4 ms·

People trying to introduce logic into the study of religion & spirituality do not have your best interests at heart.

schwoll 3y ago
The church has been using logic in the study of religion for thousands of years. This is no different. One way or another asking questions and thinking about problems is OK.
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
I always knew Thomas Aquinas was up to no good.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  This isn’t a great zinger. Aquinas, and Aristotles, point was that logic not being able to describe the origin of the universe is proof of God.
  - joh6nn 3y ago
    That feels a bit like arguing that the inability of mathematics to describe itself is proof of Gödel
- nick-of-time 3y ago
  [dead]
hobs 3y ago
People who prefer you to avoid logic and reason usually do not have your best interests at heart.
Guvante 3y ago
Answering the scientific questions brought forward by religion is not the study of religion. The post you responded to didn't say "did" but "could". Science hasn't disproved "someone created stuff" only "humans came first" and "the Earth is a few thousand years old". Science has said that "someone didn't have to create stuff" which is an important distinction here.
- explaininjs 3y ago
  What evidence has science presented to disprove those two claims? And with what evidence does science support the claim that things went from not existing to existing with no outside intervention?
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Geological evidence goes back a few billion years. The theory of evolution is pretty well documented and similarly human remains only go back so far. Science doesn't say it did. Science said it could. Science assumes it did because it is the most "likely" answer. In the absence of contrarian evidence you assume the only possible answer. Religion is not in and of itself contrarian evidence. Also I will note that an alternative is an asteroid dropped the building blocks onto Earth, it isn't the primary because our understanding of the maths involved says organic molecules surviving in outer space for billions of years (the average time expected to go from interesting place to earth via asteroid) is less likely than it randomly occuring in the early very active earth.
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      > Geological evidence goes back a few billion years. What "evidence" is this? Are you referring to the radioactive dating data that must first assume that radioactive decomposition happens at a fixed rate across all time (unverified and unverifiable), and that we even know what the "original" isotope breakdowns of various elements were (unknown and unknowable)? Or is there some geological evidence I am not aware of that does not require first assuming the desired conclusion. > Science doesn't say it did. Science said it could. Ok fine, with what evidence does science support the claim that things could go from not existing to existing with no outside intervention? > it is the most "likely" answer Only if you explicitly exclude the idea that a higher intelligence created the universe with life more or less as we know it (explaining the great holes in your "fossil records"/etc.). If you refrain from artificially excluding that explanation, you will see that no answer is any more likely than precisely it.

The church has been using logic in the study of religion for thousands of years. This is no different. One way or another asking questions and thinking about problems is OK.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

I always knew Thomas Aquinas was up to no good.

edgyquant 3y ago
This isn’t a great zinger. Aquinas, and Aristotles, point was that logic not being able to describe the origin of the universe is proof of God.
- joh6nn 3y ago
  That feels a bit like arguing that the inability of mathematics to describe itself is proof of Gödel
nick-of-time 3y ago
[dead]

hobs 3y ago

People who prefer you to avoid logic and reason usually do not have your best interests at heart.

Guvante 3y ago

Answering the scientific questions brought forward by religion is not the study of religion. The post you responded to didn't say "did" but "could". Science hasn't disproved "someone created stuff" only "humans came first" and "the Earth is a few thousand years old". Science has said that "someone didn't have to create stuff" which is an important distinction here.

explaininjs 3y ago
What evidence has science presented to disprove those two claims? And with what evidence does science support the claim that things went from not existing to existing with no outside intervention?
- Guvante 3y ago
  Geological evidence goes back a few billion years. The theory of evolution is pretty well documented and similarly human remains only go back so far. Science doesn't say it did. Science said it could. Science assumes it did because it is the most "likely" answer. In the absence of contrarian evidence you assume the only possible answer. Religion is not in and of itself contrarian evidence. Also I will note that an alternative is an asteroid dropped the building blocks onto Earth, it isn't the primary because our understanding of the maths involved says organic molecules surviving in outer space for billions of years (the average time expected to go from interesting place to earth via asteroid) is less likely than it randomly occuring in the early very active earth.
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    > Geological evidence goes back a few billion years. What "evidence" is this? Are you referring to the radioactive dating data that must first assume that radioactive decomposition happens at a fixed rate across all time (unverified and unverifiable), and that we even know what the "original" isotope breakdowns of various elements were (unknown and unknowable)? Or is there some geological evidence I am not aware of that does not require first assuming the desired conclusion. > Science doesn't say it did. Science said it could. Ok fine, with what evidence does science support the claim that things could go from not existing to existing with no outside intervention? > it is the most "likely" answer Only if you explicitly exclude the idea that a higher intelligence created the universe with life more or less as we know it (explaining the great holes in your "fossil records"/etc.). If you refrain from artificially excluding that explanation, you will see that no answer is any more likely than precisely it.