All religions are anti-science

[Into the Night]

as most Sciences are anti religion.

Science is not anti-religion. It is simply agnostic. It doesn't try to prove the existence or non-existence of any god or gods. There are also no proofs in science. It does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Science is only one thing: a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Nothing more, nothing less.

thing is both persuade people to believe life is more than series parallel evolving as ancestrally timed apart now.

Try English. It works better.

 

[Into the Night]

Antiscience isn't just opposition to science.

Oh?? Then what the hell is it???

There are plenty of core beliefs in all religions that are unscientific.

You don't get to speak for all religions. You only get to speak for you. That said, religion is not science. Science does not use supporting evidence. Religions do.

 

[Into the Night]

That's hardly the only core belief of any religion,

It is the core belief of several sects of Christianity. It is compatible with science.

and it is antiscience,

WRONG. It is completely compatible with science.

because no scientific proof of the existence of a deity has ever been offered, AFAIK.

Irrelevant. False dichotomy fallacy. Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has no theory about the existence of non-existence of any god or gods.

 

[Into the Night]

That is the core tenant of Christianity.
Faith does not require proof but science cannot disprove so your point is moot.

Neither religion nor science has any proofs. Both are open functional systems. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic.

 

[Legion]

Oh?? Then what the hell is it???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

You don't get to speak for all religions.

Nor have I. I looked them up online.

You only get to speak for you.

Have I pretended otherwise?

That said, religion is not science.

Are you speaking for yourself, or others?

Science does not use supporting evidence. Religions do.

They do?

 

[Into the Night]

It is one of several.

Depends on the sect. Bigotry.

Faith is antiscience.

WRONG. Faith is required in science, just as it is required in most anything (including religion).

So is your argument.

His argument is completely compatible with science.

If something can't be proven, it is unproven.

Correct. It remains a circular argument. Nothing to do with science.

I don't know if faith is real, or not.

It is real. Faith is just another word for the circular argument, which is not a fallacy. Science has nothing to do with this.

I do know that a philosophy that doesn't require proof

Science has no proofs. Neither does any religion. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic.

is anti-scientific.

Lack of proof completely compatible with science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There are no proofs in science.

If you think faith is real, the burden of proof rests upon you, the claimant.

Faith is real. The circular argument is real. They exist. Proof by Identity.

You cannot prove that faith is real, ergo, it is unproven.

?A->A. Faith exists. It is real. Proof by Identity.

 

[Into the Night]

Faith is neither pro nor anti science. Christianity has supported efforts to discover the science underlying things as it helps humanity. But its not a contest.

Science demands proof. Science is anti faith.

WRONG. Science has no proofs. Neither does any religion. Faith is required in science just as it is required in most anything. Faith is another word for the circular argument (itself not a fallacy).

 

[Legion]

It is the core belief of several sects of Christianity.

Is it?

While Christians worldwide share basic convictions, there are also differences of interpretations and opinions of the Bible and sacred traditions on which Christianity is based.

Creeds: Concise doctrinal statements or confessions of religious beliefs are known as creeds. They began as baptismal formulae and were later expanded during the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries to become statements of faith.

The Apostles' Creed is the most widely accepted statement of the articles of Christian faith. It is used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical churches of Western Christian tradition, including the Latin Church of the Catholic Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and Western Rite Orthodoxy. It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists. This particular creed was developed between the 2nd and 9th centuries. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator. Each of the doctrines found in this creed can be traced to statements current in the apostolic period. The creed was apparently used as a summary of Christian doctrine for baptismal candidates in the churches of Rome. Its points include:

• Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit
• The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ
• The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
• Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful

It is compatible with science.

Who told you that?

It is completely compatible with science.

Is it?

Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Is that a non-sequitur? Just because science isn't infallible, that doesn't mean that religions aren't antiscience, does it?

It has no theory about the existence of non-existence of any god or gods.

Because you think something hasn't been disproven, you think that makes it proven?

 

[Into the Night]

Antiscience is a philosophy or way of understanding the world that rejects science and the scientific method.

Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

People holding anti-scientific views do not accept science as an objective method

False dichotomy fallacy. Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'.

that can generate universal knowledge.

Science is not knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Antiscience may be considered dependent on religious, moral and cultural arguments.

