Saturday, May 12, 2012

Atheists cling to Cherished myth of "science beatting religion"

 this post started with a childish little atheist named "wiseone's2cents" who claimed that all evidence supporting religion is faked and that the Catholics pay scientists to fake evidence. His original comment:

I will join in on the fight. I'm sure they are watching me and trying to silence me as we speak(I've already been!!!!!But the cats out of the bag, and more and more people are catching on to the mass brainwashing!

 I said:

that's a silly argument. scinece is not proof. this is nothing but the ideology of the fortress of facts. how many times have atheists denied they belief in it but here is again.

show me a single scientific fact that disproves anymore than particular ideas of God.
 Then Magritte says

This is a rather revealing statement. I've said in the past that the defining characteristic of theology over time is strategic retreat from knowledge. It seems the defining characteristic of God is - not having defining characteristics!
  But in other fields (remember religion not supposed to be scinece) you wold call that progress.

surgeons stop hacking off limbs when there's a wound they can't treat, and start opporating because they learn about germs, so you call that progress.

theolgoians say the earth wasn't' created in six days becuase science shows us it's older than it should be if that were true. and we have evidence that humanity evolved so it's not created in one day. you say "O see scinece is destroying religion."

the medicos had to change practice and develop methods of opporating becuase they discovered new info. that's progress.

theolgoians stop certain outdated beliefs and replace them with theology like process that incorporates evolution you say that's destroying religion.

the reason is because you assume fundie assumptions about revelation rather than seeking out historical assumptions about it.

you are a fundie. your assumptions are fundamentalist.
 Originally Posted by Magritte View Post
That's a poor analogy. There's no such thing as apophatic science.

 yes there is. Read Popper. that's all there is according to him.

atheists really do believe very deeply in the fortress of facts concept. Popper really does disprove it.

Originally Posted by Magritte View Post
What utter foolishness.

Popper's principle is that scientific propositions should be falsifiable. Theology's (tacit) principle is that religious propositions must be UNfalsifiable. That's why the state of affairs has developed such that the borders of science and religion are complementary, not congruent. Science advances, religion withdraws; through negative reinforcement, religion learns to make "safe" nonspecific statements only(*). Hence, apophatic theology.

(* I suppose this only applies to liberal theology; "Bob" knows there are plenty of yahoos clinging to falsified religious beliefs)
(1) there's no difference in saying what I said and saying "that scientific propositions should be falsifiable" those are the same thing so you are not refutting what I said. My analysis that that means that science is not a fortress of facts, atheism is not being proved and so on is still the case.

(2) your assertion Theology's (tacit) principle is that religious propositions must be UNfalsifiable. that's a lie you made it up. I don't know of single theologian, council or creed that say that. you are incompetent, you are ignorant you have no training. its' just another atheist atheist know nothing lies to lecture theologian on something he's never studied

(3) you define the refinement of religoius ideas as "withdraw" and purposely refuse to use the same terminology of scinece when it becomes outdated and people move to some other theory. The truth is scinece is littered with disproved theories from scinece retreated.

(4) you admit that science and religion have different domains. that means you are contradicting yourself when you turn around nad say ignorant. y that "region is withdrawing." Withdrawn form what? form a Territory that was not it's won how bad is that?

you want it bot ways. you know better to claim that they have the same domain but then also you want to pretend that religion is losing some imaginary contest that it never undertook in the first place.

(5) "through negative reinforcement, religion learns to make "safe" nonspecific statements " That's just another way of saying we are becoming more exacting and accurate in what go into which domain. In ancient times people mixed the two and used religion to explain the physical world because they didn't have sickness. As science evolves then obviously you have to disentangle them. that's not matter of one beating up the other it's just a matter of taxonomy.

you want to use the terminology that privileges scinece give is some imaginary victory in a mythical struggle it's not evening just so you can feel special about being an atheist becuase you have been pelted with truths and you see thee utter stupidity of your childish ideology.

The more clearly you begin to see that the fortress of facts is a house of cards the more tightly you clinch the last cherished lies that buttress the illusion.

No comments: