Why all religion is pointless

kicky, that is really the pot calling the kettle black!

Contrary to your rather insulting post, I am fully aware of the meaning of the word "theory". A theory is an idea. Scientists use these ideas to explain the world around them, then attempt to prove them. Religious philosophers too have ideas about the world, many of whom attempt to prove them. The difference is that often a scientific claim can be proved, religious ones cannot, otherwise they would be accepted by science.

So you see, it is science which claims to know. Religion must always remain in the realm of speculation.

0 Replies

fortune wrote:

kicky, that is really the pot calling the kettle black!

Contrary to your rather insulting post, I am fully aware of the meaning of the word "theory". A theory is an idea. Scientists use these ideas to explain the world around them, then attempt to prove them. Religious philosophers too have ideas about the world, many of whom attempt to prove them. The difference is that often a scientific claim can be proved, religious ones cannot, otherwise they would be accepted by science.

So you see, it is science which claims to [/I]know[/I]. Religion must always remain in the realm of speculation.

Wrong. Science does not claim to know that a theory is true. It claims to have a theory, until it is proven or disproven. Once it is proven, then it becomes a scientific law. See the difference?

Evolution is a theory. It is the most plausible one we have currently, but it is not a scientific law. It is not known.

Creationism, for example, claims to know that the heavens and earth were created in seven days, without any evidence.

Rational vs. irrational. Which do you choose?

0 Replies

Fortune,

Please go look at the definition of theory I posted (there's a link)...

I think that the way you're defining theory here is closer to "hypothesis".

Thoughts?

0 Replies

Jer, a hypothesis is a theory.

kickycan, I shall point out that I did not state that the theory of evolution or the big bang theory were scientific laws. However, thermodynamics, which I also mentioned, is regarded as law.

My point in objecting to your post was to clarify that science does in fact have a (widely accepted) view on the first appearance of matter, energy, and life.

0 Replies

Well, then you are objecting to something I didn't say.

Quote:

Science doesn't claim to know what caused the first appearance of matter, energy, or life, or the cause of it. Religion does.

I didn't use the phrase "widely accepted view", because that is not what I meant. I used the word "know" for good reason.

As to thermodynamics, I dont' know enough about it to comment.

0 Replies

hypothesis

theory

fortune wrote:

Jer, a hypothesis is a theory.

kickycan, I shall point out that I did not state that the theory of evolution or the big bang theory were scientific laws. However, thermodynamics, which I also mentioned, is regarded as law.

My point in objecting to your post was to clarify that science does in fact have a (widely accepted) view on the first appearance of matter, energy, and life.

0 Replies

Re: God is Real
Perhaps objection was too strong a word. I actually had a point I was going to make, before you went and got me all riled up, which I have subsequently forgotten in trying to defend myself. Such is life, maybe I'll go back and try to figure out what it was. Confused

kickycan wrote:

The difference is that science approaches the question by looking at the facts, and religion starts with an irrational assumption and works backwards trying to prove it is true.

I don't really see much of a difference here.

0 Replies

Jer:

Chambers English dictionary says:
hypothesis a supposition: a proposition assumed for the sake of argument: a theory to be proved or disproved by reference to facts: a provisional explanation of anything

0 Replies

Re: God is Real

fortune wrote:

Perhaps objection was too strong a word. I actually had a point I was going to make, before you went and got me all riled up, which I have subsequently forgotten in trying to defend myself. Such is life, maybe I'll go back and try to figure out what it was.

kickycan wrote:
The difference is that science approaches the question by looking at the facts, and religion starts with an irrational assumption and works backwards trying to prove it is true.

I don't really see much of a difference here.

My point is that if you have no evidence that something is true, and you still believe that it is true, you are not using logic, reason, or critical thinking. That is an irrational basis for a belief. Science uses what is currently known and proven (as much as anything can be proven, at least), and constantly tests to see that the facts are there to support the theory. This is rational.

I don't, however, believe that religion is pointless. Religion can be a positive, although it is irrational.

P.S. sorry I threw off your train of thought. I can be a pain in the ass like that sometimes. Smile

0 Replies

Kicky ? A pain in the ass? Never! hehehe

but...umm... I dontknow that I totaly agree with your statement about absolutly not believing in something that you have no proof of.
Either I dont quite understand what you are saying.. or I just need you to give me an example?
What I THINK you are saying is that the belief of something that you as a PERSON hold no PHYSICAL proof of is silly? Right?
Well.... I have no physical proof of Asia existing.. yet I believe it does?
Is that sort of what you are trying to say?

> sigh < I cant think with out coffee.... slap me into reality if you need to! hehehe

0 Replies

kicky: Okay, the only argument I can make to that is that the nature of most religions is that they cannot be disproven. A religious belief may be held because it seems most likely given the facts at hand (the same as a scientific theory, I might add). Therefor, in the absence of contrary evidence, it is not entirely irrational to hold onto that idea, rather like one would hold onto, say, the theory of evolution or the big bang theory.

This is not to say that I believe it right to give up rational thought in the name of religion. Quite the contrary.

To elaborate, the big bang theory is something which has been hotly contested for years, yet it is still widely held as the most likely scientific explanation for the existence of the universe. It is repeatedly tested through argument but most likely will not ever be proven. The same goes for creationism. Yet scientists are not generally labelled irrational for advocating their chosen theory.

P.S. No worries, the tracks been busted for years.

0 Replies

Ooh coffee, now there's a great idea!

0 Replies

semantics do matter.

a hypothesis is a tentative explanation, or an assumption from untested observation. once those assumptions are tested, and the bogus/false assumptions are weeded out you get closer to the territory of theory.

an idea, though it is the seed of what could eventually become a theory, is not a theory. a theory is arrived at through much research and development of a methodology, a systematic analysis of facts.

0 Replies

Shewolfnm,

I am not saying that you shouldn't believe in something you have no proof of. I'm just saying that it isn't rational to believe it, without any evidence.

In your example, you have no proof physically that Asia exists, but you may have seen people from Asia, you may have seen pictures, you may have read about it, and you may buy a ticket and go there to see for yourself. You may have no physical first-hand evidence of it's existence, but based on the overwhelming evidence of what you have seen and heard, you may conclude that Asia in fact, does exist. You are using scientific methods to come to your conclusion, which is rational.

I'm just saying that religion uses no such methods to come to it's conclusions, which is irrational. But in my opinion, sometimes irrational beliefs do come in handy.

Okay, now I have to get back to work. I'm slacking off big time!

0 Replies

I thought this thread was about stuff that is pointless.

0 Replies

I believe i'll have a meatloaf sammich . . .

However, i cannot emperically know that until i get home and look in the fridge . . .

0 Replies

I see what you are saying now... no coffee needed. :-)
I agree. I think alot of people waste thier personal energy on fighting and trying to use a simple sircular logic to prove something that they WANT to believe and none of thier energy discovering what is really there.
( Circular logic = something like... Because I said so. ) No definate answer.. just a speculation that is SUPPOSED to be definate.

0 Replies

Pointless things?
Like what ...... shaving? Laughing

You know shaving does NOT make it look bigger.....right? Shocked

0 Replies

How come no-one's called Steven Hawkings irrational yet?

0 Replies

mmmmmm sammich.
I had a piece of chicken cordon-bleu with crimini muchrooms on a bed of romaine lettuce for lunch. :-)

0 Replies

Why all religion is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know