Which is Best for Building Consensus Between People? Religion or Science?

[sojourner]

And there it is.....the difference between religion and science. Refusing to accept the tenets of one belief system, whilst accepting the other without question. Never the twain shall meet. It works both ways.

Science isn’t a “belief system.”

 

[Deeje]

Science isn’t a “belief system.”

The unprovable parts of science certainly are. If you can't prove that something is true, then you have a "belief". Unless you can prove it, it isn't a fact. That is not rocket science.

 

[McBell]

The unprovable parts of science certainly are. If you can't prove that something is true, then you have a "belief". Unless you can prove it, it isn't a fact. That is not rocket science.

A fact remains a fact regardless if you can "prove" it or not.
And to be completely honest, you really do not mean "prove".
As is demonstrated through your evolution related posts, you actually mean "convince me".

 

[Deeje]

A fact remains a fact regardless if you can "prove" it or not.
And to be completely honest, you really do not mean "prove".
As is demonstrated through your evolution related posts, you actually mean "convince me".

Convincing people is what proof is for. Indisputable facts are not based on assumptions but on things that are provable by testing. Many of science's theories are not testable so....If it isn't testable, it isn't provable...if it isn't provable, its a belief. Logic 101.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh, please DO provide an accepted definition of science that states it's not a methodology. And science isn't the reason why we're failing to reach consensus. We're failing to reach consensus because you refuse to accept the universally accepted definition of what science is.

Ha ha! Just like an extreme religion.
You sound like some kind of extreme Christian fundamentalist, pointing at some other group and shouting 'They are not Christians. We are the accepted ......!'

And you seek consensus....... with your long winded waffle. And which sciences will you accept as 'science'? Eh? We've already heard that one claimed science is not a science on this very thread.

A General Consensus is no more likely to be achieved with science than with religion...... even I, a Deist, can see that. The evidence is for this is in how easily evangelists can be received by people, and how they can afford to buy television channels and huge public premises. Why is this? Because they can COMMUNICATE with all kinds of people, in all walks of life..........

Although there are some very highly capable scientists on RF who can communicate with mostly anybody with ease, many are as tied up with inability to communicate in simple language as.... as...... a great body builder might be muscle bound.

Science won't be able to achieve Consensus until it can be bothered to talk to people. But some of it can be dismissive of so many. Who do you want consensus with? Just the the higher ranges of IQ?

Ah........! thought so...... the lower orders of IQ won't count, I expect. All dismissed as either idiots imbeciles morons or BIFs? Not worthy of you?
Science can and should keep searching for knowledge, but wow betide any society that ever seeks to follow an 'accepted consensus'.

Science is not methodoly......... it is simply 'knowledge'. Or are you are 'methodologist'? Even that word is amusing......
News Bulletin. Methodologists have found a new Vaccine for ..... !! Lovely.

 

[McBell]

Ha ha! Just like an extreme religion.
You sound like some kind of extreme Christian fundamentalist, pointing at some other group and shouting 'They are not Christians. We are the accepted ......!'

And you seek consensus....... with your long winded waffle. And which sciences will you accept as 'science'? Eh? We've already heard that one claimed science is not a science on this very thread.

A General Consensus is no more likely to be achieved with science than with religion...... even I, a Deist, can see that. The evidence is for this is in how easily evangelists can be received by people, and how they can afford to buy television channels and huge public premises. Why is this? Because they can COMMUNICATE with all kinds of people, in all walks of life..........

Although there are some very highly capable scientists on RF who can communicate with mostly anybody with ease, many are as tied up with inability to communicate in simple language as.... as...... a great body builder might be muscle bound.

Science won't be able to achieve Consensus until it can be bothered to talk to people. But some of it can be dismissive of so many. Who do you want consensus with? Just the the higher ranges of IQ?

Ah........! thought so...... the lower orders of IQ won't count, I expect. All dismissed as either idiots imbeciles morons or BIFs? Not worthy of you?
Science can and should keep searching for knowledge, but wow betide any society that ever seeks to follow an 'accepted consensus'.

Science is not methodoly......... it is simply 'knowledge'. Or are you are 'methodologist'? Even that word is amusing......
News Bulletin. Methodologists have found a new Vaccine for ..... !! Lovely.

WTF does this sermon rant have to do with the post it is in reply to?

 

[oldbadger]

WTF does this sermon rant have to do with the post it is in reply to?

Did you have something that you wanted to add? Any particular points?
The basic message in that post was that methodology ( ) is unlikely to be better at gaining consensus in the World than religion because methodologists ( ) can tend to be so dismissive of such a large proportions the World's people.
I don't think that methodology ( ) can communicate easily with a large % of the population.

Best consensus? Unlikely.
Over to you.......

