4 ms·
> your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds. We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (in
by beojan 9y ago
> your religion makes some truth claims that are not supportable on scientific grounds.
We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (in fact, science can't tell us what is true and what isn't, it can only tell us what is more likely to be true and what is less likely) and there are some matters outside the scope of science.
- humanrebar 9y agoIn particular, inductive reasoning starts reaching its limits when observability, reproducibility, and complexity are issues. Sometimes we invent things to push those boundaries (calculus, computers, drug trials on animals), but some complexity can be proven to be incalculable. And some results (The Milgram Experiment) are too terrible to reproduce to be worth the scientific knowledge they could offer. I think there's plenty we should be eager to learn, but I think it's realistic to think there are areas where "less incomplete understanding" is the best we can hope for.
- krapp 9y ago>We just have to accept that science isn't the sole arbiter of truth (...) For the sake of argument, accepting that as true, why should religion then be accepted as the arbiter of truth for those matters outside the scope of science?