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

[Rolling_Stone]

My bad. I allowed your sophistry to get the better of me.

Bottom line is this: Science assumes matter exists and the universe is understandable and proceeds on these assumptions; faith providing the impetus. The fact that science is a powerful tool for manipulation and exploitation does not in the least invalidate this statement.

However, I think congratulations are in order for how quickly you made yourself irrelevant in any discussion that involves religion. Statements like:

Religion, on the other hand, is about reinforcing subjective beliefs. Its adherents insist that personal experiences and wishful thinking be accepted as evidence to validate its claims. Any disconfirming evidence is either ignored or explained away as sacred mystery.

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.

Religion is an endeavor that encourages credulity, magical thinking, and indulgence of the very cognitive biases that compromise our objectivity.

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

show that you have no understanding, no clue, as to what religion is or how it relates to the world.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

You should be aware that you have said nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times in RF. So please excuse my impatience and boredom.

I don't know, Stone, this new kid on the block seems to have your number -- you've already been reduced to non sequiturs and to petty complaints such as the one above. Looks like you're in retreat.

Very impressive work, Escéptico! I've seldom seen the like of it.

[Escéptico]

Rolling Stone,

Despite your insistence to the contrary, the bottom line is that religious belief and scientific claims are different. One requires faith, the other doesn't.

Claim #1: Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor who lived some time in the last twenty million years.

Claim #2: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We can say we know that claim #1 is true. This belief isn't based on subjective personal experience or faith. It's based on a rational understanding of empirical evidential inquiry. It gives credit to all the researchers over the ages who have devoted time and effort to constructing and testing coherent models of our history and our universe. So much information from so many different lines of inquiry converge on the conclusion that humans and chimps share a common ancestor that there's nothing religious about claim #1.

Can the same be said about claim #2?

Isn't there something narcissistic about the assertion that "Evaluating empirical evidence takes pale (sic) in the same place where the evaluation of religious experience takes place: within."? What we've discovered about our world through the history of inductive inquiry doesn't depend on any one individual's opinion of the process. If you feel that the mountain of evidence supporting claim #1 doesn't exist until it comes into direct sensory contact with your consciousness, perhaps you need to take a reality check. If you believe that we only take it on faith that the world existed long before humans were here to perceive it, you're not even pretending to engage with science.

Sorry you're so impatient and bored with this discussion. I've tried to be as clear, direct, and civil as possible. Is there some rule here that says that you're obliged to post responses against your will?

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

Rolling Stone,

Sorry you're so impatient and bored with this discussion. I've tried to be as clear, direct, and civil as possible. Is there some rule here that says that you're obliged to post responses against your will?

Some people here like to make unnecessary personal attacks, to draw you into some kind of verbal fight, there's always the ignore button.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Some people here like to make unnecessary personal attacks, to draw you into some kind of verbal fight, there's always the ignore button.

Quite right. When someone proposes to talk about the difference between science and religion when they know one and not the other, calling religion "blind," etc., then their voice is hardly relevant.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I don't know, Stone, this new kid on the block seems to have your number -- you've already been reduced to non sequiturs and to petty complaints such as the one above. Looks like you're in retreat.

Very impressive work, Escéptico! I've seldom seen the like of it.

Well, I am impelled to believe that Esceptico is skilled at making bald assertions seem to be constructive argument. He certainloy passed it off on you. Perhaps it was your predisposition to agree with what he said?

Most debates here do not change anyone's original position, but I have seen Esceptico's arguments better presented.

Regards,
Scott

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Well, I am impelled to believe that Esceptico is skilled at making bald assertions seem to be constructive argument. He certainloy passed it off on you. Perhaps it was your predisposition to agree with what he said?

Most debates here do not change anyone's original position, but I have seen Esceptico's arguments better presented.

Regards,
Scott

So have I. I made the mistake of allowing myself to get caught up in his sophistry. Like I alluded to in my last post, it was rather silly to allow someone who doesn't know what religion is or how it relates to the world set the agenda or talk about the difference between science and religion when they know about one but not the other--it's sorta like allowing someone who's never see a cow talk about the difference between a cow and a cat.

Someone who cannot see that the evaluation of empirical evidence takes place in the same place where the evaluation of religious experience takes place, calling it "narcissistic," is just irrational no matter how well they put together their arguments.

Edit: Since Sunstone is so impressed by sophistry, perhaps he would like to tell us where evaluation takes place if not in the subjective conscious?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Well, I am impelled to believe that Esceptico is skilled at making bald assertions seem to be constructive argument. He certainloy passed it off on you. Perhaps it was your predisposition to agree with what he said?

Most debates here do not change anyone's original position, but I have seen Esceptico's arguments better presented.

Regards,
Scott

Scott, perhaps if you actually would bother to read my comments carefully, you might see that your characterization of them is some kind of rash assumption on your part. Good luck!