• 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!

Does Science create any facts?

Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Quintessence said:
From your post responding to dogma, might I ask how you are defining "dogma?" It's my understanding that "dogma" means "some body of teachings laid down by an external authority as (incontrovertibly) true." This is definitely absent in many religions. "Tradition" is not the same thing as "dogma." It sounds like you are using the two to mean the same thing?
Click to expand...

Dogma, tradition, sayings... are not they all essentially the same?

That is, if one wishes to partake of a particular version of a particular branch of some religion, then they must adhere or accept most, if not all, of these as A Given?

But if they are individually "rolling their own", then my remark from my original post, applies, in that their religion dies when they die. But even then-- they have "borrowed" ideas from elsewhere.

But back to my point: if you don't accept the ideas? You do not belong to the religion.

Thus, I think that "dogma" is accurate-- it's a requirement to belong to whichever religion we were speaking of.

Even if the consequences of rejecting these dogmas, is without anything noteworthy (as is often the case in Wicca, for example) that puts you (at least slightly) at odds with anyone who does not reject these.

I think "dogma" is quite accurate: required belief(s) in order to belong to the religion.
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Quintessence said:
As for your claims of "false analogies," they are not false from all perspectives. Once we start hitting up non-transcendent theologies (aka, the gods are the world or various aspects of it), the gods very much do exist in "meatspace" as you call it. Please remember, I'm not coming at things from a Christian perspective. I'm a Pagan. Only certain types of theism demand the gods have the characteristics you are assuming. What you write doesn't make sense to me, from what I know about religions (Paganisms in particular) or the diversity of theistic beliefs.
Click to expand...

You have a low threshold for the meaning of the word "god". :D

Me? Let's delve into literature for an example. In the comic book "universe", there is a character named Superman. Is he a god?

Not by my definition. He does not qualify-- instead, he's just a very powerful individual, as compared to ordinary humans.

So let's look at a different "universe" in literature. Is the comic book character Thor a god? No, he is, again, just a very powerful individual. I rather like Tony Stark's take on Thor-- he's not a god, he's a man with really really sophisticated technology.

(aside: I reject Author C Clarke's aphorism that "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", with the implication that it is equally impossible to comprehend.

Wrong. Once you understand that magic (wishing to change reality) is not a valid explanation? And that materialistic explanations can explain how the universe works? You are never again satisfied with "magic" as an "answer"-- given sufficient time, training and resources, you could learn how the "magical technology" actually works, and understand the underlying physics. Tony was right-- given enough time, he could reverse-engineer everything Thor does, including his hammer Moljiir.)

So, what qualifies as "god" in my parlance? That's easy: Any being that can use Magic. (see above)
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Fool said:
yes, they already existed and science simply recognizes what is. as to God, depends on what is defined as god
Click to expand...

God or Allah (could be named Yahweh) is an attributive Being who has made every thing physical, material,ethical , moral and spiritual possible. It is one attribute there are many others well defined in Quran. Please
Regards
 
Fool

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
God or Allah (could be named Yahweh) is an attributive Being who has made every thing physical, material,ethical , moral and spiritual possible. It is one attribute there are many others well defined in Quran. Please
Regards
Click to expand...


so do you see this consciousness as having anthropomorphic qualities/attributes?
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Bob the Unbeliever said:
Dogma, tradition, sayings... are not they all essentially the same?
Click to expand...

To you, maybe they are. I would be aware that to others, including myself, they do not hold the same meaning. My religion has traditions, but it certainly does not have dogmas. Furthermore, acceptance of ideas or beliefs isn't even the core foundation of Druidry or of Paganisms in general. I understand that Protestant Christians have drilled it into the public consciousness that beliefs and ideologies are all that matter in a religion but for Pagans, it's much more about what you do or practice. :D

Bob the Unbeliever said:
You have a low threshold for the meaning of the word "god".
Click to expand...

Not really. My base definition for the gods is one that respects cultural diversity rather than attempting to pretend it does not exist (or worse, undermine it). If someone tells me their gods are such and such, I take them at their word as I have no reason to do otherwise. So while you may not agree that the things Pagans consider gods are gods, I hope you would respect our perspectives and aim to understand our different points of view. I do not define gods as "beings that can use Magic." In fact, I can't say I've run into someone viewing them in that way before. It's interesting, even though I do not agree with it.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
There are absolutes also and the absolutes are not necessarily relative, their perception could be. For instance beauty.
Regards
Click to expand...
Absolute and relative are not states, but relations. Things are relative to each other, and absolute unto themselves. All things.
 
David T

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
"Science theories can't be proven true only false"
Is it a pity? They laud science so much while its theories cannot be proven true, these are only proven false. Is that what one wants to say? Please
Regards
Click to expand...
I think that some scientists ok a few scientists understand that. Jane goodall is a fantastic scientist. Lots of fantastic people working in enviromental sciences fantastic views. What we hear is a lot of nonsensical philosophy dressed up and justified as science or being scientific. Religion is the mother of that in modern culture though. Before the contempoary "religious vs science" debate christianity looked down its intellectual nose at those "primatives" in pre-literate cultures because they believed they had science. My degree was called " the queen of science" or theology. Its the reason that the university of bologna was started, it was to teach theology, and law!!!!! Preperation for either the church or government were the most important "white collar" jobs of the day!!!!! This was in 1094.
 
Etritonakin

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Science does not only discover facts. Science creates -therefore it creates facts which once did not exist.

Similarly, the elements once were not fact -and now they are.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Etritonakin said:
Science does not only discover facts. Science creates -therefore it creates facts which once did not exist.

Similarly, the elements once were not fact -and now they are.
Click to expand...
Does science claim to create anything from annihilation? Please quote from science.
Regards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top