[QUOTE="unholymight"] I don't think it was a strawman--you said someone could believe in both because past scientists have been religious. I said they wrapped magic around it and saw the scientific method through magical goggles.

This silly analogy is a strawman because it implies that they were somehow worse scientists because they were also religious.

The scientific method represents a principle in analysis where observation is needed to explain other observations. I wouldn't say it was created, since principles can exist without being written down on paper (eg. principle of evolution of entities that can reproduce and undergo inheritable changes).

Principles can't be created; but they can be organized and utilized.

They merely stumbled upon it and attempted to replicate parts of it in gathering information. Their philosophy, however is not entirely scientific (due to the religious aspect).

Science -----> Nature.

Religion -----> Meaning.

Science does not touch meaning.

Religion only remarks that God made nature.

They are irrelevant to eachother.

One can be fully scientific and fully religious.

The human mind is interesting in that it can believe in two opposing philosophies by alternating which one it believes in at different times.

. . .And you base this assertion on what?

I like to call this nonuniform,

Others call it cognitive dissonance; the only problem with your theory is that cognitive dissonance eventually gives way to one or the other, yet people can go their entire leaves believing both.

and the alternation is simply an excuse for not wanting to get rid of the magical parts, for whatever reason.

Oversimplification.

The result is that since their adoptation of the philosophy is impure, they have not really adopted it (since if you look at it from this point, they didn't have the philosophy at all).

And that is a very ignorant point of view, as it basically brushes over everyone who ever did by labelling their beliefs as something they aren't and going by that label regardless of any contradicting showcase; essentially you are doing everything those you think of a religious persuasion always do.

Theokhoth

I have to work on my essay.

Since it would be a cheap shot for me to leave a response to this and leave, I'm leaving with nothing ...

...

for now.

(hehehe)

[QUOTE="unholymight"] Arbitrality vs objectivity. The scientific method represents the purest form of the latter, where nothing is assumed to be true unless preceding evidence is there to stand for it. It does not take a true scientist to perform scientific experiments and yield results. A religious man can watch the mating patterns of frogs and base conclusions on his findings. However, the scientific method is as it is: nothing comes before evidence. If you want to believe in both, then really you are believing in the path of magic, and you automatically cause the scientific method (in your mind) to be a part of that magic, warping it in the process. There is nothing more certain: One cannot believe in the priority of evidence and the nonpriority of evidence both at the same time.Theokhoth

False dilemma granted by an oversimplification developed from a strawman.

The scientific method was created by religious people. To claim that the two are diametrically opposed is to simply blind yourself to the world entirely. Your view is more magic than mine.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

Theokhoth

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

To say that believing in both is impossible is rather ludicrous, as there are many people now and throughout history who believed in both and made great advancements in both.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.

Theokhoth

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I never said that. I'm only saying that you can believe in science and religion without conflict.Theokhoth

They are based on opposite philosophies.

-

Edited on Oct 8, 2009 12:23 am GMT Edited zero total times. The number below is incorrect.

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.