It is a gif of one my favorite actors in which he is clad in sugar pink which surprisingly goes well with my own sugar pink avatar birdy. It also complements my sarcastic reaction sentence which i wanted to share with delightful NDS community.
What if science worked like religion?
- Thread starter Hawker
- Start date
Natsu Shazneel
Banned
Awards
Well my shock mainly comes from the fact that I thought you would add more to the topic since you were a former Muslim. I just never expected a sarcastic comment like that.
ComplexCity
Banned
Well i am just sick of this science vs religion debacle which i used to have in weekly basis and several times but since you asked...
I think science and religion are two things that are not relevant in many parts but forcibly made to be relevant. Yes they have matters that section but there are matters that do not and these two are not mutually exclusive rival subjects.
Religion and science are like desk and a bookshelf, they have common points but they also do not. They can be in same room but not necessarily. They have common functions but also different purposes. Just because science and religion have common point of showcasing humanity's seeking of what life and universe comes from, it does not mean they are two completely comparable items.
I changed my faith from Islam to pantheism but if anything it was not about a scientific enlightment. Yeah the worse part is many people believe people convert because some Dawkins like dude comes into their life and evolution theory makes them atheists (i believed in that theory when i was a Muslim too, i was much more interested in science before my mid teens). It really was not like that, it was more of a moral and maybe spiritual journey in which i even got influenced by some elements of religion itself among with other things. Pantheism explained a lot to me about what i believe and i found its traces through different sides of Islam along with other things. I read about the poet Mansur_Al-Hallaj who get killed because people misinterpreted his saying of "i am God" for example.
So what can i add to science vs religion debacle? Not much because my choice was not e versus game, it was process of thinking, observing and learning. If anything i would say people can really have what they want, either book shelf or desk, maybe both, maybe none. They are not mutually exclusive or inclusive or rivaling just like science and religion are not.
Last edited:
FreakensteinAG
Active member
Well! I'm very late to this thread. I had no idea this thread existed until it popped up as a Hot Thread.
Putting the cringey Richard Dawkins aside, were Science to work like Religion, we really wouldn't be able to get anything done. Since there would be Sectionalism in regards to a scientific consensus on how something works or the mechanisms of a process, it would be very hard to make scientific progress. No one would agree on the numerous amounts of data collected.
We actually see this happening in several places, places where there is very little scientific progress. Central Africa and certain areas of the middle east. We actually have a distrust of doctors and scientists in Central Africa due to the idea that we are somehow conspiring to hurt them, or fill their heads with negative ideas. There is a certain stagnancy of research there, the only 'scientists' being unqualified doctors making claims without performing experiments or learning what the worldly consensus on a particular subject is.
Putting the cringey Richard Dawkins aside, were Science to work like Religion, we really wouldn't be able to get anything done. Since there would be Sectionalism in regards to a scientific consensus on how something works or the mechanisms of a process, it would be very hard to make scientific progress. No one would agree on the numerous amounts of data collected.
We actually see this happening in several places, places where there is very little scientific progress. Central Africa and certain areas of the middle east. We actually have a distrust of doctors and scientists in Central Africa due to the idea that we are somehow conspiring to hurt them, or fill their heads with negative ideas. There is a certain stagnancy of research there, the only 'scientists' being unqualified doctors making claims without performing experiments or learning what the worldly consensus on a particular subject is.
demon of the leaf
Active member
I heard about that its really unfortunate there is very little that can be done unless you send doctors with an army to protect them from overzelus zealots that think a dr is out to steal their soul as extream asthat sounds
NarutoKage2
Active member
Well, as the Pakistani cleric who I once argued this point with told me:
' The Quran clearly states to follow the teachings of and obey the prophet Muhommad. And the authentic tradition (or saying/hadith) of the prophet Muhammad says to "Whosoever changes his religion, kill him". man baddalah Dinahu faqtuluhu'. So that's your authentic source for the death penalty for apostasy in Islam.
