[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My point was that religions do not make progress (in the sense of overall advancement, not just a different set of essentially the same thing), whereas science does. Converting to a different religion is not "progress", it is just taking a different set of dieties and stories on faith. Using new religious practices does not equate to changing because of accurate new evidence, it equates to placing your religious faith in a different direction.

I also never once said that all scientists were 100% accepted. Science does not change itself overnight. It takes good solid evidence for theories to change, not just some guy saying, "hey, it's like this!" and then suddenly everyone starts believing him. That would be an act of religious faith, not scientific reasoning.

This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question: Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith? It was expounded by a guy named Darwin as a possibility in the 19th century, and immediately accepted by the scientific community -- without proof. Ever since then it has been repeated and repeated as fact and anyone who dares to point out any flaws in it is subjected to the same sort of persecution that you see in religious disputes -- character assassination, blacklisting (getting people fired or breaking contracts), etc. It really looks to me like evolution was the 'new faith' invented to replace the old faith, and that's why it cannot be allowed to fail. Which makes it not science. We had a whole thread about it a while back, you can probably find it with the forum search.

[ March 15, 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Andrés]

Evolution theory is science, and it's based on observation.
It's not repeating what makes it valid, it's that it is still the best explanation consistent with most available data.
There are many fossil evidences of evolution of many species and examples of natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) in action in living species.

[Chronon]

I think what Dogscoff had to say about his philosophy of religion is relevant here. As is usual with these discussions, we are operating on a number of different levels. As Dogscoff argued, there is a huge difference between organized religion (the Church) and a personal spiritual journey. I would argue that the path to enlightenment is a sort of personal progress (although the Zen masters would whack me around the shoulders for conceiving of it in this way ).

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

Moreover,in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate (and post-modernists' advocate, too), I would like to toss out the postulate that progress itself is a modern myth. On one hand we have modern medicine, computers, cd players, SUV's, and Quick Marts. On the other hand, we have the atomic bomb, nerve gas, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, and totalitarianism (impossible without modern technology). Are we really improving ourselves?

About twenty years ago I would have answered a resounding yes. Now I'm not so sure...

[Andrés]

Evidence supporting Evolution vs Evidence supporting Creationism

[Fyron]

Chronon:

ethnic cleansing

We have _always_ had ethnic cleansing. This is nothing new.

On the other hand, progress (the Enlightenment philosophes at work again - the same people for whom Catholicism was a superstition) in its modern usage is irrelevent to religion. Early Christianity, for example, eschewed the material in favor of the spiritual (the Papacy of the Medieval and Early Modern periods is another story) and would have scoffed at the importance of worldly progress. Saying that religion does not have progress is like saying you can't score goals in baseball. It simply does not apply.

My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Baron Munchausen :

This is a fascinating argument. I see you keep repeating it so I have a question

It is only repeated because people keep missing my point. I have no choice but to reword it, in hopes that they can see it.

Do you consider the concept of evolution to be science or faith?

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

[Gryphin]

Hmm the most basic Faith vs Fact
What was there before there was something?
Where did that something come from?