2012-10-05, 17:02 | Link #1103 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Science grew out of Alchemy; but you would never consider Alchemy as Science. The only way Abrahamic religion adapts is by literately starting brand new sects. The idea is that the holy book is never wrong, you just have to read it differently. I remember the story of how one of the earliest female scientists proved Isaac Newton got one of his equations wrong; she was vindicated after much hard work and testing. No one went back and retroactively claim that Newton got it right and we merely read his book wrong.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-05, 17:06 | Link #1104 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Are you sure that whatever way of telling time (understanding this world) is quite proven? Would a sundial ("unproven" nature-based, essentially religion) be as proved as a mechanical clock (science)? One cannot quite say that.
|
2012-10-05, 17:07 | Link #1105 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
new projections show it's stronger than ever in the USA... EU will soon follow. liberals are on the wrong side of history and will go down the tubes due to the abysmal reproductive rate of liberals (particularly white people) and immigration. go savor this article below The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think Population change is reversing secularism and shifting the center of gravity of entire societies in a conservative religious direction. Spoiler for :
|
|
2012-10-05, 17:12 | Link #1106 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
There have been a lot of things removed from that book over the millenia. Things that are considered wrong in some way and thus removed from the canon. Plus there are religious scientists that try to find what was right and wrong within the context of that book (or series of "books" perhaps). Some have come to different conclusions based on archeology of locations in the bible, or caligraphy of the original text or writing style to see who wrote it and when and thus check to motive to see if that part is "really the word of God", or just some angry rabbi with an agenda for or against the crown of Judea.
__________________
|
2012-10-05, 17:13 | Link #1107 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-10-05, 17:19 | Link #1108 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-10-05, 19:16 | Link #1110 | ||
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
You're attitude seems to suggest that you view religion as some kind of immortal constant that will always hold the same weight in our lives. I'm saying that Science is only a part of the larger evolution of human thought. It is merely the reasoning tool of our current epoch, and like religion before it, it will surely be replaced, eventually, if we don't kill ourselves first. Quote:
The only places where the population of religious people is increasing are developing countries in Africa and Asia. In the developed world the population of religious people is dropping at an exponential rate. Here is a link to some evidence from a far less biased source, scroll down for statistics: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm |
||
2012-10-05, 19:38 | Link #1111 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Immortal constant: No, it's a matter of not believing one system is superior to another, which in your initial way of stating, made it seem science is superior to religions. Quote:
|
||
2012-10-05, 19:38 | Link #1112 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
If they lack insurance, who pays for it? The hospital can take it on as a charity case (which I presume ultimately means that the government covers it), or they can simply take the financial hit. In either case, we're paying for it in some form. Worst-case scenario, the hospital goes under. We haven't paid for it financially at that point, but it's worse, because then our care options are diminished. The other aspect to that is that care at the emergency room tends to be very expensive. It's not designed to be a primary care setting, and it's very cost-inefficient from that perspective. Additionally, treatment is usually inexpensive if a problem is caught early, and the cost rises very quickly as the problem worsens. With that in mind, it makes sense to give people an incentive to go to the doctor early. Forcing everyone to have health insurance covers all of those problems. It means that nobody is a freeloader, because everyone is paying in. Additionally, if people have health insurance, they're more likely to make use of it, right? So maybe they'll get their annual check-ups, and maybe their problems will be caught and dealt with earlier, saving the entire system time and money. The alternative, as I see it, is that we choose a more spartan view of things. No health insurance? Tough - no treatment, even if it means that you'll die from something that was easily preventable. That would prevent people from making use of services that they didn't pay for, thereby driving up costs for everyone else. This wouldn't necessarily drive costs down, but to explain why gets into a talk about how insurance works - regardless, it's about the principle of people getting service for something that they didn't pay for. My opinion is that the spartan view is pretty bad. I like to think that we look out for one another and have each other's best interests at heart; that we value life over money. Despite my view, the reality is that someone has to pay for healthcare. Instead of taking the extreme and denying care to people who have no insurance coverage and can't afford the medical services, I think it would be easier (and better) if we just mandated that everyone had to have health insurance. If anyone has other ideas about how best to solve the problem that we're currently facing, I'd be interested to hear it.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-05, 19:41 | Link #1113 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Re: Religion x Science / Religion vs. Science / Etc.
