4 ms·

And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. This is actually funny. Science works by obliterating ... itself. Ne

And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. This is actually funny. Science works by obliterating ... itself. Newton's law of gravity is wrong. That certainly doesn't discredit Newton. Its ok in science to be wrong or right about something. So why should a different rule apply to religions. I always take the opposite side of the argument :)

pavs 16y ago
I hope you are joking. If not, you should know that science is not the opposite of religion. Non-belief (or atheism) is the opposite of religion. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense. Its like saying why should a different rule apply to Hitler when I enjoy eating strawberry ice-cream? Absolutely makes no sense.
- aufreak3 16y ago
  I was :) ... but it is easy to see it that way considering all the jokes that the speaker throws to great response from the audience. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different. Just as you'd credit alchemists for contributing in other ways, "religions" ought to get credit for contributing to psychology, for instance, if not for creation theories.
  - pavs 16y ago
    > All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different. Yes. Science is self-correcting. Its common knowledge. Religion is not self-correcting. You might have different interpretation (over the years) of religious allegory, but nonsense is nonsense; regardless of your interpretations. I don't really see the connection.
    - aufreak3 16y ago
      Religion is not self-correcting Not all of them. There is at least 1500 years of recorded tradition (500BC to 1000AD) of it not being that way. In India, the tradition during that period held that if philosopher A lost in an argumentative "dharma combat" with a philosopher B, A and his cohort of students have to become students of B. People were certainly willing to change their minds ... even in religious/philosophical discourse. I think there is even record of the Buddha saying "You should not believe everything I say and see it for yourself." They worked with what their tools allowed them to observe and argue about. With the benefit of hindsight, we can trash all their work, but I just choose to differ with you here and am willing to give them the respect for trying honestly. And my take is that they seem to have got a lot of the "mind stuff" deeply right or at least close, which has influenced the course of artificial intelligence and the philosophy around it in the recent decades. .. and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe".
      - pavs 16y ago
        > . and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe". Einstein was a pantheist, so yes your guess that he used the word "god" as a substitute for The universe is correct. I think his intention with the word God was often used to help people "relate" to what he was saying. Unfortunately he was misinterpreted by religious zealots to misinform people. You can read more about his religious belief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism You can read his letter about his views on god and religion: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-...

pavs 16y ago

I hope you are joking. If not, you should know that science is not the opposite of religion. Non-belief (or atheism) is the opposite of religion. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense. Its like saying why should a different rule apply to Hitler when I enjoy eating strawberry ice-cream? Absolutely makes no sense.

aufreak3 16y ago
I was :) ... but it is easy to see it that way considering all the jokes that the speaker throws to great response from the audience. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different. Just as you'd credit alchemists for contributing in other ways, "religions" ought to get credit for contributing to psychology, for instance, if not for creation theories.
- pavs 16y ago
  > All I'm saying is that scientific process is also used to disqualify "scientific nonsense" as well, such as turning lead into gold. So religious nonsense isn't any different. Yes. Science is self-correcting. Its common knowledge. Religion is not self-correcting. You might have different interpretation (over the years) of religious allegory, but nonsense is nonsense; regardless of your interpretations. I don't really see the connection.
  - aufreak3 16y ago
    Religion is not self-correcting Not all of them. There is at least 1500 years of recorded tradition (500BC to 1000AD) of it not being that way. In India, the tradition during that period held that if philosopher A lost in an argumentative "dharma combat" with a philosopher B, A and his cohort of students have to become students of B. People were certainly willing to change their minds ... even in religious/philosophical discourse. I think there is even record of the Buddha saying "You should not believe everything I say and see it for yourself." They worked with what their tools allowed them to observe and argue about. With the benefit of hindsight, we can trash all their work, but I just choose to differ with you here and am willing to give them the respect for trying honestly. And my take is that they seem to have got a lot of the "mind stuff" deeply right or at least close, which has influenced the course of artificial intelligence and the philosophy around it in the recent decades. .. and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe".
    - pavs 16y ago
      > . and even Einstein has difficulty with beliefs and changing mind. In spite of his tremendous contributions to quant mech, he couldn't quite bring himself to believe that probability was all we could bring to physical theory in the end - the famous "God does not play dice". I've always wondered whether he used the word "God" as a direct substitute for "The Universe". Einstein was a pantheist, so yes your guess that he used the word "god" as a substitute for The universe is correct. I think his intention with the word God was often used to help people "relate" to what he was saying. Unfortunately he was misinterpreted by religious zealots to misinform people. You can read more about his religious belief here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism You can read his letter about his views on god and religion: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-...