sapphi_snake said:
GameOver22 said:
I think you might be missing my point. First, religion does not claim to have absolute knowledge. God has absolute knowledge, but religion does not. It doesn't take a very complex example to recognize this point (just think about how science has been much more successful at providing information about the natural world than religion- its quite clear that religion did not have absolute knowledge in this area).
In the same way you could argue that it is ridiculous to assume that scientists know all the secrets of the universe, I can argue that it is ridiculous to assume that a philosopher or theologian will know all the truths and implications of some logical system. As they learn more about the system and continue to recognize the implications of such a system, it is natural that they will gain a better understanding of their domain of study. This then leads to a revision of definitions and ideas.
My point wasn't that science and religion share a direct comparison and have similar modes of explanation. My point was that definitions and ideas change all the time when it becomes apparent that the definitions are inaccurate. This is true for science as well as religion. It does not make a difference whether science is empirical and religion is foundational. I honestly don't need science to prove the point. I just thought it would be a good example given the discussion at hand. You can just look at such words as liberty, freedom, natural, human nature, substance (philosophically speaking), and innocent (noun). If you look at these words, you will recognize that they have changed over time, and they are still used differently depending on the context. The important thing is to recognize how the word is intended to be used and take this into account when you encounter it.
|
Religion does make claims regarding the natural world (false claims of course), and religion does make claims regarding a reality (that's in no way real). But unlike science, religion isn't based on any observations, or any proof at all. It's all made up nonsense.
|
That really depends on what religion you are talking about and the branch of that religion. Fundamentalists religions are obviously going to conflict with science, but not all branches of religion take this route, and many are very acceptable of scientific truths. In these cases, the areas of disagreement are usually foundational. Issues such as methodolgical naturalism, determinism, reductionism, objectivity, and inferential forms of argumentation dominate these debates. The important point is that many religions agree with science and observations of the natural world. They will mostly disagree on foundational truths or methaphysical assumptions that science cannot prove through observation.
