humphreys wrote:That's because no one can live without doing science, in some sense. You either accept science and religion, or just science. A life without religion is possible, but a life completely without science isn't.
You are comparing 2 things that don't go together. Our perceptions and beliefs are not a simple derivative of the laws of physics. We can live without a belief in science, did for thousands of years. You can live while rejecting religion but that's not the point. It not about what we can do, but what we should do.
You can live without believing in science, but you still do it.
Everyone does it.
We have established that science is necessary, whether we like it or not we cannot live without it, but why do we need religion? I get by without it, it is not a necessity for everyone as science is (in some form, anyway).
CodeBlackv2 wrote:This is nothing more than acknowledging that we respond to input and learn. That says nothing about religion or science. Science and religion are both philosophies.
Science in its most basic sense is input and learn. Observe, predict, test, that's how we all learn. We all do science.
CodeBlackv2 wrote:Um, no that is wrong. Science is a philosophy. The fact that we can make something work does not "prove science".
Computers and the like are based on sound scientific principles. Only by learning how the Universe works through science can we build such machines, if science did not work, computers would not work.
CodeBlackv2 wrote:I don't know what you mean by that. The universe operates by a set of rules. Neither science nor religion is proved or disproved by that. Religion says that God created those rules. Science has no answer to that question.
There is no evidence it is a question that need answering.
The Universe acts in a certain way, we learn how it acts through science, and through that knowledge we create computers, that is proof that science is working.
CodeBlackv2 wrote:No, science admits that everything they say is based on at least some assumptions. Sounds like you are arguing the opposite side now. If QM seems kooky then that implies the science is wrong or at least incomplete, which it is, in the case of QM. And scientific assumptions have been wrong many times. The whole basis of science is that the final explanation should not seem kooky. Kooky = defies explanation.
That is not the basis of science at all. Science does not dictate that the Universe must not be "kooky", whatever your definition of that is. What I take it you mean by "kooky" is things like action at a distance, and things being in two places at once. Science does not assume such things are impossible, common sense and logic does, but not science. The goal of science is to figure out how the Universe works, however kooky it may or may not be.
CodeBlackv2 wrote: humphreys wrote:
CodeBlackv2 wrote:Christianity finds itself in a perpetual soccer match and the other team gets infinite free shots.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Man, where have you been the last 20 years? The entire left wing intelligentsia, the film industry, the television industry, the entire mainstream news media, the public school system, the democrat party, and just about every pop-tard in the US has bashed Christianity for decades, and society has not demanded it stopped. Hell, even SNL has had skits about this since the 80's.
Perhaps religion is worthy of ridicule? Beliefs held without evidence surely are.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris