Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
029b10

The Fallacy of Science

20 posts in this topic

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

Did the author's hook of the title draw you or the Spirit? There must be something to the infallibility of science...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

You will need to elaborate - the above does not constitute in and of itself a subject for discussion about scientific fallability. There is no evidence presented and the insinuation that a linked book has the answers based on whether you or the "the spirit" is drawn to it is simply without foundation in any scientific principle.

Edited by libstaK
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you even use the internet and a computer?!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and religion are two vastly different things. Why people can't see this amazes me to no end.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a dead thread, nothing here to see, move along....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” - Steven Novella

Edited by Odin11
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essential reading on such a topic :

Science Without Bounds A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism by Arthur D’Adamo is a great attempt at discussing and documenting the gap and bridges between previously very diverse ideas. The author writes:

I’ve never seen a book that presents this world view as a harmonious whole, though I’ve seen books that discuss bits and pieces, and even large sections. For a long time I wished such a book existed, a book I could give to my friends and say “Here. This is what I believe.” For years I thought of writing such a book.

Thanks to Arthur D’Adamo for letting holybooks.com host the pdf-version of his book for free download. Download the entire e-book here (page 448/1.3 MB):

PDFbook.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and religion are two vastly different things. Why people can't see this amazes me to no end.

Critique of non-overlapping magesteria

Increasingly overlapping magesteria

They are vastly different, until one makes a claim that can be explained by the other, which happens often. Then we have an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critique of non-overlapping magesteria

Increasingly overlapping magesteria

They are vastly different, until one makes a claim that can be explained by the other, which happens often. Then we have an issue.

From your first link...

Susan Jacoby claims the concept that science and religion should not conflict is unreasonable.

I disagree with Ms Jacoby. The claim that science and religion should not conflict is entirely reasonable, it is just that modern religions incorporate claims on material reality that are the purview of science. However, it is not necessary for any religion to make those claims to qualify as a religion.

Susan Jacoby would be correct if she were to suggest that science and most extant religions conflict, but she is incorrect in claiming that science and religion as concepts are necessarily conflicted.

Those such as Jacoby and Dawkins are making a "No True Scotsman" argument. By arguing the concept of religion is what they claim it to be, they ensure their position is unassailable. But they are actually arguing the reality of religion, not the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is an example of saying nothing at all and believing that you've said something profound.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fallacy of signs.

they attempt to draw you in by presenting an idea, but they are not the idea themselves. it's a lie. the lie of representational advertising.

i can do it too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who saw the Bigfoot ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is an example of saying nothing at all and believing that you've said something profound.

I'm pretty sure I do this at least once a day. Profundity is a scarce commodity.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we should name Jupiter an enemy planet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your first link...

I disagree with Ms Jacoby. The claim that science and religion should not conflict is entirely reasonable, it is just that modern religions incorporate claims on material reality that are the purview of science. However, it is not necessary for any religion to make those claims to qualify as a religion.

Susan Jacoby would be correct if she were to suggest that science and most extant religions conflict, but she is incorrect in claiming that science and religion as concepts are necessarily conflicted.

Those such as Jacoby and Dawkins are making a "No True Scotsman" argument. By arguing the concept of religion is what they claim it to be, they ensure their position is unassailable. But they are actually arguing the reality of religion, not the concept.

Fair enough. I would tend to agree, I have no problem with people believing in what consider fairy tales, as long as they don't make materialistic claims based on those beliefs, that ca be proven wrong. When religion starts getting in the way of scientific progress I draw the line. Honestly, it's the reality that I'm concerned with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I would tend to agree, I have no problem with people believing in what consider fairy tales, as long as they don't make materialistic claims based on those beliefs, that ca be proven wrong. When religion starts getting in the way of scientific progress I draw the line. Honestly, it's the reality that I'm concerned with.

There are lots of cientists that do good work that believed a man from 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin grew to be a strong spiritual teacher, died on a cross, was risen from the dead, and was god incarnate upon the earth. I think belief has very little to do with real science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of cientists that do good work that believed a man from 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin grew to be a strong spiritual teacher, died on a cross, was risen from the dead, and was god incarnate upon the earth. I think belief has very little to do with real science.

Please don't tell me that they are Americans. I do know that there are Korean scientists and engineers who are hardcore YEC believers, and none of them are in the field of geology or biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of cientists that do good work that believed a man from 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin grew to be a strong spiritual teacher, died on a cross, was risen from the dead, and was god incarnate upon the earth. I think belief has very little to do with real science.

I never said a scientist couldn't be a religious person. I said I have a problem when religion interferes with science. You can be a religious scientist and not allow your beliefs to conflict with your research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't tell me that they are Americans. I do know that there are Korean scientists and engineers who are hardcore YEC believers, and none of them are in the field of geology or biology.

I think they come from many countries. Yes there are are religious biologists. I have never heard of one being a fundamentalist though,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching NASA's Unexplained files last night, and the scientists were saying that they are constantly changing their theories based upon new discoveries. That in science they are constantly evolving, and learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.