| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| Scraps | ©2012-2013 ~Metatality |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
-Dara O'Brien
1- Philosophy and religion are no the same. A philosophy is more like a code of ethics, which I am in complete support of.
2- Religion and science do not have equal claim to truth. Science is someone saying "here is why I think this and this is my proof", while religion is someone saying "take my word for it, this all happened".
3- Science is postulation, I don't plan on claiming they are perfectly true. I will say however, that it is a lot closer than anything else we have at the moment. The fact that it is always changing means that it can keep getting closer, rather than stagnate.
4- It's not impossible to prove scientific theories ad laws, they do it all the time. Admittedly new things are still in the process of being confirmed, and may not be, but to say that it is impossible to prove these things is silly
2 - Yes, yes they do, simply because you don't accept the bible because of it's age doesn't make it any less credible than a paper on physics, both were written away from your eyes, neither are provable by anyone other than who wrote it, one just happens to say things you don't agree with.
3 - And if you pay attention to, say, world history, you would know that religion has constantly changed, too.
4 - If you can tell me a scientific law that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, THEN science will have more claim than religion.
2- My objection was not to it's age but to it's unconformable nature.
3- True, they both change, but it was the first bit that was important.
4- I didn't say beyond a shadow of a doubt, and even admitted to it's uncertainty, but "more" is a relative term. I agree it isn't perfect, but it has "more" evidence and "more" demonstrable consistency, therefor it has "more" of a claim than religion.
Also, simply because you value consistency over maturity does not mean that you can say something like 'if you don't believe what I believe then you simply don't understand it,' you chose to insult an entire group of people because they value thousands of years of religion to the science of the past 400 or so years, and I understand science has been around for longer than that, but values like Chemistry, Physics, and Quantum Physics, the sciences that truly have relevance to questions like the structure and creation of the universe, are relatively new. You have a different worldview, preference does not make it superior, and it does not make a conflicting ideal objectively wrong.
Also, I never objected to the age of these things, maturity is irreverent. When did I show any interest in the age of any of the things we discussed?
In fact I think we have taken this a bit out of proportion. The original stuff was in regards to people who deny evolution or climate change or atomic structure because it's not in the book.