Certainly. That does not mean religions, morals, or cultures are antiscience. Reversal fallacy.

For this kind of religious antiscience philosophy, science is an anti-spiritual and materialistic force that undermines traditional values, ethnic identity and accumulated historical wisdom in favor of reason.

Science is not a force. It does not deny or confirm anything spiritual. It is not materialistic. It is not racist. It is not wisdom. It is not reason. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It uses reason, but it is not reason or reasoning itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience#Religious

Wikipedia summarily dismissed. It does not define 'science' or any other word other than 'Wikipedia'.

Quote Originally Posted by Celticguy:
Christianity has supported efforts to discover the science underlying things as it helps humanity.

Christianity has done no such thing.

But it has. Denial of history.

Individual Christians have, and institutions or organization affiliated with Christianity have.

Nope. Various sects of Christianity have.

Christianity is a religion.

That it is. It is a religion based on the existence and teachings of Jesus Christ as it's initial circular argument (argument of faith). All other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial argument.

Religions don't "do things".

Organized churches and sects do a lot.

They are philosophies/belief systems.

No, they are organizations made up of people, acting together as that organization.

Christianity, like all religions, is based on an initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove a circular argument causes the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

 

[Legion]

Depends on the sect.

Does it? Aren't sects subsets of religions (also known as denominations)?

Faith is required in science, just as it is required in most anything (including religion).

Does that mean that science is also antiscience?

His argument is completely compatible with science.

Is it? Please, explain how.

Nothing to do with science.

Why wouldn't it?

It is real. Faith is just another word for the circular argument, which is not a fallacy.

That's odd.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Science has nothing to do with this.

Then why do you refer to it in the context of this discussion?

Science has no proofs. Neither does any religion. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic.

Aren't mathematics and logic sciences?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Lack of proof completely compatible with science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There are no proofs in science.

Didn't you say that "Proofs only exist in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic", which appear to be sciences?

Faith is real. The circular argument is real. They exist. Proof by Identity.

Is this what you mean?

https://chadebrack.com/the-barcan-kripke-proof-is-identity-necessary/

 

[Into the Night]

Is it?

RQAA.

...deleted contrivance...

Contrived examples and individual examples are not the entire set being discussed. Divisional error fallacy. Overwhelming exceptional fallacy.

Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night
It is compatible with science.

Who told you that?

No one told me that. Christianity is compatible with science. Nothing about Christianity, denies any theory of science.

Is it?

RQAA.

Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night
Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Is that a non-sequitur?

No. Fallacy fallacy.

Just because science isn't infallible, that doesn't mean that religions aren't antiscience, does it?

Non-sequitur fallacy. Loaded question discarded.

Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night
It has no theory about the existence of non-existence of any god or gods.

Because you think something hasn't been disproven, you think that makes it proven?

No. False dichotomy fallacy.

You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping track of the statements that people make. I suggest you read more carefully what is being said in a post.
I also suggest that you discard this false dichotomy that science excludes religion or that religion excludes science.

 

[Legion]

Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Is that so?

False dichotomy fallacy. Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'.

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

"knowledge attained through study or practice," or
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

Science is not knowledge. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

You keep saying that. Argument by repetition?

The topic is religion, specifically religions being antiscience.

That does not mean religions, morals, or cultures are antiscience.

Why not?

Science is not a force. It does not deny or confirm anything spiritual. It is not materialistic. It is not racist. It is not wisdom. It is not reason. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It uses reason, but it is not reason or reasoning itself.

I don't recall arguing to the contrary, Do you need a while to re-read the thread?

Wikipedia summarily dismissed.

Is that a genetic fallacy?

It does not define 'science' or any other word other than 'Wikipedia'.

I'm not following that line of reasoning. Can you help me to understand what you meant by that?

Various sects of Christianity have.

Sects are not religions. Sects are subsets of religions, and like religions, they comprise a set of shared beliefs that differs in some way from the basic tenets of the core religion. Belief systems are ideas. Shared beliefs don't build hospitals or schools, and they don't teach science or heal the sick. Religiously-affiliated organizations do those things, but that does not mean the religion - the set of beliefs - did it. People who profess a belief in a religion often do things that are at odd with their religion's core principles, don't they?

