#416612

Anonymous
Quote:
Everyday decision making is not based on scientific theories (not entirely anyway). People use rationale and logic when performing tasks or making small scale decisions in everyday life. But when we're talking about existential questions such as "Why are we here?" and "Where did we come from?" science is the only sure way of knowing the answer.

You have it the other way around.

Intuition is good. Scientists use it for ideas and what they think will happen in their experiments (hypothesis). But you can't treat a hypothesis as fact.

Noone is suggesting that.

If your only evidence in something is that you believe it exists, then it isn't fact no matter how much you believe.

I would say that whether you believe in it or not has absolutely no bearing on its existence.

If our whole perception of the universe was based on believe then little children who really believe that a tooth fairy visits them to give them money in exchange for their teeth would have to be treated seriously when they say they believe in the tooth fairy.

If their teeth were disappearing and money miraculously appeared under their pillow would their faith in the tooth-fairy be beneficial or not?

Belief is not enough. And absence of scientific evidence doesn't mean people can fill that gap with belief or faith.

Rigorously testing a proposition is not always an option. One area where the scientific approach is sub-optimal is society and ethics.
Here's a concrete example: have you heard of the prisoner's dilemma?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrisonersDilemma.html
Now factor in religion which condemns selfishness and praises altruistic behavior and you get the optimal solution.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but if there is no evidence for something, then it shouldn't be treated as fact.

You can treat something as a fact for practical purposes, if it's beneficial.
Imagine you have 2 sentient mice in 2 cages. One of them believes that when it presses the button in the cage, the mouse-god will give it cheese and the other one is an atheist mouse. Obviously the 1st mouse will get the cheese and the second one will get nothing.

I might decide to pass Dr. Seuss books off as biology books that proof the existence of such creatures as a Yink. But, of course, we all know it's just a children's book based on a mans imagination. He has no evidence for the existence of these creatures so we don't treat those creatures as real or existing.

There is a big difference ::)

Theists use their respective religion's theology to explain the universe and all things previously unexplained.

If that were true, scripture would get progressively thinner. :)

That is very subjective. Agnostics don't prove anything. There are a few kinds of Agnostics. None of them prove their point of view. And frankly, I don't believe Agnostics exist; you either believe or you don't. Once you're introduce into the notion of deities you automatically decide (in your mind) whether you believe such things exist or don't.

That's a hilarious idea. Most people give it a lot more thought than that, agnostics included.

Religion does not use any logic at all. If we talk about Christianity (which I'm assuming you're familiar with) then what logic was being used when they wrote in the bible about a man living for over 600 years?

Perhaps you would care to point out the fallacy here? Logic has its rules. Simply stating something that contradicts common sense (and is intended to) is not illogical.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

And what logic was used when the Bible stated that the world was split into three races who were all descended from three people who were all siblings? There is no logic.

The expression you're looking for is "common sense". Do not mistake it for logic.
That and, depending on how you interpret that passage, it might actually be factual.

The logic I think you're referring to is when theists try to use their religious teachings to explain knew things that weren't encountered back when these religions were established. For example, in the age of enlightenment many 'scientists' were using the Bible to determine the Earth's age. They added up all the instances where years are mentioned in the Bible and came up with the answer of somewhere between 5000 and 6000 years.

You're off by several hundred years. It was during the middle age when people would count the years from the creation of the world, not during the enlightenment period.

I can understand how they were using logic but this is just an example of how logic isn't always correct. I guess you could say it's only half the formula.

Logic is the rules of reasoning. It's abstract and independent of fact. If all angels have wings and Michael is an angel then Michael has wings is a logically correct statement, irrespective of whether angels exist or not.

Sure, science uses logic in the same way religion does, as in they both used established rules and laws. But the difference between science and religion in this area is that science goes one step further and tries to prove what they're claiming using objective means. On the other hand, religion uses logic to come to a conclusion and leaves it at that. And the reason for this is because 99% of the time, the conclusions that religion comes up with aren't testifiable. Or they are in fact testifiable, and proven wrong, but people keep believing it anyway.

Falsifiable. Able of being proven wrong. And no, that's the rules of science. Religion is not science. And that is a good thing, because it gives us a different point of view.