I am asserted exactly what I stated. All religions are antiscience.
Your misinterpretations are your own.
Am I?
How so?
All religions are anti-science
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
I am asserted exactly what I stated. All religions are antiscience.
Your misinterpretations are your own.
Am I?
How so?
Is that relevant?
Matt Dillon
Semolina comes from wheat
Indeed it is.
The floor is yours.
Take all the time you need to construct an argument to support the idea that this is germane to a discussion of my position that all religions are antiscience.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I would suggest actually reading through IBD's response to you instead of stopping at the first line and throwing your hands in the air. IBD's response was very well explained, and he is correct.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Nope, the only one that I've come across to date that does is Global Warming Mythology... However, my religion of Christianity, for example, does not violate any science (and is most certainly not "anti-science").
Did you mean "belief in natural law" instead of disbelief?? This part isn't clicking in my mind... I'd also have to know what you mean by "natural law" and "supernatural"...
Indeed. It is a religious belief. There is no way to prove whether there is or isn't life after death. My faith of Christianity happens to accept this particular belief as a truth. This belief does not contradict science.
Indeed. It is a religious belief (many religious beliefs, actually, as many different gods (or "superbeings", as you refer to them) have been claimed to exist in actuality. My faith of Christianity happens to accept this particular belief as a truth, specifically with regard to the existence of the triune God of the Holy Bible (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This belief does not contradict science.
No, since you are not bringing up any theories of science that are being violated by believing in such religions. As IBD told you earlier, in the Global Warming Mythology, it is religiously believed that Greenhouse Effect is causing the Earth to increase in temperature via greenhouse gases (such as CO2, methane, etc) that are supposedly able to "trap" and "slow" heat. This religion directly violates the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. It is an anti-science religion. Christianity, on the other hand, is not anti-science.
While there are individual Christians who might be anti-science or might be completely illiterate in science, that does not mean that Christianity in and of itself denies science. Global Warming Mythology, on the other hand, REQUIRES that one deny science in order to believe in it. That's why I laugh at that religion like none other!!
Christianity (and any other religion that I can think of off the top of my head) does not require any such science denial.
What led you to assume that I didn't read IBD's response?
That's your opinion.
Can you explain how IDB is correct?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Sure it is. He can determine for himself what sources he wishes to accept/reject. Thus, since he rejects Wikipedia (as I do), you cannot use Wikipedia with him (or me) to support your position. You need to find another way to support it other than Wikipedia.
Are you sure you understand the definition of antiscience that I referred to earlier?
See if this helps:
Antiscience is a philosophy or way of understanding the world that rejects science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. They also contend that scientific reductionism in particular is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of a complex world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience#:~:text=Antiscience%20is%20a%20philosophy%20or,that%20can%20generate%20universal%20knowledge.
That't not my problem. Natural law and supernatural are defined terms.
Definition of natural law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20law
Definition of supernatural:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b: attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural
It follows that a suspension of disbelief is required to believe in the supernatural tenets of religions.
Antiscience is a philosophy or way of understanding the world that rejects science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. They also contend that scientific reductionism in particular is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of a complex world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience#:~:text=Antiscience%20is%20a%20philosophy%20or,that%20can%20generate%20universal%20knowledge.
It is, however, antiscience, which is my point.
It's clear that you are misinterpreting what antiscience is. Perhaps you think that "anti" only means "in opposition to".
Antimatter is not "opposed" to matter, nor does it seek to disprove the existence of matter, for example.
Read the definition again.
Your decision to unilaterally reject a source is logically fallacious.
You are - as you stated, free to do so.
However, I am not bound by your personal choice. Beyond that, I have also cited the Merriam Webster online dictionary extensively.
Finally, I am under no obligation to "find another way to support my position".
Since my assertion is an opinion, and I'm not attempting to force it on anyone, perhaps you can explain why I am obliged to bend to your whim?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
That you only responded to his first sentence and ignored the rest of his post.
That's your opinion.
Sure thing...
First, let me lay out the definitions for particular terminology that I will be making use of below:
SCIENCE: 1) A set of falsifiable theories. OR as IBD prefers to express this as: 2) A set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
RELIGION: An initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. This definition can be expressed differently as well, but my mind prefers to express things via logic.
THEORY: An explanatory argument.
ARGUMENT: A predicate (or set of predicates) and a conclusion.
PREDICATE: An independent statement within an argument.
CONCLUSION: A dependent statement within an argument.
EVIDENCE: Any statement that supports an argument.
