Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Anything that actively works against scientific progress is dangerous by it's mere existence. Examples are glaring through history. There was a time when transfusions were disallowed by the fundamentalist religious. Then it was transplants. Many people still today refuse medical care for their children opting instead for prayer. And the children die. Pretending like this isn't dangerous is underestimating a threat to not just progress but safety.
|
Just because someone doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean that they are actively working against scientific progress. You said yourself, you don't know which proportion of evolution deniers are working against science. Attempting to lump a general notion of religion in with people who actively work against science when you yourself admit that you have no hard data correlating religious folk with evolution deniers or people who are actively working against scientific progress is anything but rational and scientific.
Quote:
|
This isn't about having trouble understanding evolution, though. It's about willful ignorance. Have you ever debated an ID proponent or creationist?
|
Yes, the discussions aren't necessarily that far off from the ones I had in my brief stint on the forum of a certain prominent atheist. I don't debate with creationists or IDers on anything other than the definition of science. Like I said before, it is useless to debate facts with people who believe in ID or creationism because their world view is pretty air-tight. It's like trying to talk econ with a supply sider-- everything that's good with the economy is good because of supply side econ, and everything that's bad with the economy has nothing to do with supply side econ.
The only reason I debate with atheists is that I am one, and I feel that some of them poorly represent the rest of us, and do so while betraying a definite lack of the very reason and rationality they cite as their justification for nonbelief.
Quote:
|
Very few people live in a more liberal area than I, good sir. I'm not intolerant of religious beliefs. I could care less if you want to believe in a carpenter who could make wine from water. I have a problem, though, when subjective faith becomes ignorance that's forced on others. Scientologists can believe in thetans all they want, but when they sue people for talking about their religion, they've crossed a line.
|
I don't think that you're necessarily overtly intolerant of religious beliefs, and I don't think that one should be tolerant of all religious beliefs. I think we agree on a lot of things when it comes to religion. I just think that the problems caused by religious people are symptomatic of more endemic problems with humanity. I think that there are religious fools, but I don't think that being religious automatically makes someone a fool, or delusional, or unreasonable, or illogical, or foaming at the mouth with a passion for forcing their beliefs on other people.
Maybe I'm just over reacting to lazy use of language, but when an atheist criticizes religion in general for things that aren't a general property of religion I feel the need to say something. I'm sure you can relate to the need to correct someone else's willful ignorance.
Quote:
No. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. Philosophy can tell us if we should do something, science tells us if we can. They are quite different.
Trust me, this is the same coversation I'm having on a good dozen forums and several emails right now. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. They can go hand in hand, but they are very different.
|
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I will say this: the idea that science is the only way to explain reality is empiricism, it is a philosophical doctrine. I think what you should be saying is that morality can tell us if we should do something while science tells us if we can. Either way, the assertion that observable phenomena can be effectively explained solely through scientific means is a philosophical one, and one where you and many theists probably disagree.