's just that most of the religious don't argue because the so often get their beliefs torn apart. Which actually get's to another major difference between science and religion. With science it thrives when being challenged, while religion withers under even the slightest scrutiny.
1. If evolution was real, it would mean you, as a human, would not be a special little snowflake in a god's eyes but simply another drooling primate, and that makes you feel insignificant.
2. If evolution is right, it means your precious holy book written 2000 years ago by superstitious goat herders is wrong and that your lifetime devotion to it means you spent your life worshiping a fairy tale, which scares you.
This is true. This is also the reason Galileo and Copernicus were shunned by the Religions of the world centuries ago. People didn't like thinking that they weren't, in fact, the center of the universe, or God's little "snowflakes". Humans always want to feel special and different, when in fact, we really aren't.
Science is based on fact and religion is based some stupid priests crazy idea thousands of years ago
Let's not be mean here.
With science it thrives when being challenged, while religion withers under even the slightest scrutiny.
And even if it withers, those who 'believe' clench on to the scraps they have left.
