sillyputty
Banned
- 3,634
- 21
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
Religion is invalidated because of their countless revisions. If the claims on which they are based are ABSOLUTE as they claim to be then when they attempt to interpret their ABSOLUTE findings in a different way then they are in fact not absolute.Originally Posted by goldenchild9
The same thing happens with religion at large.Originally Posted by sillyputty
As someone said before. Science doesn't claim truth. If a claim is suggested and supported with evidence and tested consistently and it still holds up then it has merit. If it fails to support the claims that evidence suggest then it is dispelled.
I've used this example before but look at the difference between newtonian and einsteins physics. Newton was right...up to a certain point. Einstein just made a better and more accurate system that had more evidence behind it so its supported more than newtons conclusions. It didn't disprove newton, it simply said einstein was MORE right. Thats the point.
Let me ask you this?....
Has there not been countless revisions of religion?
Protestantism evolved as a debate about the beliefs, procedures and ideologies of Early Orthodox Catholicism.
There are hundreds of sects of any particular religion, hundreds of which place heavy belief of modern science but see existence in a more nuanced manner, very similar to that of the developing fields of quantum science.
But like I said, you are as much of a zealot as those you look down on, which blinds you from seeing the infinite gray area in which most human concepts dwell.
Science doesn't claim to be absolute. It can only define things to a certain degree of reliability. Your measurements will never be completely accurate, your findings will never be able to model reality perfectly. Thats why it tries to refine things to as best of its ability as it can.
What if we stopped at optical microscopes. How would be able to now see that DNA IS a double helix or how various diseases and viruses look with electron or scanning microscopes?
Science knows its limits and attemps to push them even farther.
Religion sets its limits but is forced to change them when society moves on beyond them. There is a reason Amish people aren't predominating christianity. Modern chrisians wouldn't dare live life like them but have moved on only picking and choosing what they want to support so as to let them cling to their old beliefs while benefiting from newer and updated theology while claiming it to be absolute. That is why religion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Science acknowledges its faults and moves on to being improved. It allots for the evolution of its methods. Religion does not yet it does so under the guise of moderates who pick and choose what suits them and yet illogically claim absolute authority.
That is where your argument fails.
I see what you're trying to do. You're saying that if I can subscribe to testing claims and verfiying them then i'm basically in a "group"...you want to categorize me.
You have to step outside of that need to group everything and try to assert things that consistently and for all intents and purposes reliable to particularly comfortable levels of scrutiny.
You are challenging the epistemological restraints of science...which is cool. You're asking how can we ever really know ANYTHING...and who knows, probably we can't.
But if we can assert things and back them up to reliable degrees that stand until they are challenged by things supported with even better evidence then how can we begin to move forward to solidifying our finality of knowledge?