Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
Religion doesn't present any argument; as you yourself say, it only picks up where our knowledge ends and begins making unfounded guesses. You're correct that our scientific knowledge is necessarily limited. We've barely managed to escape the gravity of the rock we live on; whatever is outside the bounds of our universe is a long way off yet. The important thing to understand is that religion doesn't give you any answers; it only stops to seeking those answers. Time and time again in history, science has proved religion wrong. Every time the two clash, science comes out the winner. Our knowledge is limited, but it grows. If you were to flash forward ten years, there would be many measurable ways in which science has improved our understanding of reality. The same is not true of religion.
|
I count at least four statements in there which are incorrect - that religion doesn't present any argument (see philosophy of religion to illustrate how bogus that is), that religion doesn't provide any answers and inhibits finding answers (see Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel etc.), that science have proved religion wrong and that science and religion are in a battle where science is always the victor (see the existence of religious scientists). They are no doubt your opinions on the topic, but dressing up your opinions as fact is with respect the same behaviour as some religious believers which you quite rightly debunk. Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
There is no evidence suggesting that there is any hyperintelligent being obseving or controlling the universe. It is possible, of course, but mere possibility should not be enough to convince you of something. It's possible that if you mail me all your money, I could invest it and earn you millions of dollars, but you'd be a fool to do so. You should always demand evidence of something before you believe it to be true; any less robs you of your freedom and makes you a tool to those who might wish to manipulate you.
|
It's not so much a question of being "convinced" of something so much as being open to the possibility of it - no religion demands total, unquestioning adherence without any deviation whatsoever and even those who are priests etc. will most likely have had crises of faith in their lives. I have met a number of them. Your "demand evidence first" approach also does not seem to fit current scientific practice with regard to the Higgs boson search, as it is the most widely accepted theory despite no actual evidence of its existence and mathematical problems in its construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
The limitations of science shouldn't be an aggravation. Think about how much we already know; enough that ten lifetimes wouldn't be nearly long enough to learn it all. And yet with all this knowledge, it's barely a fraction of all that there is yet to learn. Now think of how much we have achieved with our little sliver of knowledge. Human lifespan has doubled, the internet allows the entire world to communicate instantly, we've visted our moon and sent a probe outside our solar system. All this, from so little. When we've learned ten times more than what we know now, imagine what we will be capable of. Knowledge is what drives our species forward; without it, a human is little more than a rather curious monkey. With it, we already have all this. Science is the vehicle that powers our understanding of reality, and I think that makes it the most incredible thing imaginable.
|
This I actually agree with.