Raving Atheists Forum - View Single Post

06-20-2007, 06:11 PM

I'm of the view, now.... that science and faith shouldn't really 'converse'. they should talk... then leave the room as the other thinks. There is simply no 'debate' here. All debate does is delay the thinking process. As Harris says: "You don't convince someone through discussion, they convince themselves later" (Or something to that effect)

Two basic worldviews.

I) The religious one, that of the "Non overlapping magisterium" of science and supernatural. This view holds that the supernatural guides morality and ethics... but cannot define or provide evidence for it. In it's extreme, it also holds that the superntural also guides science... but few really take that seriously. Odd since the majority that "Won't go there" have the SAME basis of evidence to support the position that the supernatural guides morality and ethics.

2) The science one, there is no "Overlapping magisterium" There is only nature. The entire universe is nature and follows the natural laws, whatever they are. If something happens that you can't explain? Then that's just due to your ignorance of the natural laws. In the natural view, morality and ethics are driven by nature and the desire to survive... of course, survival is a group sport... so altruistically helping others to survive enhances your own survival, provided there the feeling is mutual.

As a philosophy, science is vastly superior because it forces one to include ALL connected aspects of a thought instead of allowing a single myoptic view to be analyzed with a DIFFERENT set of conditions than other single myoptic views.

Science does this through peer review, a process that allows others to support or disprove a hypothesis from a viewpoint OTHER than the originators.

Just for fun? I'm going to come up with a cool latin sounding phrase for it: OPERATUS UNIVERSALIS. Yeah, that works. It means "Universal operation" I.E. Any event or occurance will be observable within ALL of the event or occurance's scope of observability.

For example: If an event has the sun or moon move abnormally... that movement will be observable from wherever the sun or moon is visable from at the time of the occurance. Hmm... Fatima? Why wasn't the miracle at fatima viewable from wherever the sun was viewable at the time? Hmm? Science's mental discipline sees right through that, whereas religion cannot.

06-20-2007, 06:11 PM	#16
RenaissanceMan Guest Posts: n/a	I'm of the view, now.... that science and faith shouldn't really 'converse'. they should talk... then leave the room as the other thinks. There is simply no 'debate' here. All debate does is delay the thinking process. As Harris says: "You don't convince someone through discussion, they convince themselves later" (Or something to that effect) Two basic worldviews. I) The religious one, that of the "Non overlapping magisterium" of science and supernatural. This view holds that the supernatural guides morality and ethics... but cannot define or provide evidence for it. In it's extreme, it also holds that the superntural also guides science... but few really take that seriously. Odd since the majority that "Won't go there" have the SAME basis of evidence to support the position that the supernatural guides morality and ethics. 2) The science one, there is no "Overlapping magisterium" There is only nature. The entire universe is nature and follows the natural laws, whatever they are. If something happens that you can't explain? Then that's just due to your ignorance of the natural laws. In the natural view, morality and ethics are driven by nature and the desire to survive... of course, survival is a group sport... so altruistically helping others to survive enhances your own survival, provided there the feeling is mutual. As a philosophy, science is vastly superior because it forces one to include ALL connected aspects of a thought instead of allowing a single myoptic view to be analyzed with a DIFFERENT set of conditions than other single myoptic views. Science does this through peer review, a process that allows others to support or disprove a hypothesis from a viewpoint OTHER than the originators. Just for fun? I'm going to come up with a cool latin sounding phrase for it: OPERATUS UNIVERSALIS. Yeah, that works. It means "Universal operation" I.E. Any event or occurance will be observable within ALL of the event or occurance's scope of observability. For example: If an event has the sun or moon move abnormally... that movement will be observable from wherever the sun or moon is visable from at the time of the occurance. Hmm... Fatima? Why wasn't the miracle at fatima viewable from wherever the sun was viewable at the time? Hmm? Science's mental discipline sees right through that, whereas religion cannot.