4 ms·

Also wrong. Religious belief is disjoint from scientific discovery. [2] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w

• jacquesm 7y ago
  Wikipedia pages make for poor arguments. Also [2]?
  • downshun 7y ago
    What website hosts the best arguments? And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42]
    • jacquesm 7y ago
      > What website hosts the best arguments? It is not an argument at all. It can be evidence to support an argument but it is not an argument by itself. > And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42] I don't think that has any bearing on the subject at hand, nor does it make any sense when taken seriously.
      • downshun 7y ago
        You claimed that > religions plug into the belief systems of the gullible And > our history set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs If I understand correctly The second claim is paradoxical. For the first, I argue that religions are not an entity outside us (preying on "the gullible") but inside our minds as a running process to make sense of our experience (as active skepticism). Just a well as the scientific method. However metaphysics answers different questions than science. I'm no authority on if either can be definitive. ... with thought as computational process, my question can perhaps make a little more sense. And only meant for pondering on the topic.