COMMENTS:
Science and reason makes sense for the most part. Religion in my eyes is nothing more than a different theory for every religion. All 200 hundred of them.
I believe Einstein said,
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame."
Hawking isnt science.
Scientific Materlalism is as biased, blinkered and completely unscientific as conventional God religion. They try to impose their superstitious belief systems with force and pay zip, zero, nada attention to scientific method or credibility. The colonialists final religion before their imminent annihilation
neither cos science can b nerdy and religious beliefs are sumtimes a load of shit
I like science because it is fluid. To call a scientist closed-minded because he/she demands empirical evidence is unfair. Scientists are open to change; when new discoveries are made, the old ideas are left behind. The same cannot be said for most religions. A scientist could fairly call a religious or spiritual person closed-minded because he refuses to change his beliefs in the face of all the facts. A good example of this is the creationists, who doggedly persist in their belief that the world was created in one week, six thousand years ago -- and want to stifle those who say otherwise. Never mind that technology exists to date rocks and fossils back millions of years. To hell with technology - it's evil!
by mojo on Sun Jul 04, 04 8:36am
[+]
I agree with mojo. Scientists have been wrong many times before, but peer review and the scientific method, allow them to be discredited and/or admit they're wrong. Dogmatic religion can never be said to be wrong, as such would be heresy. Pogroms have been carried out and wars have been fought over relatively modest differences in doctrine. Plus, you'll note there was no holy war and mass carnage between the Newton supporters and those of Einstein in the early 20th century. Try that with a theocracy in charge.
Guest, a theory is a hypothesis. Just an idea that someone thought of that seems to fit the facts. Then someone might come along and be able to prove or disprove it, and that's that; we now have some valuable information.
But that's what's great about science - because can take the same data, and reproduce whatever it is they're studying independently of one another. Mojo is right. Science is always moving, changing, and expanding. Religion stays the same, until someone gets ahold of a religious text and decides to make a few changes here and there, without any verifiable thing to back it up.
"Brian Martin of the University of Wdllongong, NSW, Australia, has done extensive research into the way science as an institution actually operates, separating the facts of how it works from the myths of how it is supposed to work.
If there are strong interests behind a particular position or theory, then the task of challengers is difflcult. This difficulty is aggravated if challengers are outsiders who don't "play the game". If you are a talented scientist with a good track record, working at an elite institution, and write a conventional-looking paper-but with challenging ideas-there may be difficulties enough. For anyone else, it is much tougher. "
hee hee, imagine if the ultra-religious people were forced to practice science and reason.
I do believe secularly, and religiously at the world. I believe in evelution, but much of the bible too.
Religion is fantasy and sometimes dangerous, but cold hard logic can be bruta. Humanist values are less dangerous than religious fantasies.l
Look at where a world of religious fervor has landed us. Fundamentalist nutjobs overseas who want us all dead, and our first line of defense is run by fundamentalist nutjobs inside the Beltway...
The grass is greener on the science side. Unfortunately, the world is living on the religion side. Besides, science is less likely to discriminate based on someone's social views.
Sorry, but you aren't welcome here. That's why we have those tests. We have enough morons without inheriting all of Europe's morons.
Science and reason, but not Stephen Hawking. His theories may or may not be any good, and he is not representative of all scientists.
Luckily I dont have to discard my religin for want of logic , reason and science before my religion stands on the very foundation of these same intelligent components.Cheers
I'd rather live in a world of religion then in a world of science fiction.
|
