2006-07-14 10:49:46 · 5 answers · asked by Hillbillies are... 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Science doesn't need a single hypothetical entity. Religion is built around a hypothetical entity.
2006-07-14 10:51:35 · update #1
Absolutely.
Once you see religion with a critical eye, it all falls apart. The lies, the pious fraud, the mythology. You quickly realize that it all just a big con-job. One designed to put money in the collection plate, nothing more.
2006-07-14 10:54:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lemme get this right Willian of Occuum ???the Fransican monk,??? lets imagine what he thinks of this argument.
When you insist the universe all can about by a big bang where everything came out of nothing nowhere and no place... he might raise an eyebrow and ask... isnt that like pulling a rabbit out of a hat without a rabbit without a hat and without a magician? The good monk might smile and then ask witha twinkle in his eye "wouldn't it would be easier according to believ in a creator than a leap into irrationality?"
Sir Occuum might put his arm around your shoulder and point out to you nothing in medicine, agriculture or technology rests on the theory of evolution and shake his head saying, so..actually when you say hypothetical entity ... what you mean is not operational science or forensic science but what presuppositions you bring to the table... and so my firend...
what you are arguing for is not science vs the Bible, but your desire to carry a ton of philosophical baggage to the table as a presupposition to interpret data
The fransiscan monk WIllan of Ocuum's razor borrow form Duns Scotto and earlier monk and others before him and none of them rejected God cuz of it. Their faith was someone predicated on the idea that the universe is orderly and discoverable a cosmos, not a choas. The theirstic view is exactly this, the universe is orderly and discoverable and the reaosn that proppelled post reformation Europe into the scientific revolution. Ironically, when Carl Sagan write the book Cosmos he was borrowing capital fron a Jewish and Chirstian world viewpoint.
2006-07-14 17:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Occam's razor is principle stating that the most simple solution is most often correct. So how would it slice religious theory into bits? Wouldn't the easiest and most simple answer to almost any quesiton be..." God did it..."...?...
So, No.
2006-07-14 17:55:20 · answer #3 · answered by full_tilt_boogie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions. No, it does not make allowances for education
2006-07-14 18:04:39 · answer #4 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to understand, proof invalidates faith. There is no "logical" explaination for a religion, because that very proof would make faith unnessecary.
Either you believe or you don't. I have no problem with either answer. Although, all this fighting is giving me a headache.
2006-07-14 17:55:36 · answer #5 · answered by maeves_child 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