leibowde84
Veteran Member
Isn't the truthful religion based on claims made by an individual about God?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we remove the dogma from science?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Dogma is dogma.
But I agree it's not fundamental to science, while it is to religion.
I don't see any difference between true & untrue religions.
With so many faiths out there, many are mutually exclusive.
What's the method to determine which have The Truth?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That is the point I'm trying to make.
But not for Islaam.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Can one differentiate true and untrue from science? Please
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Dogma is neither fundamental to science nor to the truthful religion. Please
Regards
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That requires faith, acknowledgement of beliefs as such. For academic science, this runs counter to it's fundamental ideology
But it's dogma serves a purpose, it gave us steady state, big crunch, canals on mars, Darwinism, piltdown man, global cooling/warming and so on. Determining the right path is easier when the wrong one is first exposed
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
― Carl Sagan
― Carl Sagan
Yes.
"True" (only temporarily so) science has theories whose predictions have been verified.
"Untrue" science is theories whose predictions were falsified.
I allow that some religions are so lacking in dogma as to be virtually without it.
But vast majority do dogma big time.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Science accepts improvements/changes to understanding when evidence is presented that contradicts previous understandings. Scientists call each other out.
Most religions, otoh, have a problem with changing their understand of reality. They start with their beliefs and try to find evidence that supports those beliefs, ignoring evidence to the contrary as unreliable.
The problem is when religion proclaims it self truthful, it is down hill from there. Scientists do not consider science truthful.
Last edited:
They do? How are you defining "dogma?" Because if you mean "incontrovertible truth laid down by some authority" I can't say I've observed this statement to be a correct one. Dogma seems particular to certain branches of the Abrahamic religions and rather absent outside of that.
Well, the definition I gave basically encompassed the first three with one sentence. If we're including that fourth one, we end up having to capitulate to the OP that the sciences are dogmatic (along with any other human endeavor that has any kind of establishment). I can't say I'm a fan of that approach. It makes the meaning of the word "dogma" much too broad to me.
Which dogma? That observation and testing is to be done to establish an idea?
No, that won't go away.
First of all, resistance isn't dogma.
Yes, any new ideas have to validate themselves through the accumulation of evidence. They also have to meet the objections from alternative theories. That isn't dogma: that is making sure evidence drives the discussion.
If you consider *that* to be a dogma, then no, science will not give that up.