{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
7/30/2013 10:59:17 AM
6
I would say yes, but go on to note that it depends on the context. For example, using religious doctrine as literature/evidence in an attempt to prove something in the scientific domain is pretty clearly inappropriate. Likewise, an attempt to use a scientific methodology to prove a religious/faith-based claim would be inappropriate as well.
Take the existence of a god, for example. From a religious perspective, god(s) exist. That's what I like to refer to as a "religious truth", because it's only true within the domain of religion. From the scientific perspective, it's a null answer - neither yes nor no - since the existence nor non-existence of a god can't be proven. The problem arises when people who believe there is only one kind of truth have no consideration for the truths held in other domains and ride roughshod over them.
However, what I do have a particular issue with is attempts at making a compromise between the two in other contexts. Some schools, for example, require students to be immunised to be eligible for enrolment, but parents are permitted to circumvent this for "religious reasons". I don't know exactly what that encompasses, but I do not think it is an acceptable excuse when such actions put everyone in danger.
English
-
[quote]Take the existence of a god, for example. From a religious perspective, god(s) exist. That's what I like to refer to as a "religious truth", because it's only true within the domain of religion. From the scientific perspective, it's a null answer - neither yes nor no - since the existence nor non-existence of a god can't be proven. The problem arises when people who believe there is only one kind of truth have no consideration for the truths held in other domains and ride roughshod over them.[/quote] I get the impression that you are equivocating. By "religious truth", do you mean propositions that only have significance and logical validity within the domain of religion?
-
[quote]That's what I like to refer to as a "religious truth", because it's only true within the domain of religion.[/quote]
-
[quote]The problem arises when people who believe there is only one kind of truth have no consideration for the truths held in other domains and ride roughshod over them.[/quote] That's ridiculous. There's imagination, there's opinion, and then there's making unfounded claims that have no basis in reality. As you mentioned [quote]Some schools, for example, require students to be immunised to be eligible for enrolment, but parents are permitted to circumvent this for "religious reasons". I don't know exactly what that encompasses, but I do not think it is an acceptable excuse when such actions put everyone in danger.[/quote] Just because someone thinks of such delusions as "god will protect me" as religious truths doesn't mean they aren't, in fact, delusions, and not truth in the slightest.
-
First quote is actually more in reference to religious folk who take their personal belief - their personal, religious truth - into other domains, like science, where they are not appropriate. Second is sort of relevant to the first. If a religious person believes that god will protect them, then that is true for them, even if others may place a label like "delusion" on it. You and I see it differently, but because we would be evaluating that from a scientific/medical perspective. Do you see what I'm getting at?
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 7/30/2013 7:13:26 PMThere [i]is[/i] only one truth. The idea of there being "multiple kinds of truth" entirely negates the very concept of truth itself. What religious people consider to be "truth" - such as the existence of deities - is not "a different kind of truth," it is merely a baseless assertion that they have chosen to take as truth - oftentimes in place of actual truth. But truth - real truth - is determined through reason, not through simply pulling an answer out of your ass. To claim, as you appear to be doing, that the "truth" of religion is equally as valid as the truth of science, and that these truths are mutually-exclusive and cannot apply to each other's domains, is simply absurd. Science applies to everything that exists in reality - religion included. The facts that A.) religious claims don't hold up to reasoned inquiry and B.) cannot apply to the realm of scientific truth are signs of their fallacious nature, not of them having equal standing in a different arena that science cannot reach. There is only one arena - that of fact - and religion simply cannot compete in it without resorting to intellectually-dishonest tactics and just plain old ignorance.
-
[quote]To claim, as you appear to be doing, that the "truth" of religion is equally as valid as the truth of science, and that these truths are mutually-exclusive and cannot apply to each other's domains, is simply absurd.[/quote]Then you have misinterpreted what I've said. What I'm referring to different [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_knowledge]domains of knowledge[/url] wherein different truths exist. The reason I'm referring to that is because I think it's the best way to answer the OP's question; there are places where one is appropriate and the other isn't, but to an individual, they can be compatible. I'm answering the question more from a social perspective rather than a philosophical one. [quote]Science applies to everything that exists in reality - religion included.[/quote]I agree, but only when claims within religions are presented within a scientific context.