Hm, wonder if we should have someone start a "religion" thread to discuss this as it's gone away from the original topic of this thread. This, of course, will be a heated topic -- so as I jokingly said previously -- Are we grown up enough for this thread yet? |
2012-10-05, 20:13 | Link #1114 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
I will say however that fewer people are claiming to be devoted to the organizations of religion. That is, people still believe in God or some other thing, but that doesn't mean they are Catholics or even Christians. They're just people believing what they want, as the freedom of society allows them to. This is a trend that has accelerated over the last century. The rise of atheism, or agnosticism, equally correlate to the rise of the sciences. As technology advances, so too does our understanding of the universe we live in, and as a result our spirituality is undergoing another revolution/evolution as we seek to balance our knowledge and wisdom.
__________________
|
|
2012-10-05, 20:20 | Link #1115 | ||
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
Quote:
For the record, I'm not an atheist. I believe in the all-powerful God known as RNG aka Probability. You could say that random chance is just that, but I say that random chance is essentially God. |
||
2012-10-05, 20:24 | Link #1116 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Original topic: So, apparently Romney came down to only a two percentage points difference with Obama according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on today. This will get interesting. |
|
2012-10-05, 20:49 | Link #1117 | |
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
Quote:
Quite simply anything that does not use the scientific method is not science. You are talking about the misconceptions that the general public have about what science actually is. For example, it is true that many people think Psychology is a Science, when in reality, Psychology is not a science at all. We have a term for these sorts of things, they're called Pseudo-Sciences. You have to differentiate between Pseudo-Science (doesn't use the scientific method, isn't science) and Science (uses the scientific method). I'm sorry if ignorant people are misled into thinking that Pseudo-Sciences are Sciences, but that does not devalue Science. |
|
2012-10-05, 20:58 | Link #1118 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
It seems we are in a position where we cannot agree. I'll just have my last word on this matter: To me, the belief that only science, which is nothing but a system in the end, can utilize the scientific method is the same kind of fundamentalist idolatry that people accuse religions of. The modern usage of the word science to include the way of pursuing knowledge is basically a bastardization of what science actually is, the organized system of the collected knowledge. As long as there is this difference in view (science as a system and science as the method), it will be difficult to converge our views.
To be blunt: I see your notion of science to be the very contrary of what science is supposed to be, resulting in only legitimating science as the sole system to look at the world in when taken to extremes. But of course you're welcome to your views, given you keep pressing on with the modern usage of the word science. |
2012-10-05, 21:04 | Link #1119 |
Battoru!
Join Date: Sep 2012
|
That certainly seems to be the case. You certainly come off as an intelligent, informed person so I can only assume that our differences of opinion are due to deep seated insurmountable differences in perspective, most likely based on disparate life experiences.
Yet anime brings us together. |
2012-10-05, 21:08 | Link #1120 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
@Religion: I think Religion has changed a lot over the last 200 years. In olden days, there were two branches of Christian thought. A more spiritual branch, which focused on the personal experience of god, and the more rational, which was based on studying scripture and tradition, and rationally describing moral laws and the universe based on that, and minimizing the importance of direct revelation from god. For most of Christian history, it was the rational side of Christian thought that was dominant, while the spiritual side was quite fringe. However, since the Scientific revolution, most of those who on the "rational" side of the church have ceased believing. Their belief was based on reason, and with the advances of Science the rational arguments for belief in Christian doctrine are very weak. But belief based on direct revelation through spiritual experience has not been harmed, so that subset of christians have continued to be fervent believers. Because of this, all the christian denominations are being steered in an "evangelical" direction, with a focus on the "personal relationship with god", rather then practice and legalism. Christianity hasn't changed, but it's believers have. If Christianity seems less based on reason today, it's because the only enthusiastic participants left are the ones who have experienced god speaking to them. Without spiritual experience reinforcing your beliefs, it becomes very easy to be swayed towards non-belief. People tend to believe in things if they have good reason to, and without religious experiences, they have no good reason to believe. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|