PROOF: An extension of an axiom.
AXIOM: A "rule of the game". A fundamental statement/proposition that is assumed to be true.
Science is, simply, "a set of falsifiable theories". That's all science is. All the "supporting evidence", "experiments", "methods", "peer review", "publications", "websites", "consensus", etc. in the world will not in any way bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy, any theory (suddenly transforming it into a "theory of science"). What sets science apart from religion is the fact that one can perform a null hypothesis test on the theory (due to it being falsifiable).
Both science and religion start at an identical logical standpoint, which is with a theory. Once the theory (explanatory argument) is formed, one now has in their hands what is known (in logic terminology) as a circular argument (otherwise known as an "argument of faith"). Contrary to what you might have falsely learned in some logic class in college, a circular argument in and of itself is NOT a fallacy (an error of logic). A circular argument takes the logical form A->A, thus a circular argument is logically valid per the axioms of logic since the conclusion [A] follows from the predicate [A].
A circular argument fallacy, on the other hand, occurs whenever one attempts to prove a circular argument (iow, using the conclusion of a circular argument as a proof that the conclusion is true). The circular argument fallacy takes the logical form (A->A)->A.
It is at this very point (after a theory has been formed) that science and religion separate from each other. Religion is unable to move beyond being circular in nature (iow, religion cannot move beyond being a circular argument or being an argument of faith). Therefore, the most that one can do with it is toss a bunch of supporting evidence at it. Supporting evidence is, however, not a proof. This whole notion of a religion not being able to be proven true or false is why religion is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". Unlike science, religion is accepted as true/false purely on a faith basis.
Science, on the other hand, makes use of theories that are FALSIFIABLE (can be proven false), as opposed to unfalsifiable (can't be proven false). Neither science nor religion can be proven true since they are both open functional systems rather than closed functional systems (such as logic and mathematics). IOW, the type of theory that science makes use of (falsifiable theories) can be tested against a null hypothesis, but that testing must be accessible, practical, quantifiable, specific, and produce a specific result. If a theory survives internal testing (against logic... iow, the theory is logically sound) and external testing (as I described prior), then the theory becomes a 'theory of science' and remains a 'theory of science' until it fails to survive such a test (iow, until the theory is falsified). At that point, the "used to be a theory of science" is now completely and utterly destroyed, and is no longer accepted as a part of science.
So, as you can see, science makes no use of supporting evidence like religion makes use of, as ONLY conflicting evidence is used in science (to falsify theories). Thus, science is best defined as "a set of falsifiable theories", or as IBD expresses it, "a set of falsifiable models that predict nature". The (continued) survival of null hypothesis testing is what allows a theory to become (and continue to be) a theory of science, and is what separates science from religion.
This logical framework of religion and science is what many people do not understand (and/or outright deny). This is why they will believe that theories such as the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Global Warming are "science". They are not science at all, as they are not falsifiable in any accessible manner. They are instead religions, per my above reasoning.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Religion (outside of Global Warming Mythology) is NOT antiscience, even under the Wikipedia definition that you are sharing. As a Christian, I do not in the slightest iota reject science or the scientific method. I fully accept the truth that science can further one's knowledge. I'm still not seeing how my Christian faith makes me "anti-science"...... I am very pro-science. Religion is simply a way of addressing that which science is unable to address... It is not inherently for or against science.
You still think that saying 'all religions are antiscience' is an attack against religion.
You're conflating the individual opinions of religionists with the principle of religions themselves.
You aren't a religion.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No it isn't.
Precisely.
Precisely.
However, in discussions with me, using Wikipedia as a source will get you nowhere, since I reject it as a source. I have a very long list of sources that I will reject in the same manner.
I see that. However, be forewarned that dictionaries do not define words (they are not the "final arbiter" of any word definition). Dictionaries even contract each other often enough!
Then you won't be getting anywhere with me with regard to that, since I summarily dismiss Wikipedia as a source of anything, and I also summarily dismiss the notion that [insert particular dictionary here] is the "final arbiter" of word definitions.
The issue is that your "opinion" (which you are presenting as 'the truth') is objectively wrong.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So English isn't your strong suit. You apparently cannot understand what I wrote.
If you're not going to try to understand then we'll just leave the matter at "you are wrong" and that's where we'll stand.
Fine with me. Do you even know what this thread is about?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You're still stuck on religion necessarily being antiscience. It's false. You're wrong. That's where you want to plant your flag.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes.
I don't recall presenting my opinion as the truth. Can you cite an exact quote?