Organized churches and sects do a lot.

Their followers and the organizations they operate do, yet they aren't themselves "religion". Christianity doesn't do anything except define the beliefs that adherents must profess to be considered a Christian. Likewise all the denominations that sprang from Christianity are variations of the basic idea. Many of the actions performed by professing Christians and self-identified Christian organizations contradict (or even violate) the beliefs of their religion, don't they?

No, they are organizations made up of people, acting together as that organization.

They are subsets of the religion. Religions are not people. Sects or denominations are not people. Religions and sects are shared beliefs. People who profess to share those particular beliefs form organizations.

 

[Legion]

Christianity is compatible with science. Nothing about Christianity, denies any theory of science.

What do you base those conclusions on?

I also suggest that you discard this false dichotomy that science excludes religion or that religion excludes science.

I don't recall positing that science excludes religion or that religion excludes science. I said all religions are antiscience, and I cited the definition of antiscience, which you summarily dismissed.

Wikipedia summarily dismissed.

Are we at an impasse?

 

[Into the Night]

Does it? Aren't sects subsets of religions (also known as denominations)?

So?

Does that mean that science is also antiscience?

No. Faith is required for any theory to form, whether they are theories of science or otherwise. It is required to create tests against the null hypothesis of a theory of science. It is required to even drive your car. You have faith that someone else won't kill you on the way to where you are going.

Faith is just another word for the circular argument, which is not in and of itself a fallacy.

Is it? Please, explain how.

Repetitive Question Already Answered. RQAA.

Why wouldn't it?

RQAA.

That's odd.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Wikipedia dismissed as a reference. It is wrong here. You cannot use this as a reference source with me on anything.

Then why do you refer to it in the context of this discussion?

Because you brought it up.

Aren't mathematics and logic sciences?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

No. Wikipedia dismissed as a reference. They are wrong once again.

Mathematics is not science. It is a closed functional system based on a finite set of axioms. These axioms define things like what 'one' and 'zero' mean, what 'addition' means, etc. ALL of mathematics is confined to these axioms. This makes the system closed. Because the system is closed, you have the power of the proof, and with it, the power of prediction.

Logic is exactly the same way. It is defined by it's fundamental axioms. It cannot function outside those axioms.

Science has no axioms, but it does have a definition. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory of science may be formed over any subject and be inspired for any reason. It is an open functional system. It does not have the power of the proof nor the power of prediction. Science explains, it does not predict. It must turn to a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction. Transcribing a theory of science to an equation in mathematics is known as formalizing the theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law' of science. If the theory is falsified, the 'law' goes with it.

Example: A well known theory of science states that force, mass, and acceleration (itself a derivative of speed, which itself is a derivative of position) are related. That has been formalized into the equation F=mA, and is known as Newton's law of motion (there are not three, only one, and this is it). How this theory was developed, and it's ramifications, is described in Newton's Principia. So far, the theory (and it's equation) have not yet been falsified. No theory is ever proven True, not even this one. A theory of science remains a theory until it is falsified. A non-scientific theory is not falsifiable. It can therefore never be proven True nor False. An example of this is the Theory of Evolution (which states that present day life evolved from more primitive forms). The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

All theories begin as circular arguments, even theories of science. It is the test of falsifiability that takes the theory of science beyond the simple circular argument. If a theory is not falsifiable, it is not a theory of science. It remains a non-scientific theory, and it remains as a circular argument.

Circular arguments are not a fallacy in and of themselves. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith', or the Argument of Faith. The circular argument fallacy only occurs when someone tries to prove a circular argument True or False. This not possible.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The initial circular argument for Christianity, for example, states that Jesus Christ existed, and that He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God). ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this one initial circular argument.

Any religion can have fundamentalism. This occurs when someone tries to prove the religion True (or False). It is the circular argument fallacy. It is what a fundamentalist does.

Didn't you say that "Proofs only exist in closed functional systems like mathematics or logic", which appear to be sciences?

Neither mathematics nor logic is science.

Is this what you mean?

...deleted Holy Link...

