Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
I am nor disputing that science could be used in a mechanical and unenlightened sense. I am disputing you and boxcar claiming anyone here is using it that way. Claiming we are is what is pejorative.
I do not accept that religion and science are in conflict. But my definition of religion is not Actor's. My understanding needs no Abrahamic deity. I believe Actor is commenting on the ensuing conflict when that "old man floating in the sky" is taken on it's face value and literal lowest level.
Creators are not required in my take on "religion" Nor do I exclude that possibility.
Disputing proofs for god is not "sciemntism". Whereas claiming the earth is 1/1,000,0000 times younger than it really is, or claiming infants are born evil, is not religion or even rational. It is a projection of rather superstitions minds onto reality.
|
Of course, you and Actor and others here have used science in "mechanical sense"! If you hadn't your science would not violate laws of logic! Your science would obey the laws of logic, which it cannot!
I have said many, many times over these years that the primary reason I don't hold to the philosophy of Atheistic Materialism is simply because that kind of world view is
incoherent! It is self-defeating. It is self-contradictory. It is self-refuting! Whatever label is least offensive to you.
