Difference between science and religion

[Alexander]

Just facts and logic.

 

[Nicool003]

sorry i am busy so i can't really debate this now but Astronomer107 is a she just so you know

 

[Shadow]

You say facts and logic but how about truth?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Every positive right can be reformulated as a negative right.


And I suppose you mean to say there's a right on education and on knowledge that you sanction?

What is the use for reformulating a positive right as a negative right?

Why would I or anybody else sanction rights?

When I claim that people are entitled positive rights (right on healtcare, education, housing, income, safety, etc) then you say that when reformulating these rights as negative righst, I sanction these negative rights?).

This is clearly nonsense. A right is a right, not a duty.
I would not force someone to have education in university.
This is quite something different then dispermitting or disallowing them the right for that education.

If allow you to do or get something, it does not mean I am forcing you to do or get something.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Shadow
You say facts and logic but how about truth?

Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

Same as Marx said "The criteria of truth is observed fact (reality)".

 

[Hurkyl]

Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

Which begs the question: "What to you mean by fact?"

 

[Alexander]

From a dictionary:

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

 

[Shadow]

Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

How can one define truth when no one knows the truth?

 

[Hurkyl]

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

How do you base knowledge and information on real occurrences? How does one identify a real occurrence anyways? (And what is a real occurrence? Though I suppose you'll answer this question if you can answer my second question)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Shadow
How can one define truth when no one knows the truth?

How can anyone know the truth (or the Truth) without an adequate definition of what the truth is?

 

[Royce]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BoulderHead


Religion is based on the observations of a primitive society and is never tested. Science is based on the observations of an advanced society and is constantly tested.
-Michael Pain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not call the United States a primative society; no, would zi call most if not all or Euprope a primative society.
Religious faith and belief are tested thousands of times every day by thousands of people.

If I were to offer you, any of you scientific materialist, absolute proof that God or a creator exists, you would not accept it as proof of anything; you would call me at best a misguided fool and at worse a lying deceiver; thus, your precarious position would be safe and secure.

We can't even agree on the meaning of the words "fact", "truth", "proof" much less agree on the answer to any fundamental question.

We all, myself included, keep saying the same things over and over again in thread after thread and none of us will admit that the other has made a point. There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.

 

[FZ+]

I would not call the United States a primative society; no, would zi call most if not all or Euprope a primative society.

I would call early sumeria, egypt, Israel or the indus valley cultures where most ancient scriptures are written primative societies, yes. Relative to today, of course. I was not aware that Christianity was born in the USA.

If I were to offer you, any of you scientific materialist, absolute proof that God or a creator exists, you would not accept it as proof of anything; you would call me at best a misguided fool and at worse a lying deceiver; thus, your precarious position would be safe and secure.

That is awfully presumptious of you. I suppose that if I were to offer you absolute proof that God does not exist, you would accept it then? I would think that the case with God is that no absolute proof or disproof exists, since God does not make predictions that can be tested.

There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.

Oh there is a point. There is certainly a point to all this. But not the point you think of - to preach or convert others. It is to broaden minds to possibilities, your own as well as everyone else. It's not about winning. It's about the experience of taking part.

 

[Shadow]

How can anyone know the truth (or the Truth) without an adequate definition of what the truth is?

How can the truth be defined when there is no way to know what the truth is or can be.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
We all, myself included, keep saying the same things over and over again in thread after thread and none of us will admit that the other has made a point. There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.

That is of course clear, and because of that we would not need to strive for stating something absolute. But there is common sense logic that makes it possible to reach a consensus on things.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is of course clear, and because of that we would not need to strive for stating something absolute. But there is common sense logic that makes it possible to reach a consensus on things.

We can always hope. I try, but don't always succeed in not stating any absolutes; but, state one way or another that it is my opinion or belief.

Should and do apologize for that post. I was obviously very frustrated when I posted it. The frustration probably wasn't even with the PF's but simply a handy way to vent it.

FZ+, I think that if all there was to religion was the thousands year old observations of a long dead and no longer relevant culture that religions would have passed on with those cultures. IMO religon is still relevant and based on the "observations" of members of current modern societies as well as those of ancient cultures. I think that that is why it is still so much a part of our culture.