2 ms·
> Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality. Both of these claims are 100% false. Religion does have signifi
by saraid216 14y ago
> Religion is the belief in an absence of evidence. Science is the whole of objective reality.
Both of these claims are 100% false.
Religion does have significant evidence; the problematic part of religion is in its interpretation of that evidence, rather than the evidence itself. This ranges from the metaphysical "X exists, therefore God" to the specific incidences of revival tents and miracle workers. This is evidence. Just because you have a different interpretation does not automatically invalidate theirs.
Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". There is and possibly always will be parts of reality that we do not know. We cannot stand outside reality, by definition, and we will always have non-objective biases coloring our perspective. Pretending to be objective is self-delusion. Trying to be objective is worthy and good, but recognize that you can't be.
- illuminate 14y ago"Religion does have significant evidence" Faith does not have empirical evidence. It has philosophical arguments backing it. Religion would cease becoming supernatural otherwise. There's a reason why theology is a soft social science and not a physical science (no matter what the Discovery Institute may tell you.) "Science is a fucking method, not some "whole". " Science is both a reflection of our current understanding of reality and the method of how we refine our understanding of it. "Pretending to be objective is self-delusion" We are not objective creatures there is a vast difference between nature and those who ~practice~ science.
- saraid216 14y agoI'm just going to note that you're claiming that theology is a science and say that you're wrong. Here's a write-up on the problematic nature of the methodology you use: http://www.wideopenground.com/fundamentalism-and-foundationalism/ http://www.wideopenground.com/fundamentalism-and-foundationa...