Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 04-20-2003, 04:54 PM

Why do the religious in general believe that science and religion are two separate dimensions of knowledge, that they are both the truth, and that science cannot say anything about religion, because it is a separate dimension of knowledge? Yet religion often -- nay almost always -- makes claims about the physical world. Does not science deal with the physical world? Is it not therefore open to scientific criticism, and hence not a separate, special sphere of knowledge, about which science cannot say anything?

This may be obvious to all here, but even among atheists, or more precisely the irreligious who do not hold negative opinions of religion, I see this.

Also, they tend to fancy scientists as these helpless men in spectacles who cannot comprehend the universe; that perceived ignorance on the part of scientists is somehow regarded as a confirmation of God's existence -- or at least that ignorance is thought to give credit to religion, to make it respectable, since it is true in its own way, and science must remain forever silent thereabout.

Sabine Grant · 04-20-2003, 05:05 PM

" why do theists say... " and there you have lost one christian to even consider engaging in a dialogue with you. Only one remark... such blunt generalizations where you pursue to define theists throughout your entire post as a mass of people who all reason according to your stereotypical definitions are not going to give you much credibility as an individual who is actualy looking for a dialogue.
" some theists say" would have shown some degree of awareness that your definitions leave an open door to some theists not reasoning as you claim they all do.

Totalitarianist · 04-20-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
" why do theists say... " and there you have lost one christian to even consider engaging in a dialogue with you. Only one remark... such blunt generalizations where you pursue to define theists throughout your entire post as a mass of people who all reason according to your stereotypical definitions are not going to give you much credibility as an individual who is actualy looking for a dialogue.
" some theists say" would have shown some degree of awareness that your definitions leave an open door to some theists not reasoning as you claim they all do.

Nah, "Theists in general say" is better.

People with AIDs generally die as a result of that illness. Not always, but generally.

What I said may be regarded as less than a generalisation, for theists are wellnigh as I described them by definition.

Totalitarianist · 04-20-2003, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Nah, "Atheists in general say" is better.

People with AIDs generally die as a result of that illness. Not always, but generally.

What I said may be regarded as less than a generalisation, for theists are wellnigh as I described them by definition.

There, reworded. Be sure to do the same when the subject is AIDs.

Totalitarianist · 04-20-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
" why do theists say... " and there you have lost one christian to even consider engaging in a dialogue with you. Only one remark... such blunt generalizations where you pursue to define theists throughout your entire post as a mass of people who all reason according to your stereotypical definitions are not going to give you much credibility as an individual who is actualy looking for a dialogue.
" some theists say" would have shown some degree of awareness that your definitions leave an open door to some theists not reasoning as you claim they all do.

I do not debate with theists, and so I do not care if I have their credibility or not. Imagine studying genetics your entire life, and then to be told by some idiot that genes are illusory. No man, worthy of that title, would care much for that person's credibility. All debates with theists, likewise, are utterly pointless: for reason is one of their many underdeveloped faculties, and a debate worthy of my time on that subject would require an intelligent theist: a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, that is.

Sabine Grant · 04-20-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
There, reworded. Be sure to do the same when the subject is AIDs.

Theists choose to be theists... HIV positive victims do not choose to die of Aids. Unless you believe that they " got what they wanted".

Sabine Grant · 04-20-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
I do not debate with theists, and so I do not care if I have their credibility or not. Imagine studying genetics your entire life, and then to be told by some idiot that genes are illusory. No man, worthy of that title, would care much for that person's credibility. All debates with theists, likewise, are utterly pointless: for reason is one of their many underdeveloped faculties, and a debate worthy of my time on that subject would require an intelligent theist: a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, that is.

Well out of 5 posts , you are the author of 3....that is my last one. You opened that thread to make a statement not to engender a discussion. What you ommited here is that possibly some atheists who partake in this forum have established based on your various threads that you lack credibility.
Good luck with your thread...

Totalitarianist · 04-20-2003, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Well out of 5 posts , you are the author of 3....that is my last one. You opened that thread to make a statement not to engender a discussion. What you ommited here is that possibly some atheists who partake in this forum have established based on your various threads that you lack credibility.
Good luck with your thread...