You need to stop depending on the arguments of others and learn go think for yourself. I know it's hard, because you haven't done it much, but it will help you in the long run. The Proof of Identity has an equation in logic. It is ?A->A. Essentially, if something is, it therefore must exist. This applies even to a god. If a god is, then that god exists (even in concept). It means you can talk about that god as an item, not that such a god may actually exist physically.

In philosophy, you present your own arguments. You cannot use the arguments of others as your own. They must be your own arguments. They must also be free of logical fallacies (a fallacy is an error in logic, similar to an error in mathematics, such as arithmetic).

Wikipedia is not a valid source. It is not god. It is too often incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong. Logic is defined by it's axioms and proofs, not by Wikipedia. Mathematics is defined by it's axioms and proofs, not Wikipedia. Science is defined by philosophy, not Wikipedia. Philosophy is just a set of arguments. The only requirement is that they must be your own arguments. Religion is an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that, and is also defined by philosophy, not Wikipedia.

I do not accept any Wikipedia references. Do not use them anymore in our conversations.

 

[Legion]

You need to stop depending on the arguments of others and learn go think for yourself. I know it's hard, because you haven't done it much, but it will help you in the long run.

Ad hominems?

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Genetic fallacy?

I do not accept any Wikipedia references. Do not use them anymore in our conversations.

I don't think we'll have any more conversations, do you?

 

[Into the Night]

Is that so?

RQAA.

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

"knowledge attained through study or practice," or
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

https://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

Holy Links do not define words. No dictionary defines any word. Science is define by philosophy, not a dictionary or any Holy Link.

You keep saying that. Argument by repetition?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that keeps saying otherwise.

The topic is religion, specifically religions being antiscience.

They are not antiscience. Science is compatible with religion.

Why not?

RQAA.

I don't recall arguing to the contrary, Do you need a while to re-read the thread?

Denial of self. If you want to deny what you said, that's your business. It does create a paradox though. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

Is that a genetic fallacy?

No. It is simply not accepting Wikipedia as an authority to be used as a proof. You cannot justify your false authority fallacy by using another fallacy.

I'm not following that line of reasoning. Can you help me to understand what you meant by that?

RQAA.

Sects are not religions. Sects are subsets of religions, and like religions, they comprise a set of shared beliefs that differs in some way from the basic tenets of the core religion. Belief systems are ideas. Shared beliefs don't build hospitals or schools, and they don't teach science or heal the sick. Religiously-affiliated organizations do those things, but that does not mean the religion - the set of beliefs - did it. People who profess a belief in a religion often do things that are at odd with their religion's core principles, don't they?

Semantics fallacy.

Their followers and the organizations they operate do, yet they aren't themselves "religion". Christianity doesn't do anything except define the beliefs that adherents must profess to be considered a Christian. Likewise all the denominations that sprang from Christianity are variations of the basic idea. Many of the actions performed by professing Christians and self-identified Christian organizations contradict (or even violate) the beliefs of their religion, don't they?

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.

They are subsets of the religion.

Semantics fallacy.

Religions are not people. Sects or denominations are not people. Religions and sects are shared beliefs. People who profess to share those particular beliefs form organizations.

Those organizations are made up of people.

 

[Into the Night]

What do you base those conclusions on?

RQAA.

I don't recall positing that science excludes religion or that religion excludes science. I said all religions are antiscience, and I cited the definition of antiscience, which you summarily dismissed.

Yet you did. Neither did I dismiss your definition.

Are we at an impasse?

Possibly. You keep asking the same questions that have already been answered. Are turning to fallacy after fallacy in your statements. There are fewer and fewer actual arguments being presented in your posts. Soon I suspect you'll resort to insults.

 

[Legion]

Definition of religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

Definition of sect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect

Definition of antiscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

 

[Into the Night]

Ad hominems?

No. No insult was made. Fallacy fallacy.

Genetic fallacy?

No. You cannot use Wikipedia as a proof. Fallacy fallacy. Circular argument fallacy.

I don't think we'll have any more conversations, do you?

No argument presented. Fallacy fallacies. False authorities. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). I see no conversation in your post.

 

[Into the Night]

Definition of religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

Definition of sect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect

Definition of antiscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Not definitions. False authority fallacy. Wikipedia does not define any word except 'Wikipedia'. No argument presented.