 

[McBell]

Did you have something that you wanted to add? Any particular points?
The basic message in that post was that methodology ( ) is unlikely to be better at gaining consensus in the World than religion because methodologists ( ) can tend to be so dismissive of such a large proportions the World's people.
I don't think that methodology ( ) can communicate easily with a large % of the population.

Best consensus? Unlikely.
Over to you.......

Sounds to me that you are just as guilty of what you accused him of.
Except he isn't claiming the higher ground....

 

[oldbadger]

Sounds to me that you are just as guilty of what you accused him of.
Except he isn't claiming the higher ground....

Oh, I'm not claiming to be methodologist ( ) nor Theist but if you have something to tell me that could gain consensus between us then that would be fine.
Over to you?

 

[McBell]

Oh, I'm not claiming to be methodologist ( ) nor Theist but if you have something to tell me that could gain consensus between us then that would be fine.
Over to you?

Are you missing the point intentionally or are you simply not smart enough to see the point?

Either way, you are not offering meaning discourse.

Have a nice day.

 

[chinu]

Which is best for building consensus between people? Religion or science?

​

Consider a physics teacher in London, another physics teacher in New Dehli, and a third physics teacher in Beijing. Their religious feelings might be quite different. Their politics might be quite different. Their notions about the individual and his or her relationship to society might be quite different. But their views about the nature of the atom are likely to be quite similar --- perhaps even identical down to the last detail.

Does this not tell us something about the power of the sciences to create consensuses between people?

Are there lessons from the sciences in consensus building that we can apply to religion, politics, and other areas of human life?

Which do you think is more likely to unite the world peacefully? One religion? Or one science?

There are two persons in front of you. Science teacher -- Religion teacher.
Science teacher -- will show some certificate in odrer to prove that he/she is a genuine science teacher. But, which certificate will prove that the claiming religion-teacher is a genuine religion-teacher ?

Your question stands absurd until you provide the name of authority that issues one a religion-teacher-certificate.

 

[McBell]

There are two persons in front of you. Science teacher -- Religion teacher.
Science teacher -- will show some certificate in odrer to prove that he/she is a genuine science teacher. But, which certificate will prove that the claiming religion-teacher is a genuine religion-teacher ?

Your question stands absurd until you provide the name of authority that issues one a religion-teacher-certificate.

Except the 130 posts before yours....

 

[chinu]

Except the 130 posts before yours....

So what ?

 

[oldbadger]

Are you missing the point intentionally or are you simply not smart enough to see the point?

Either way, you are not offering meaning discourse.

Have a nice day.

Ha ha !
What a perfect example of a person offering discussion to reach consensus, and the methodologist ( ) dismisses both person and discussion and walks away.

You've just proved how methodology cannot arrive at consensus ..... exactly for one of the reasons that I mentioned.
QED
Now.... Any religions want to discuss that?

 

[sojourner]

The unprovable parts of science certainly are. If you can't prove that something is true, then you have a "belief". Unless you can prove it, it isn't a fact. That is not rocket science.

The improved parts of science are called “hypotheses.” This fundamentally differs from belief.

 

[McBell]

Ha ha !
What a perfect example of a person offering discussion to reach consensus, and the methodologist ( ) dismisses both person and discussion and walks away.

You've just proved how methodology cannot arrive at consensus ..... exactly for one of the reasons that I mentioned.
QED
Now.... Any religions want to discuss that?

Now all that is left for you is to fly on home and claim your victory....

Though it explains quite a bit, your thinking that you have been "offering discussion to reach consensus" is laughable at best and a flat out lie at worst.

 

[oldbadger]

Now all that is left for you is to fly on home and claim your victory....

Though it explains quite a bit, your thinking that you have been "offering discussion to reach consensus" is laughable at best and a flat out lie at worst.

You failed to achieve a consensus.
And your insults show how ruffled your feathers are.
See you around.

 

[McBell]

You failed to achieve a consensus.
And your insults show how ruffled your feathers are.
See you around.

Sad that you are unaware it is a two way street...

But hey, you do you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And there it is.....the difference between religion and science. Refusing to accept the tenets of one belief system, whilst accepting the other without question. Never the twain shall meet. It works both ways.

Excuse me?

 

[oldbadger]

WOW... you sure wrote a whole lot of words to demonstrate that you can't provide an accepted definition of science that claims it's not a methodology. Your ignorance on this subject is truly phenomenal.

And it's sad that you still haven't grasp what this thread is even asking. It's not asking is science or religion CAN achieve consensus... it's asking which is MORE likely. But we've gone over this already and you just ignorantly choose to ignore it. Rather pathetic, in my opinion. I agree, neither one ever WILL achieve consensus... and it's all because of the willful ignorance demonstrated by individuals like you. And you're right, willful ignorance is NOT worthy of any rational discussion, by me or anyone else.

The above is how methodologists like you will never be able to guide the World in to consensus.

I counted several insults there.
We're done ..