oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
| Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40) | | This seems to be old man's position anyway, which leaves only atheism. |
Not quite. I'm just saying it's irrelevant. NOMA and all that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Except that I don't think that magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value in any meaningful way. If it did, well, it's had sufficient time to come up with something meaningful and as yet it has not.
| Quote | | I'm responding to the idea that religion and science are mutually antagonistic. |
I find that it's the religious amongst us that hold that view more then the scientists.
I mean, who is up in arms about teaching "Darwinism" in schools? It's not the science community.
Who was against discovery of the true aspects of the solar system and the earth's place in it? It's not scientists.
Who is against condom and contraceptive use? It's not scientists.
So it's true that religion and science are mutually antagonistic. It's just only true from the religious point of view. From the scientific point of view it's really about as relevant as the colour of your socks.
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