Then figure it out before saying something about it.
You fail to get one thing straight. Empirical evidence (ie scientific evidence) is not a key factor in philosophical arguments.
No, your original post was about faith being unreasonable (evil) based on it having no evidence. You were offered evidence in the forms of logical arguments wich point to a good chance of there being a God, hence faith (as in belief in God) is not unreasonable.
You dismiss this because you don't get that logically sound and valid arguments present evidence for the truth in such manners.
Science language as in what? In science empricial evidence is what matters. This is because science studies matter wich can be emirically tested.
He can say whatever he wants, his degree is in evolutionary biology, not philosophy, not theology.
He lacks the basic understanding of religion wich he criticizes and is not to be taken as an authority on this matter.
Even if you were to take him as such, choosing him over an overwhelming number of scientists who don't find faith and science contradictive (the point of the funny video wich you presented in the OP) is biased.
Intellectual dishonesty is a serious matter. Not nothing.
Such as...?
NarutoKage2
Active member
So anyone who doesn't have a degree in philosophy or theology isn't qualified to analyze or make a decision about religion?
Fine. Then faith heads should be required to preach only to philosophers and theologians, and spare the rest of us(and the governments of the various states of the world) from their dogma and indoctrination.
Do you accept the fact that empirical evidence is not a key factor in this matter? Yes or no.
You don't need a degree in philosophy and theology to make claims. Never said that. Rather, I said he should not be taken seriously (as an authority) as he lacks basic understanding of matter wich he criticizes, wich is evident from nearly every claim he makes including the one in the video.
Just answer my question from your point of view and then I will give you my answer.
Theology shouldn't even exist in the first place. It should no be taught in universities. You relying on it when adressing the domination Dawkins lays upon believers just shows that you actually have nothing real to back up your claims. It's just rubbish.
Like Thomas Paine said: "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."
There's no "my point of view" here because you don't understand what evidence means in these matters. So once again:
Do you accept the fact that empirical evidence is not a key factor in this matter? Yes or no.
Don't think I asked for your opinion on theology. Also, I haven't relied on theology at all so far.
As for Dawkin's dominance it is comparable to that of an empty chair. So frightening...
Should I take this as an answer to the question above? ^^
Listen. I asked you first. Don't play the knee jerking routine that religious people usually play. Just answer to my question from your philosophical view: is there evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Then you will have my answer to your question.
Btw. I could swear that this thread was deleted just moments ago. And now it just reappeared? It doesn't even show in my threads section on my profile.
Natsu Shazneel
Banned
Awards
Quiet an admirable post. I really like how despite your lose in faith in Islam you did not go off bashing it. You instead explained your thought process of conversion. In a way where its very understandable. I can relate to that cause my parents told me to search for answers myself. Which is something you did which lead you to pantheism.
You asked me first? The point about the evidence has been dragging for 4+ days now, and you still didn't define what you mean by evidence, so my question, wether or not you see empirical evidence as a key factor here not only takes the priority, but it is necessarry for me to answer your question. So:
Do you accept the fact that empirical evidence is not a key factor in this matter? Yes or no.
How is that knee-jerking btw?
Yes, I saw it too. Idk what they're what did they bring it back for tough.
NarutoKage2
Active member
Well, he has his own opinion/perspective.
And I absolutely agree he shouldn't be taken as an authority. Religions are the ones who appeal to authority to impose their will on the brainwashed masses, not scientists. You can refute what dawkins , krauss or anyone else says provided you have good evidence/logic. Doesnt mean people can't agree with them either so....
Natsu Shazneel
Banned
Awards
I mean that use your own definition (aka the philosophical view) and then answer.
I see it as a key factor if you say that there is evidence for flying spaghetti monster. 'Cause it brings me to the point of how ridiculous it is to debate on matters purely on philosophical point of view as everything's basically possible. I don't see a point in that kind of discussion. And I certainly don't think it would count as a reasonable argument that earth is the evidence for flying spaghetti monster.