The difference between science and religion

[SkinWalker]

Right. With fallacious tricks like the above, the only evidence presented that I've seen is that the rational cannot be expected to engage in rational discussions with the superstitious.

If I criticize the claim of evidence above (none has ever, truly, been presented after all), then I'm met with the well-poisoning comment that I'm simply being dismissive. If I disregard it for the nonsensical argument that it is, I tacitly admit the irrational to be true.

Deception and obfuscation appear to be the armor and weapon of the anti-scientific when debating with the rational.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Science is a very peculiar kind of faith, which assumes that faith itself can be self-correcting.

People doing science can be dogmatic, but they must remember that science is a continuously self-testing and self-correcting faith. The faith comes in the idea that it is a way in which we can generate increasing understanding of the world around us

how is science a faith?, it is the study of known things. it is entirely the opposite of faith. faith implies you believe in something without proof, science is the practice to seek truth and explanation.

peace.

 

[lightgigantic]

how is science a faith?, it is the study of known things. it is entirely the opposite of faith. faith implies you believe in something without proof, science is the practice to seek truth and explanation.

peace.

the faith of empiricism innvolves these two points

1 - the cause if objective
2 - the senses can reveal the cause

(since the senses are inherently subjective, the faith lies in the belief that they are capable or discerning the objective)