|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off.
until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies.
the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists.
|
On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists.
I don't care too much for the dark matter explanation either, but it's mostly pop science anyways. There is scientific proof for the "phenomena" somewhere out there though, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making a case to "have faith" in science, but to follow the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 22 2014 16:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. I don't care too much for the dark matter explanation either, but it's mostly pop science anyways. There is scientific proof for the "phenomena" somewhere out there though, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making a case to "have faith" in science, but to follow the evidence.
is it "pop science"?
science has no explanation for the movement of galaxies except by inventing "dark matter" to balance out the forces.
when some dark matter particles are found i'll react accordingly.
if they are never found then their "dark matter" explanation can going into the same garbage bucket as the church's concentric circles explanation for the movement of planets around the earth.
as always i'll continue to think critically about anything anyone tells me.
if you have an alternative to the "dark matter" magic that is currently being offered up by cosmologists.. i'm all ears.
in watching this "church/religion versus science" debate and what i see are 2 groups of philosophers trying to sell me on their "view of the universe".
i do not want either group taking any of my tax dollars.
if some university wants to spend $10 billion dollars looking for "dark matter" they can do it on their own dime.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's better to not know about galaxies let alone how they move. useless pieces of crap in the sky.
|
On February 22 2014 17:11 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:58 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. I don't care too much for the dark matter explanation either, but it's mostly pop science anyways. There is scientific proof for the "phenomena" somewhere out there though, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making a case to "have faith" in science, but to follow the evidence. is it "pop science"? science has no explanation for the movement of galaxies except by inventing "dark matter" to balance out the forces. when some dark matter particles are found i'll react accordingly. if they are never found then their "dark matter" explanation can going into the same garbage bucket as the church's concentric circles explanation for the movement of planets around the earth. as always i'll continue to think critically about anything anyone tells me. if you have an alternative to the "dark matter" magic that is currently being offered up by cosmologists.. i'm all ears. in watching this "church/religion versus science" debate and what i see are 2 groups of philosophers trying to sell me on their "view of the universe". i do not want either group taking any of my tax dollars. if some university wants to spend $10 billion dollars looking for "dark matter" they can do it on their own dime.
The difference is science knows that it doesn't know exactly how it works. That's why its Theory. We think it works like this but we cant prove it yet.
If we find a way to prove it nice but if it proves to be wrong we adjust and come up with a new model.
Religion on the other hand says what they think is true, has always been true and doesn't want to prove it.
|
On February 22 2014 17:11 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:58 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. I don't care too much for the dark matter explanation either, but it's mostly pop science anyways. There is scientific proof for the "phenomena" somewhere out there though, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making a case to "have faith" in science, but to follow the evidence. is it "pop science"? science has no explanation for the movement of galaxies except by inventing "dark matter" to balance out the forces. when some dark matter particles are found i'll react accordingly. if they are never found then their "dark matter" explanation can going into the same garbage bucket as the church's concentric circles explanation for the movement of planets around the earth. as always i'll continue to think critically about anything anyone tells me. if you have an alternative to the "dark matter" magic that is currently being offered up by cosmologists.. i'm all ears. in watching this "church/religion versus science" debate and what i see are 2 groups of philosophers trying to sell me on their "view of the universe". i do not want either group taking any of my tax dollars. if some university wants to spend $10 billion dollars looking for "dark matter" they can do it on their own dime.
I guess we can be glad that you arent in charge of how tax dollars are spent.
This began with a conversation about young earth creationism. Where do you stand on that? Is this again just 2 groups of philosophers selling their views on the universe?
|
On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists.
Dark matter has nothing to do with stellar modelling. Certainly not like galaxy rotation curves or cosmology where you NEED dark matter to explain observations (or some alternate theory).
The frustrating part about discussing dark matter is that your partner needs to be aware of all the observational evidence that lead scientists to propose it. THEN you can have an intelligent debate on whether dark matter might be the best explanation for all these unrelated observations or maybe some other set of ideas would be better. Or maybe none of the above and we should be looking at something else.
