Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
An argument I was losing?!?! There you go knocking chess pieces over again. I'll probably find a steamer on my kitchen floor too.
|
You're trying to make Science = Religion or Religion = Science.
This will help you understand the difference:
Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not
Humans are naturally inclined to look to agents, their states of mind, and their actions as the bases for explanations. Such inclinations of mind importantly contribute to the attraction of religions and to the attraction of religious explanations – explanations not only of matters of social and psychological import but of the origins and foundational principles of the cosmos.
And
Although not typically recognized as such, the emergence of the cognitive and brain sciences over the past fifty years marks the beginning of on-going scientific enterprises that often eschew explanatory appeals to agency and intentionality in us! This is not to suggest that contemporary social, cognitive, or even brain science has ceased to refer to agents and their mental states, but only to say that the broader trend is clear within these sciences and within modern science more generally.
Critics of religion have usually underestimated the cleverness and creativity with which new generations of theologians have managed scientific challenges, but the historical pattern to which I am pointing may signal far greater challenges ahead. Accommodationist theologies that abandon all reference to agents are unlikely to have much popular appeal.
Science doesn't tell you that your choices will condemn you to a painful or pleasant afterlife dependent on your adherence to some choices made in this life. Science is pure, it has no bias.
Is that what your secondary argument was supposed to explain, JR?