is it ethical to attack a scientific theory because it goes against a religous belief

Religion is a way of explaining the meaning of things beyond what we can understand. I believe it was this way from the beginning of history. Truth is the ultimate religion. God is the ultimate truth.
Faith should not be threatened by questioning either scientific nor religious statements. Either can only result in helping to clarify the truth. But one must not ignore such challenges-it is only in doing this that sets ones growth toward what I believe is Love of God back

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think you are saying to use the 2 together to get to the truth which i agree with

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would then of course apply to scientists attacking religious ideas that do not contradict current science. Creastionist may still be under open season then, but a wide assortment of believers in Gods and ghosts and so on are not. For example for a scientist to say that someone who believes in ghosts is irrational would be, according to you, immoral. The scientist has no way of knowing whether the person is correct. That person may be experiencing a phenomenon that current technology cannot pick up. Ghosts certainly do not contradict any current science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd say, yes.

Evening!

Even the Bible states that 'Faith is based on knowledge,' so one would hope that any belief held, religious or otherwise, would be based on a thorough knowledge of the pertinent subject. Therefore, while I wouldn't use the word (or the practice of) 'attack,' my understanding is that it is perfectly ethical, moral, perhaps judicial, and most often necessary to dispute, in a civilized manner, what one believes to be an erroneous scientific theory. The word theory, after all, simply means best guess. - Jesse.

 

Religion works by faith while science works by fact, religion is irefutable and yet also lacks proof, the two ideas are incompatible

 

Nice! - Pretty insightful post for a 14 year-old - your parents and teachers probably deserve some credit too.

I prefer the term evidence to the term proof, as it adds a margin for caution, discussion, and criticism

 

when is it ever unethical to attack a theory? Its either going to show the theory's flaws or shore it up.

 

The difference between scientists and theists (although I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive) is that scientists are happy when a theory is disproven or overtaken; it means knowledge has advanced. Science is beautiful in that it is an ever growing and evolving understanding. Scientists are happy to see a theory disproved in favor of a better theory. Theists are not happy to see their religion attacked.

However, regardless, you can't attack science with religion. Both deal on different levels.

 

NO! Of course not.

'I have 2 hands'

'Blasphemy!'

'Nope, just a fact. I got 2 hands. Here's my right, here's my left.'

'How dare you speak such heresy! KILL HER!'

Dude, don't patronise him. He's just using common sense.

 

the point is not the atack on the theory but the arguments used for that atack, as i said before religion is not a sutable ground to form an atack

oh and synth, my teachers are ok ish but my parents are unintrested in science (my dads even Church of England) I am totaly self tought

 

I don't approve of blasphemy, even though I am not religious. Also heresy used to be punishable by the gallows in England.

 

G'morning!

Why is it that some people laud science as a belief system, as an authoritative voice?

Science is a Latin word (Scientia) that simply means *knowledge*

It doesn't mean anything more or less and it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.

There is a measurable difference, however, between knowledge and belief. (Belief and faith are reasonably close in meaning, although faith implies a hope of some kind in most cases.)

To say that 'Science deals with facts while religion deals with faith' is incorrect. The Christian Bible states 'Faith is based on knowledge,' marrying the two words in effect.

The word 'Religion' applies to any and every system of belief where worship is involved. Terminology is important, and Websters, my friends, is free.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That said, I am a Christian and I *know* that God exists. That's a step beyond belief and/or faith, and lands square in the realm of Scientia. Let's not confuse fourteen-year-olds with erroneous information. - Jesse.

 

G'morning Norsefire!

From your above post, I take it that you are unfamiliar with the term 'Spiritual growth,' and the many passages in the Bible which tell us that we will be shown more incrementally as this system nears its close.

'And the abundance of knowledge will increase.'

'The light grows ever brighter as you behold the day drawing near.'

Unless one is fond of delusion, self-delusion or otherwise, I believe it's safe to say that *all* seekers, secular and theist alike, are joyful when new information is revealed in any area of interest to them.

Theists aren't disinterested in Scientia (Science, knowledge), and certainly not in revelation.

Shalom Aleichem - Jesse.

 

Maybe because it actually works and has demonstrable results.

Actually it isn't.

If it said frogs were birds would it be correct?
Faith is not based on knowledge.

No, you believe very strongly, but remains a belief.

Hardly. The object of your belief isn't demonstrably real, therefore "knowledge" is not possible, therefore it's well outside of science.

Lest they grow up to be confused adults...

 

Oli...

You offer nothing to this discussion because you merely put forth your own meanderings without reference to anything authoritative whatsoever. You must think highly of your opinions, I'm afraid I don't. I've asked you repeatedly to back up your assumptions and quips with some concrete research, which, so far, you have chosen not to do. Unless and until you do, I don't have time to waste playing games with you. - Jesse.

 

P.S. Oli...

I *do* know that God exists, as I have ample proof of that.

How do I know that you exist? :shrug:

 

As do you.
You take the bible as the authority based on belief rather than fact.
There is no independent verification, it's a self-referential system.
The bible is correct because because it says so in the bible.

Games?
Your assumptions aren't backed up, why should I support mine?

 

I think we know about the derivation of the word, but it is rather silly from a lexicological standpoint to maintain its meaning has not changed over time. Are you truly maintaining this?

What units are you measuring that difference in? These two are so different that they are simply not comparable. Perhaps we are saying the same thing in a radically different way.

Where does it say this? The word faith occurs almost 250 times in the Kings James version. I've just checked them all and nowhere is thre an instance, implict or explicit, where this concept is expressed. Indeed there is at least one passage that runs counter to that concept - Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have no problem with you callig your belief a sub-set of knowledge, received or revealed knowledge, but please don't try a slight of hand to make it appear that such knowledge is also scientific. I'm sure you are not doing that, for that would be dishonest and un-Christian.


Jesse, I have noticed the exchange between you and Oli in this thread. You have been complaining about unsubstantiated claims. I agree claims should be backed up, or clearly identified as being opinion. Therefore I am especially intrested in your response to my paragraph on 'faith is based on knowledge'. You have made a very clear claim that this is to be found in the Bible. I am unable to find it in one particualr translation. I do expect you respond, either by directing me to where I can find this statement, or to retract it and accept the consequences that flow from that.

 

I have found by studying this theread that:
A) The bible can prove or disprove virtualy anything
B) Oli I reference back to "If it said frogs were birds would it be correct?" Therefor faith dose not imply fact
C) this thread is worthless because nobody has touched the topic only argued over the existence as usual

 

With respect, I beleive my first post addressed it succinctly. I stated that it was not ethical (I should have made clear this is different from unethical) it is merely foolish. Whether I am right or wrong this is a valid position to take on the question and completely addresses it. Since then, as far as I am concerned, we have just been shooting the breeze.