Mike’s blog link to a statement on the traditional definition of life in the bible (basically – life is in red blood, that’s why good Christians should eat flesh but let the blood “spill into the dust” (paraphrasing), and octopus and squid don’t have red blood so therefor they aren’t alive) led to me posting the link to The Octopus News Magazine Online TONMO.com which led to a careful discussion of religion vs science. I wasn’t going to just say “you religious people are delusional” so I skirted the whole religious issues to say:
Do whatever works for you to be a decent human being. If you have to wear a yellow t-shirt to avoid going on a stabbing spree, then far be it from me to tell you that yellow is a yucky colour. But don’t expect me to wear a yellow shirt. Conversely, if your belief in the Spaghetti Monster leads you to go on a bloody crusade, I’m against that.
Then there was some discussion about how much religion was responsible for violence in history. Clearly: lots. However, to think that getting rid of religion would end war and conflict in the world is specious. People are jerks and will fight over anything – land, skin colour, oil, sexual preference, women, etc etc etc.
And THEN somebody brought up this: “What lends the Bible credibility over the holy Koran, the Torah, the Egyption Book of the Dead, or the Greek pantheon of mythos? Holy texts depend on themselves as the base of their credibility.”
What’s interesting is that science textbooks are also bibles of a sort. Which is not to say that I believe they are sacred scriptures. My point is unless you are going to recreate every science experiment for yourself, you do have to take certain ‘tenets’ of science ‘on faith.’ Do I know for sure that quarks exist? No, but I put faith in science (generally speaking), and the reason for that is science’s foundation is one of logic, perception and constant analysis and revision. Christianity, on the other hand, is about wacky stretches of logic, unquestionable doctrine and outdated tradition.
On another note, who remembers MAOAM candies?
I get what you’re saying about “faith in science”. It’s true that you’re not going to go testing every single postulate and rule that science has stated as fact.
But someone will, and is encouraged to do so. Science benefits incredibly from when old theories are found to be false (or, more likely “not exactly true in all circumstances”) and new ones are created to explain observed phenomena.
And if it’s very important for you to know for sure that a scientific theory is credible the evidence and results of testing are generally available for all to see (the Internet sure helps). So when you really need to the option of questioning Science is there for you.
Yay science!
” My point is unless you are going to recreate every science experiment for yourself, you do have to take certain tenets of science on faith.”
Dittoing Puck on this. In principle, you could establish these things for yourself. There are plenty of laboratories and science museums, where you can go and at least ask questions. But we have no place to go to hear burning bushes talk. And Cthulhu only talks to me in dreams, so I’m not sure that’s trustworthy.
I think you’re both missing the bigger picture, i.e.: Maoam.
So what’s up with you and German candies?? Hmmmm!
mit iodine!
I also agree with Puck. Also, the “tenets” of science, like whether atoms exist or water evaporates when heat is added, only exist insofar as they are provable. Science is not a bunch of “facts” you believe as much as it’s a method of approaching the physical world. You posit a hypothesis, and then test it to see if you were right. It encourages doubt and skepticism and experimentation. Religion is the opposite of this.
It bugs me when religious people (especially anti-evolutionists) say that science is a religion, too. Because it’s not. It’s just a logical method.
Well enspeakened. And I put ‘faith’ in that method for the very reason that I can and have perceived certain aspects of it first hand. However I have not myself perceived that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, even though science tells me so, it seems as reasonable as anything else put out there. And the best part is, the next time science tells me how old the universe is, it may be 12 or 14 billion years – because they’ve improved their technique!
Yes, but you could certainly study and become an astro-physicist and figure out for yourself using science how old the universe is.
Yes.
In principle.
In moderation!