Maybe these people are asking you to take it on faith is because they sense you are not informed well enough to actually engage in a serious scientific discussion.
|
On February 23 2014 00:18 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. Maybe these people are asking you to take it on faith is because they sense you are not informed well enough to actually engage in a serious scientific discussion.
And with this in mind, it ought to become clear why so many brands of face-value, vulgar atheism are met with disdain.
In other news, here's some good stuff on how the 2008 crsis was handled.
Two days after U.S. officials decided to let Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, and just before the Federal Reserve unleashed a torrent of programs to bolster the financial system, central-bank officials were still struggling to grasp the magnitude of the calamity that had hit the economy.
"I think that our policy is looking actually pretty good," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said of the level of interest rates at a closed-door Fed policy meeting on Sept. 16, 2008, according to transcripts of its policy meetings that were released Friday after the traditional five-year lag.
Officials decided at the meeting to hold interest rates steady at 2%. It was one of Mr. Bernanke's last moments of passivity in the financial crisis.
As he spoke, the Fed was moving ahead with plans to help bail out American International Group Inc., the large failing insurer seen as crucial to the financial system. Within days Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would go to Congress and make an urgent plea for a bank-bailout plan. By year-end, the Fed chairman had pushed a still-hesitant central bank toward an unprecedented experiment with easy-money policies aimed at reviving the economy.
The Fed transcripts, 1,865 pages documenting one of the most turbulent economic times in the nation's history, covered eight formal and six emergency policy meetings the central bank conducted in 2008. They provide the most complete view yet into developments inside the nation's central bank as the financial crisis worsened and threatened to plunge the U.S. into another Great Depression.
Among their revelations: Mr. Bernanke and his Fed colleagues spent much of the year scrambling to catch up with worsening financial turmoil and economic conditions, sometimes moving aggressively only to be surprised when conditions deteriorated again.
New View Into Fed's Response to Crisis
|
On February 23 2014 00:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2014 00:18 hypercube wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. Maybe these people are asking you to take it on faith is because they sense you are not informed well enough to actually engage in a serious scientific discussion. And with this in mind, it ought to become clear why so many brands of face-value, vulgar atheism are met with disdain.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure it must be frustrating to hear that you are wrong when the other person doesn't understand in detail what you actually believe. But I've yet to come across any explanation that addresses the legitimate concerns of atheists about various forms of Christianity.
(Mostly that it's holy book is factually incorrect and contains parts that are deeply immoral by the standards of many modern christians.)
|
On February 23 2014 00:35 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2014 00:24 farvacola wrote:On February 23 2014 00:18 hypercube wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. Maybe these people are asking you to take it on faith is because they sense you are not informed well enough to actually engage in a serious scientific discussion. And with this in mind, it ought to become clear why so many brands of face-value, vulgar atheism are met with disdain. Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure it must be frustrating to hear that you are wrong when the other person doesn't understand in detail what you actually believe. But I've yet to come across any explanation that addresses the legitimate concerns of atheists about various forms of Christianity. (Mostly that it's holy book is factually incorrect and contains parts that are deeply immoral by the standards of many modern christians.)
The mind blowing part, the one that many laymen ignore, is that there are many devout Christians who totally agree with your parenthetical. The operation plays out very similarly to what was just said in regards to dark matter; someone with only a cursory knowledge of the phenomena puts out an argument/statement that tacitly includes a definition for said phenomena, when in reality, they really have not done any work in establishing that this definition even deserves the stage at all. The same thing happens with matters of spirituality all the time; the most vehement detractors when it comes to religion, this includes folks like Hitchens and Dawkins, are only able to float their rhetoric on pontoons made of "every believer slavishly follows an outdated book about a man in the sky that guides everything". In truth, doubt, how to regard a book as flawed as the Bible, and how it is that belief can operate alongside a healthy intellect are major components of thoughtful, contemporary religious thought, and these are not exactly new concepts either. The issue is that those who speak most loudly, the so called "fundamentalists", drown out the others and trick non-believers into thinking that the cornerstone of religiosity is as ugly as the thought process that "fundies" put into their reading of the Bible.
|
On February 23 2014 00:45 farvacola wrote:
In truth, doubt, how to regard a book as flawed as the Bible, and how it is that belief can operate alongside a healthy intellect are major components of thoughtful, contemporary religious thought, and these are not exactly new concepts either.
