Why religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language to prove their po (ritual, homosexuality)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Tony

Since ancient people tried to explain the nature the best way they could, they used their then scientific knowledge. When they didn't have enough of scientific knowledge, they used their imagination to answer their questions about the nature.

ok.

(That's why we have so many different religions. Many of them are already obsolete, like ancient Greek myths, for example.)

There are other explanations, but that's another thread.

So, what we have now is the battle between the modern science and the ancient science+imagination. Since the subject of this debate is still the nature and people as part of the nature - it's exactly the same field.

No, what we have is a false dichotomy, first perpetrated by certain religious fanatics, and now taken up by certain non-theists as if it had anything to do with anything.

What amazes me is how so many of you seem to think the original theists were actually *right*. <shaking head>

Oh, and btw, it keeps being pointed out to you, repeatedly, that religion _per se_ is not opposed to science. That's a phenomon of Western Christianity that grew out of historical events in Europe and it got carried over here, unfortunately.

And then there's the rest of the world, and time, and religious belief, which doesn't subscribe to the sort of nonsense you abhor.

Scientific methodology excludes religious one.

Duh? Scientific metholodogy deals with the natural. Religious methodologies use other means, and are not interested in the natural, but the ethical.

There is no point to look for natural answer if we already have supernatural one.

It's not a purpose of science to disprove gods and religions - what's the point to disprove fantasies?

Including, I guess, the fantasy that religion is always opposed to science.

Look, a search for the truth is a search for the truth, whether the "truth" is a physical one, in which case use science, or whether it concerns other questions of life, which science is ill-equipped to deal with.

I like your opinion that religion will never be able to prove god. I agree 100%.

So do I. I believe in God, but I am not stupid enough to think I can "prove" it in any scientific way. So clearly, there are people who understand science and don't have a problem believing in God or thinking that religion should be messing in science's business.

There nothing about religion that people can't understand. It's very simple: ancient people didn't have enough scientific knowledge, they needed answers, so they used their imagination.

Clearly there is something about religion that you don't yet understand.

They aren't all ancient, and they don't all spring from a time when people didn't understand science.

This leaves you in a position where you must explain your position in terms of modern religion.

Is the mid-1800s modern enough for you?

Please tell me how my religion needed answers to natural phenomena, and got "imaginative" and depended on supernatural ones instead.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Science rules? Well, perhaps if you're willing to take ads claiming to sell a "scientifically designed" fishing pole as evidence for your thesis, then science rules.

I was kidding about "Science rules". I mean, I agree with this statement, but the way it's put is funny.

For many people (perhaps for most people) science and technology are synonymous, and the proof that science is valid is nothing much more than its peculiar ability to come up with fuel injected cars, life extending pacemakers, new home cleaning products, and portable music. Those people don't so much look at the world through the lens of science, as they value and desire the technological marvels spun off from science. Both their desire for, respect, and understanding of, science is similar to a woman who loves a man only for his wealth, or a man who loves a woman only for her sex.

That's very narrow view on science. Science is so much more than just new products of technology. Philosophy, psychology, astronomy and many other fields of science don't produce "technological marvels". I agree with you that some not very educated people see science as you described. It doen't mean that they are correct.

If science ever quite spinning off new technology, they would fall out of love with it, and they would do so without ever having bothered to really understand and appreciate science in the first place. For the most part, I don't think you can properly call their views of the world "scientific", and it's questionable whether the impression science makes on them has much significance to their religiosity.

When a preacher sermonizes that "60% of AIDS cases in America involve homosexuals" he might sound a bit "scientific", but he's really doing nothing more than the copywriter who inserts the words "scientifically proven design" into his ad about fishing poles. Both the preacher and the copywriter are playing on the emotional appeal of "science" in order to gain respect for their drivel, but they most certainly are not promoting a scientific view of the world.

You see the same thing on a much grander scale when you go to a creationist website that purports to refute the theory of evolution with "scientific facts", or you go to the Focus on the Family website and read up on their "scientific evidence concerning homosexuality". You could study each of those sites for years and it would still be an unassailable Act of God if you could learn from those sites to have a genuinely scientific outlook.

Evolution doesn't have all answers yet and never claimed that. It's a work in progress.

Religions, on the other hand, are obsolete points of view of ancient people.

There is nothing scientific in religions from modern point of view. They were "scientific" thousands of years ago.

Tony, I just don't think I can take your statement, "science rules", without some significant qualifications.

Again, "Science rules" was jokilnly put but I agree with this statement in principal.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by evearael

Different methodology for different purposes. How's that literary critique of the quadratic equation coming?

Will you stop saying things like this? You're making me have to go change my underthings again!

Oh yeah...and frubals too...

[anders]

Originally Posted by Tony

The actual fact that religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language

After six pages, I still haven't noticed any examples proving that this really occurs somewhere.