"That whole post sounded like a bad monologue from a self-insistent politically-driven movie. The weak minded masses? check. Outdated crutch? Check. "Open-mindedness"? Check. You either believe in the spiritual, the scientific, or nothing."
I wouldn't say that...I'm an atheist (that DOESN'T mean I believe in nothing)...When a problem is based on this world and how it works (how gravity functions, how geology works, chemistry, neuroscience) then I use science. When I'm faced with an issue that deals with metaphysics, philosophy, art, and so forth then I use religion (or on my case philosophy which is a similar place simply renamed Theology). There are things in this world religion is woefully inadequate at dealing with or solving. There are things it's spectacular at, and the same goes for science. Neither is "better" they deal with totally distinct concepts unless you're studying the philosophy of science :P
"If you believe in nothing, then why try to take others with you into the void? If you believe in science, fine, but don't forget that science isn't an exact science."
Some aren't...you're mixing up "hard" science with "soft" science...hard science is pretty absolute (though we may take time accurately measuring and organizing that absolute), this includes things like Physics, biology, geology, mathematics (which is about as "hard science" as it comes, 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2) and so on. Soft science isn't, not because it's not a science, but has a non-standard base by which to measure and organize its information. Examples such as Psychology, Sociology, Gender Studies, Evolutionary Psychology and so forth.
"Science is not about proving things are correct, it is about proving that things are incorrect."
Science is neither...science is, in its simplest form a means for we as a species to postulate, test and organize the information we have about the universe around us...this is why we still hear the "theory of evolution" card all the time when people simply don't realize there IS no scientific debate about it, the mountains of evidence (and the cases of micro and macro evolution we've observed firsthand, I've got a list if your interested) show us evolution is very real, HOW it occurs and/or WHY it occurs is still theoretical...it's the same reason we use "the theory of gravity" when discussing gravity rather than "the scientific fact of gravity"...
"If you believe in the spiritual, great! But that's a whole other thing in itself. The spiritual can mean just about anything and even believers in the same religion disagree unlike with science. I don't trust science because of its inconsistencies (even Darwyn didn't believe the theory of evolution is fact) but I do believe science is good and is a constant force for good."
Where'd you get the idea Darwin didn't believe in evolution? I've heard varous reports (some saying he "recanted on his deathbed", which his loved ones who were there with him said was untrue)...everything I've read suggest Darwin was an avid Evolutionist...and regardless, the initial theory he postulated in his book is ancient in the extreme for science. It was a great springboard for scientists to use, but there are all sorts of loose ends in it...his issues with the development of the eye for example...which have been solved through modern research on the subject...he was the FATHER of evolutionary theory, not the perfector of it.
"You don't have to believe that someone is right to respect their right to believe their "honest fact" is just that. I don't like relativism, I'm Christian, plain and simple, but I don't think that disrespect of others or cliche/unsupported statements about their personal faith is appropriate anywhere. "
There's an old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
--
*+_Charos_+*
"God's away on business"
-Tom Waits
reply
share