Yes, I understood that this was your point. But I've yet to see any description of HOW this could work (without deliberate self-deception). I'm actually genuinely interested and would like to read something that addresses these issues head on.
|
On February 23 2014 00:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2014 00:35 hypercube wrote:On February 23 2014 00:24 farvacola wrote:On February 23 2014 00:18 hypercube wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. Maybe these people are asking you to take it on faith is because they sense you are not informed well enough to actually engage in a serious scientific discussion. And with this in mind, it ought to become clear why so many brands of face-value, vulgar atheism are met with disdain. Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure it must be frustrating to hear that you are wrong when the other person doesn't understand in detail what you actually believe. But I've yet to come across any explanation that addresses the legitimate concerns of atheists about various forms of Christianity. (Mostly that it's holy book is factually incorrect and contains parts that are deeply immoral by the standards of many modern christians.) "every believer slavishly follows an outdated book about a man in the sky that guides everything". In truth, doubt, how to regard a book as flawed as the Bible, and how it is that belief can operate alongside a healthy intellect are major components of thoughtful, contemporary religious thought, and these are not exactly new concepts either. The issue is that those who speak most loudly, the so called "fundamentalists", drown out the others and trick non-believers into thinking that the cornerstone of religiosity is as ugly as the thought process that "fundies" put into their reading of the Bible.
The other annoying thing is when people watch a minute of youtube clips and think they know enough
|
In my experience the vast majority of Americans are not very sophisticated religious thinkers though. Most have run of the mill justifications and prosaic responses.
|
On February 23 2014 00:51 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2014 00:45 farvacola wrote:
In truth, doubt, how to regard a book as flawed as the Bible, and how it is that belief can operate alongside a healthy intellect are major components of thoughtful, contemporary religious thought, and these are not exactly new concepts either. Yes, I understood that this was your point. But I've yet to see any description of HOW this could work (without deliberate self-deception). I'm actually genuinely interested and would like to read something that addresses these issues head on.
This is where paths diverge rather dramatically, as there are an incredibly large number of different takes on what belief actually is, what it means in respect to actual knowledge, and how it is that the tenets of something like Christianity or Judaism make any sense to follow or agree with in the first place. These operations tend to be (perhaps even must be) intensely personal, so much so that understanding these things practically requires that one actually know other people who perform them.
Personally, I'm a big fan of a mix between Existentialist and, gasp, Postmodern thought on the subject. I think that even the most staunch of atheists rely on faith-based meta-narratives to guide the process by which they understand the meaning of their lives, and the fact of the matter is that religious folk operate in the same way. Meaning, at least as a discretely linguistic concept, is almost certainly dead (and was very likely never alive, mind you), so when different people choose different sorts of narratives, be it The Triumphs of Science or The Comfort of Belief, I'm inclined to withhold judgement based on the title alone and instead allow the story arch to tell the tale. In other words, the content of an individual's life and actions ought to operate as a far more salient point of judgement than the fashion in which their story is labeled, and I think this is why a lot of anti-religion, the vast majority of which is targeted at very clearly backwards thinking like that of Young Earth Creationism or the Catholic protection of child rapists, simply misses the mark in terms of addressing what actually needs to be addressed. To be frank, I think a lot of progress could be made if non-fundamentalist believers and atheist/agnostic types put aside their stylistic meta-narrative squabbles and actually united against modes of thought that are, without much legwork, demonstrably negative and harmful towards progress and harmony as concepts. Alas, that might just be the optimist in me, but one can hope
On February 23 2014 01:09 IgnE wrote:
In my experience the vast majority of Americans are not very sophisticated religious thinkers though. Most have run of the mill justifications and prosaic responses.
