I see alot of people from a certain faith claiming there are lots of scientific facts in their "holy book" which agree with modern scientific discoveries, but were not known when their "holy book" was composed...hence, a miraculous revelation from God.
I found this facinating, so I checked into it. I was VERY disappointed, to say the least.
Not only are some of the claims so vague as to apply to a myriad of phenomena, but quite a few of them actually contradict what we know today. I call these spurious claims ERRORS. It seems intellectually dishonest to me when someone uses pseduoscience to stimulate someone's curiousity for the sake of attracting them to their faith.
When someone is drawn to a faith because someone has *blinded them with science*, is this a case of...
"what they don't know won't hurt them",
or more like...
"there's a sucker born every minute"?
2006-07-04 08:47:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Pseudoscience is unacceptable and so is pseudoreligion.
There is no conflict between science and faith. There is no contradiction between believing in God and the findings of science. That is why so many scientists can be believers. But there are also a lot of people who don't understand either science or faith (or both) and so rule them out of their picture. They therefore have only part of the picture.
Truth cannot be learned or helped by pseudo anything. If you have a faith that needs pseudoscience to support it then you would be well advised to examine your faith.
2006-07-04 20:07:11 · answer #1 · answered by Simon W 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are no rules when it comes to inventing religion. Look what the Christians have done with a sliver of truth and a pack of lies.
2006-07-04 08:51:03 · answer #2 · answered by synchronicity915 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not ever. And creationists/intelligent design adherents are pig-headed perverts who won't accept that their religious views are crap even in the face of clear cut scientific evidence.
2006-07-04 10:08:05 · answer #3 · answered by Rotifer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it isn't acceptable - notice that science is only ever predicted with hindsight.
a better way is to allow religion and science to happily coexist and inspire one another as both are concerned with the search for truth in different ways
2006-07-04 08:54:26 · answer #4 · answered by mesun1408 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Superstition is the religion of feeble minds.
-- Edmund Burke (attributed: source unknown)
2006-07-04 08:51:10 · answer #5 · answered by meta-morph-in-oz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religious virus's have no ethics. They will spread themselves by any means possible, to include subtle or blatant deception.
2006-07-04 08:52:09 · answer #6 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dude, i hate psuedoscience
2006-07-04 08:52:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