Summary of the Science/Religion Divide (ritual, Creator, salvation, beliefs)

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

I do assume that, based on religion's Scripture and the anti-scientific pronouncements of believers.

Right, because there's only one, and all its adherents agree on everything.

[Popeyesays]

Esceptico,

Not ALL Scripture denies science.

"The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
14Bahá'u'lláh has also taught that prejudices, whether religious, racial, patriotic or political are destructive to the foundations of human development. Prejudices of any kind are the destroyers of human happiness and welfare. Until they are dispelled the advancement of the world of humanity is not possible, yet racial, religious and national bias are observed everywhere. For thousands of years the world of humanity has been agitated and disturbed by prejudices. As long as it prevails, warfare, animosity and hatred will continue. Therefore if we seek to establish peace we must cast aside this obstacle, for otherwise agreement and composure are not to be attained. "

Regards,
Scott

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Storm

Right, because there's only one, and all its adherents agree on everything.

Neither of which claims I ever made. I did, however, point out that literally millions of Christians affirm the truth of John 3:16. So are all these believers exceptions to the rule? Or do they demonstrate that credulity is more important to religious belief than rationality and logic?

I repeat, I'm not saying God doesn't exist or religious belief is wrong. I'm merely pointing out the difference between things we have reason to believe and things we believe out of mere wishful thinking.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

Neither of which claims I ever made.

You implied them in the sentence I quoted.

So are all these believers exceptions to the rule?

What rule?

Or do they demonstrate that credulity is more important to religious belief than rationality and logic?

That depends on both the personality of the individual and the soundness of their theology.

I repeat, I'm not saying God doesn't exist or religious belief is wrong. I'm merely pointing out the difference between things we have reason to believe and things we believe out of mere wishful thinking.

Your mistakes are (1) lumping all believers together, and (2) dismissing all belief as "mere wishful thinking."

[Popeyesays]

I showed a particular scripture thjat accepts sicence and religion as necessary to understanding existence.

Regards,
Scott

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

I do assume that, based on religion's Scripture and the anti-scientific pronouncements of believers. But that's irrelevant to my main point, that you're wrong when you equate scientific assumptions with religious faith.

So, bias is irrelevant unless one is religious. Typical.
Like I said, saying, "Religion defines objectivity and logic as threats to honest understanding, and as a result emphasizes blind faith and personal spiritual experience to compensate for its shortcomings as a mode of rational inquiry" is so biased, even "religious," (as you describe religion) that everything following collapses under its weight.

I'll bet you think I'm dismissive of science.

The interpretation of scientific facts takes place in the subjective mind; science cannot prove that the objective world, the world “out there,” is more real than the world within. It is assumed. Religion cannot be said to be a psychic illusion just because it is purely subjective.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

So, bias is irrelevant unless one is religious. Typical.

But I've asserted over and over that an inductive mode of inquiry is supposed to eliminate bias, not indulge it. You've simply ignored the point.

Like I said, saying, "Religion defines objectivity and logic as threats to honest understanding, and as a result emphasizes blind faith and personal spiritual experience to compensate for its shortcomings as a mode of rational inquiry" is so biased, even "religious," (as you describe religion) that everything following collapses under its weight.

A convenient way to continue to dismiss every point I make as biased. A mode of inquiry which emphasizes objectivity and repeatability, which responds to new information by broadening its scope, is by definition not religious. But again, you merely handwave away the point I keep making about the demonstrable difference between scientific assumptions and religious faith, simply because you happen to disagree with it, not because there's anything you can show that refutes it.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

But I've asserted over and over that an inductive mode of inquiry is supposed to eliminate bias, not indulge it. You've simply ignored the point.

Not at all. I just pointed out that what it's supposed to do and facts don't jibe.

A convenient way to continue to dismiss every point I make as biased. A mode of inquiry which emphasizes objectivity and repeatability, which responds to new information by broadening its scope, is by definition not religious. But again, you merely handwave away the point I keep making about the demonstrable difference between scientific assumptions and religious faith, simply because you happen to disagree with it, not because there's anything you can show that refutes it.

Actually, you do that yourself with your own religios-like fervor. Science tells us what can be said about the world "out there." Fine. I agree. That's why I love science. But it does not tell us how reality is. That's an internal interpretation and always there sould be some correlation. But relying on science to the exclusion of subjective realities is scientism. It's a faith-based philosophy because it's exclusive.

Sorry, but you sound just like a creationist speaking from the other end of the same stick.