[Credendovidis]

Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade.
And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.

Frequently I see statements here in posts like :
- In science, theories are abandoned when they conflict with reality.
- Ask any scientist... if something better comes along they will abandon their current view in a heartbeat.

Such statements can never be made by persons who have a good idea of the Scientific method. They are completely misrepresenting the reality and the Scientific method, as they suggest that science is unreliable because of that checking, changing, and upgrading.
And always they are made by people who stand behind loads of religious dogma's.
A rather hypocrite position, of course !

Note that in science a Theory is as near as one can go to reality, and unlike what we mean with a theory in normal daily life (which in science carries the name (hypo) thesis : something between a claim and a Theory).

From me you may believe whatever suits you. But why not support your own world view or discuss the positives and negatives of your own views, instead of attacking by misrepresentation any opposing views?

For me religious dogma seems a strong negative, as it stiffles any debate on the real basis of and for belief and religion.
For me the Scientific Method is a great good, as it ensures that the current position in any scientific position is as near as possible to the latest available, checked, and tested information.

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest??

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
Or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?

:rolleyes:

[Fr_Chuck]

A world based on religious truths, a world based only on man made ideas of science, that has been proven false over and over as new evidence is learned. Or relgous truths that remain true forever.

[Credendovidis]

Chuck : but are "religious truths" not also based only on man made ideas?
All claims of God(s) existence and powers, and all "religious truths" are beyond scrutiny, as they are hiding behind religious dogma, making it a closed - circular - argument of BELIEF only. Unsupported BELIEF without any OSE.

Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

[sndbay]

Chuck :
Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

Challenge.. Give me scientic proof of the date of your birth and that it was you born?

[Fr_Chuck]

Chuck : but are "religious truths" not also based only on man made ideas?
All claims of God(s) existence and powers, and all "religious truths" are beyond scrutiny, as they are hiding behind religious dogma, making it a closed - circular - argument of BELIEF only. Unsupported BELIEF without any OSE.

Give me science and the scientific method any time ! At least that is honest and not hypocrite !

:rolleyes:

·

Of course that is just what you "BELIEVE"

[Credendovidis]

of course that is just what you "BELIEVE"

It is what I logically have to conclude from the total lack of any OSE for religious claims and all circular religious argumentation. You seriously mean to say that "religious truths" and/or all claims of God(s) existence and powers are not beyond scrutiny and hiding behind religious dogma?
Because that - the difference between the approach of science and that of (organized) religion is what this topic is about.

:rolleyes:
·

[sndbay]

I logically have to conclude from the total lack of scientfic proof that your own existence is not there. You have proven nothing of it..

Science has proven man exist because it is repeated done through birth in human. But where and how does the individual existence get proven?

[Credendovidis]

I logically have to conclude from the total lack of scientfic proof that your own existence is not there. You have proven nothing of it...

And I logically have to conclude from this response that it lacks any sense of reality, logic, and sincerity. And you are part of that group of people who have as their mission "to spread the word"?? I doubt you will be very successful...

:rolleyes:

·

[sndbay]

Credendovidis, That is wrong because with all that you have said, I find the reality, logic, and sincerity to my challenge a definite importance to proving you can not scientificly show the existence of your own beginning. It can only be established by written document, oral communication, and witness. There is nothing scientific about these 3 legel testimonies.

Scientific method is defined as related to measurement of phenomema and experimentation or repeated observation.

[firmbeliever]

So what is better , more reliable, and more honest ???

A world view based on beyond-discussion dogmatic claims?
or
A world view based on one or more scientifically tested and re-checked thesis and Theories?

:rolleyes:

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

[michealb]

Fr chuck,
Religious dogma or religious truths change frequently. Think of how many religions there are currently and how many there have been. All claim to have the truth. Even your own religion has changed several time since it first began and has had several truths changed. Hence why you probably haven't stoned anyone of late because your religious truths have changed. How do you prove whose truth is the most correct? Through science and evidence.

[firmbeliever]

Michael,
It is true, to discern truth from falsehood we do need to research and understand,but does this mean that we are comparing science and religion and taking the better of the two?