Well, at least Dawkins agrees with me.

Starboy · 04-20-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Why do the religious in general believe that science and religion are two separate dimensions of knowledge, that they are both the truth, and that science cannot say anything about religion, because it is a separate dimension of knowledge? Yet religion often -- nay almost always -- makes claims about the physical world. Does not science deal with the physical world? Is it not therefore open to scientific criticism, and hence not a separate, special sphere of knowledge, about which science cannot say anything?

Totalitarianist, despite with Sabine says I agree with you. There are several reasons:

1) Religion is a "truth" tradition. So if all you know or understand is the "truth" anything you take seriously must be the "truth". This is how some Christians can hold science and religion to both be "true". Of course this has an implicit confusion between "truth" and reality. Science cannot be the "truth" in that sense since it is the human endeavor to explore reality and to make "truth" claims about what you are trying to discover is just silly and unnecessary.

2) Both religion and science have an authority. For religion it is the authority of god, for science it is the authority of experiment on nature. To a religious person it doesn't matter what experiment on nature reveals since god overrules everything. This makes it easy for them not to be confused with the facts because they know their religion.

3) Lastly religion is a lie that every Christian has swallowed hook line and sinker. The lie is so great and pervasive that none can see it, let alone question it. On Monday through Saturday every Christian lives in the real world. When something is wrong or broken they look to natural explanations to sort it out. Most of them would not dream of attributing an auto breakdown to demons or sin, yet on Sunday they immerse themselves in the nonsense of the first century. Who was it that said that the bigger the lie the more likely people would believe it?

Starboy

Never · 04-21-2003, 10:18 AM

I work with people who have degrees in science, some of whom are much more intelligent than myself in the subject. Yet, it is actually the seemingly more intelligent ones that are serious Christians. The guy many would argue is the most intelligent employee there is the one that confuses me the most as he routinely displays what I would consider to be un-Christian like behavior (predjudice against race, sexual orientation, perceived class, etc.) while proclaiming what a good Chrisitan he is.
I just look at these people in wonder as to the contradiction.
Both in knowledge (and field of study being science) vs. philosophy, and in practice vs preaches.

04-20-2003, 04:54 PM	#1
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Science and religion Why do the religious in general believe that science and religion are two separate dimensions of knowledge, that they are both the truth, and that science cannot say anything about religion, because it is a separate dimension of knowledge? Yet religion often -- nay almost always -- makes claims about the physical world. Does not science deal with the physical world? Is it not therefore open to scientific criticism, and hence not a separate, special sphere of knowledge, about which science cannot say anything? This may be obvious to all here, but even among atheists, or more precisely the irreligious who do not hold negative opinions of religion, I see this. Also, they tend to fancy scientists as these helpless men in spectacles who cannot comprehend the universe; that perceived ignorance on the part of scientists is somehow regarded as a confirmation of God's existence -- or at least that ignorance is thought to give credit to religion, to make it respectable, since it is true in its own way, and science must remain forever silent thereabout.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-20-2003, 05:05 PM	#2
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	" why do theists say... " and there you have lost one christian to even consider engaging in a dialogue with you. Only one remark... such blunt generalizations where you pursue to define theists throughout your entire post as a mass of people who all reason according to your stereotypical definitions are not going to give you much credibility as an individual who is actualy looking for a dialogue. " some theists say" would have shown some degree of awareness that your definitions leave an open door to some theists not reasoning as you claim they all do.

04-21-2003, 10:18 AM	#10
Never Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: OH Posts: 5,266	I work with people who have degrees in science, some of whom are much more intelligent than myself in the subject. Yet, it is actually the seemingly more intelligent ones that are serious Christians. The guy many would argue is the most intelligent employee there is the one that confuses me the most as he routinely displays what I would consider to be un-Christian like behavior (predjudice against race, sexual orientation, perceived class, etc.) while proclaiming what a good Chrisitan he is. I just look at these people in wonder as to the contradiction. Both in knowledge (and field of study being science) vs. philosophy, and in practice vs preaches.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.