Hey! Grrr! Listen, if you want to address any of my points, please do 😛
I just sobered up a little and realized that you weren’t attacking me…<sorry>
I’m not just playing Devil’s Advocate – I actually think this is an important issue, because all humans learn how to interpret the world around them.
I am convinced that science vastly differs from religion in the knowledge it produces and the way it produces knowledge. But I am not convinced that either is learned differently, or carried out differently, or that they produce different results socially (each, after all, produces an elite access to dispensing knowledge and a social hierarchy to accessing that knowledge).
I’m not really sure that religion produces much anything in the way of knowledge. For example, the only parts of Christianity that I think are of any use are the bits about how to treat your fellow man, and those parts I feel belong more with philosophy than religion.
poster: Darwin Stepchild
They also aren’t very original. Many other religions and philosophies predating Christianity said the same thing. That leaves Christianity, IMHO, with nothing new in the way of knowledge.
Religion’s path to knowledge is supposedly revelation from a higher being. To me, that means it is just the guess work (or possibly delusions) of the guy that wrote down the “revelations”. So you either get something that is really obvious, like “treat others as you would have them treat you” or you get weird stuff that is inevitably wrong.
Science may not be perfect, but its testing and self correcting mechanisms are, again IMHO, the best we humans have come up with for figuring things out.
This speaks somewhat to your commentary above, a quote:
“I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true” – Carl Sagan
That the difference and end result. No matter that there may be some superficial similarities.
Hiding from you:But I am not convinced that either is learned differently, or carried out differently, or that they produce different results socially (each, after all, produces an elite access to dispensing knowledge and a social hierarchy to accessing that knowledge).
Yes, the framework of a religious view is different from a scientific view – even if all other factors are the same or equivalent.
The religious frameworks is that life is a dress rehearsal for the afterlife – this is a death and destruction POV at it’s heart
Science is a framework to understand the world we occupy and to find a co-existence – sustainability – life and creation focused.
When science has gotten it wrong or badly – thinking eugenics here – it’s because it was corrupted by a religious or quasi-religious (aka political) mindset – and used for that end, rather than a valid scientific end.
Unknown Poster: How screwed up of you men. Ok, I’ll help you out – I’m a middle aged guy. For sure. I’ve got a … uhm … not camel toe? A “purple headed warrior!”
What the fcku do you mean “a pass that I might not deserve”??? You mean that my argument isn’t as good as a man’s??? And so you are like “oh, ah, you know…uhm, it’s like this…”
You know, that really sucks.
people get passes that they don’t deserve for a lot of things
being attractive is one
and it’s no different than religious believers who expect their beliefs to be unquestioned and given special consideration or at least, not being held to the same standard as everything else.