Personally for me sciecne has never actually proven my beliefs wrong,contrary to that my beliefs strengthen each time I learn something new through scientific research.

[michealb]

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

The reason they keep getting compared is because certain groups in the United States are trying to push their religion into science classes around the country. They claim that their religion is a fact and that since it is a fact it should be taught in science class. Since not everyone shares this view there are of course problems.

[michealb]

Credendovidis, That is wrong because with all that you have said, I find the reality, logic, and sincerity to my challenge a definite importance to proving you can not scientificly show the existence of your own beginning. It can only be established by written document, oral communication, and witness. There is nothing scientific about these 3 legel testimonies.

Scientific method is defined as related to measurement of phenomema and experimentation or repeated observation.

Umm really?
How about this for a scientific method of proving an individual exists. You can see them and anyone can repeat that observation that doubts it.

I know the group of flat earthers who think that there is a world wide conspiracy about the world being a globe and that their main hook is that you can't trust knowledge from anyone even yourself because once something is in the past you can't tell the difference between past and dream. It's a pretty stupid world view though if you ask me. I use stupid because I don't know how else to describe it.
theflatearthsociety.org - Index

[Smoked]

I have no idea why you even want to compare science and religion, it is like comparing apples and oranges...

I rely on both,one for worldly knowledge/awareness,the other for spiritual growth and purpose in life.

Because his whole purpose on this forum is to try to insight the people with his nonsense. Use any logical response and he will derail it with some other nonsense and use a typical tactic of circular arguments to try and prove nothing.

[sassyT]

Religious dogma's are established opinions.
Doctrines of theology and/or religion, formally stated and authorititatively proclaimed by a church.
Believers can only accept them, not discuss, change, or upgrade them.

In science there are no dogma's : everything is open to discussion, to check and test, to change and upgrade.
And Objective Supported Evidence is at the basis of that process.
:

Well said Credo.. For this reason macro evolution is Not science. It is a religious movement under the guise of science. ;)

[Fr_Chuck]

well said Credo.. For this reason macro evolution is Not science. It is a religious movement under the guise of science. ;)

Well that is what you "beleive" I guess

[Fr_Chuck]

The reason they keep getting compared is because certain groups in the United States are trying to push their religion into science classes around the country. They claim that their religion is a fact and that since it is a fact it should be taught in science class. Since not everyone shares this view there are of course problems.

The real issue is that the Christian wants all possible "beliefs" to be taught, if the public school, using public dollars wishes to teach unproven assumptions of the creation of the earth, other possible teachings should also be available as other possible ways, Or at least a warning that other ideas are taugh. Also those children that are religious should not be counted incorrect when they answer otherwise to questions, or at least be allowed to state in the belief of this text book this is what was taught.

[Choux]

Religious dogma and religious teachings have been "fixed"in time... there is no chance for revision of error. Therefore, religion is inflexible and becomes more and more contrary to reality as time goes on and science validates facts about the physical Universe and the occupants therein.

Religion originally attacked biology, but they were unsuccessful as the workings of living beings were studied and revealed. Then, religion attacked physics/astrology, and they are failing in their attacks. Now, religion is reduced to lying about reality and lying about many other things in order to save face about their religion(Christianity and Islam) having any merit at all other than as a feelgood. Religion is about authoritarian inflexible thinking, about belief and not facts and proof. Religion is in a power struggle with reality and science.

Science is about trial and error and finding the truth about how Creation works... it is fluid and open to discussion, and open to contradiction and more trial and error. :) Science is not fixed and inflexible or authoritarian.

The goal of science is learning HOW CREATION WORKS. :)

Religion is about assuaging the fears of folks.

At this time in the Twenty First Century, science and religion are mutually exclusive. No rational folks go to ancient religious scriptures to LEARN HOW CREATION WORKS. :)

[Fr_Chuck]

No religion is even more relivant today than it was 2000 years ago, the fact people have become more self determined to reject it, does not make it wrong, But yes since religion is based on absolute truth, it is unchanging and unwilling to accept the wind of opinion of mankind.