I think the same can be said for everyone!
|
On February 22 2014 17:11 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 16:58 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:45 lamprey1 wrote:On February 22 2014 16:16 aksfjh wrote:On February 22 2014 16:07 lamprey1 wrote:
science has created "dark energy" and "dark matter" to make sense of how various galaxies move.
and both of these look like "anti concepts" similar to "god" in order to balance all their equations.
bottom line is science really does not know why galaxies move in the way they do and so they've had to create "dark matter" and ackowledge they really don't know wtf is going on.
i'll give some cutting edge cosmologists credit for having the balls to admit how little they know about galaxies. If you put your stock in God for the unexplained, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Never has that bet paid off. until someone finds a particle of "dark matter" its hard to listen to what science has to say about the behaviour of stars and galaxies. the irony is that in heated disputes about "dark matter" i can often induce the pro-science guys into telling me to "have faith" that "dark matter" exists. I don't care too much for the dark matter explanation either, but it's mostly pop science anyways. There is scientific proof for the "phenomena" somewhere out there though, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making a case to "have faith" in science, but to follow the evidence. is it "pop science"? science has no explanation for the movement of galaxies except by inventing "dark matter" to balance out the forces. when some dark matter particles are found i'll react accordingly. if they are never found then their "dark matter" explanation can going into the same garbage bucket as the church's concentric circles explanation for the movement of planets around the earth. as always i'll continue to think critically about anything anyone tells me. if you have an alternative to the "dark matter" magic that is currently being offered up by cosmologists.. i'm all ears. in watching this "church/religion versus science" debate and what i see are 2 groups of philosophers trying to sell me on their "view of the universe". i do not want either group taking any of my tax dollars. if some university wants to spend $10 billion dollars looking for "dark matter" they can do it on their own dime.
Pulling government funding on the search for dark matter would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. With no money, they couldn't look very seriously, and then doubters would spring up and say that the whole idea is nonsense because they haven't found proof.
"Concentric circles" wasn't just the Church's explanation, it was basically everyone until Copernicus. There was lots of evidence to support it at the time, and there wasn't much to contradict it.
|
And the coolest thing about the whole thing is, ideally you don't spend money on a big experiment that COULD prove something, you spend the money on an experiment that distinctly answers the question if the existing theory still functions. For example, CERN. That shit is expensive. However, their experiment had the necessary accuracy to actually show with reasonable certainty that if they hadn't found the data they have found, there would be something wrong with the standard model. Which is amazing. That is the kind of experiment that is worth spending a lot of money on, because no matter what they find, it brings science a huge step forwards. And even more amazingly, negatives are at least as good of a result as positives, because they show you that something with your current theory is wrong, and it needs to be changed, which pushes science as a whole forwards.
The scientific method is based on people trying their hardest to poke holes in existing theories and prove them wrong. Which over time leads to very solid theories.
The religious method is based on having non-falsifiable assumptions, usually about things that are not part of the material world anyways.
As such, they really shouldn't be in conflict. Science if for the material world, proving stuff, and finding out HOW stuff works. Religion is for the spiritual world, and try to answer the question WHY stuff works. Because science can never fundamentally answer a WHY question.
If both stick to their respective areas, they can coexist without a problem. However, historically religion has often tried to answer HOW questions, and those answers usually turned out to be utter nonsense if rationally examined. On the other hand, nowadays a lot of people try to use science as a faiths substitute and try to use results from science to answer WHY questions, which is similar nonsense. The closest secular thing to religion would actually be philosophy, not science. Now, you can be perfectly happy without religion in your live (I am, for example). But don't try to use science as a religion, because that is not how science works. Science tells you how things work. Not more, not less.
|
you have philosophy for the "why". saying religion is for the spiritual world isn't saying anything. you have to look at it from a socio-psychological perspective to get something meaningful out of it.
|
Yeah, but i wouldn't say that philosophy is a science, i'd rather classify it as a secular religion, even if that doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
