Religion: The first alternative fact?

[TJ in Oregon]

Science is a subset of philosophy. It does not, and cannot in principle encompass all knowledge. It is only able to address falsifiable hypotheses. The existence or non-existence of God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Thus, the existence or non-existence of God should be considered through rational means rather than the scientific method.

[TJ in Oregon]

To reconcile religion with science is a false dichotomy. Listen to The Amazing Randi and he'll lay it down calm and gently for the apologetics.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmK4EUkUWf4

Huh? He barely addressed the topic at all, and had you posted what he'd said, which was mostly anecdotes about eating ice cream, you'd probably be getting a much different reaction.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm always on the side of bad poets, but even so, this guy shouldn't quit his day job.

Dan Baker is a good liberal, who is pushing an agenda that is against superstition and in favor of rationality. Baker is doing more for the liberal causes then any phony religious "liberals".

Superstition is believing in things that you can't understand. Often religion is believing in things you can't understand. Isn't that a form of "blind faith"?

Religion IS all about believing in the superstition that is handed down by dogma. Concepts of hell and everlasting paradise based on what your preacher says in church, the derogating treatment of the gay community, hatred of non-believers, instigating violence around the world.

Some (I don't know how many) believe that non-believers will literally burn in hell, as strange as that may sound.

Religious followers just want to burnish anyone who thinks different then their belief system. Their bronze-age fairy tales actively tells them that such rational people are the nadir of the world. Such a shame some progressive would subscribe to religion when the Gods are such homophobic, misogynist, racist, intolerant creatures ever known in ancient fiction.


For the record, I'm a Deist who believes God created a world where He doesn't intervene.

How is that a falsifiable hypothesis? I'm perfectly fine accepting that it isn't, and wouldn't take that to necessarily discredit that view. But, it is seemingly contrary to the position that all science is the only way of knowing things. How do you reconcile them? Also, posing any kind of position on these sorts of questions is philosophy by definition, so it would appear you have to allow for some place for philosophy beyond "mumble-jumble schlock like religion that spoon-feds whetever makes the person feel good inside of itself". Even if you argue that there are multiple right answers or no answers that are either right or wrong, or that all propositions are actually an illusion and thus there are not true or false statements, every possible permutation that I can think of (and I have good reason to think it truly is all possible permutations) do require some philosophy.

[TJ in Oregon]

Randi explained the scientific method in just a minute to demonstrate why faith couldn't reconcile with the principles of science. Religion texts are man-made written that have perpetuate elementary-minded adults into believing in these ludicrous fairy tales, without ever thinking logical how possible a story that could be. People want to believe there is something greater out there that makes life meaningful, I'm sorry to say that is not true in the cosmos we reside.

He explained the scientific method but never demonstrated why faith can't be reconcile with the principles of science. Your responses seem to be arguing:

Premise 1) The scientific method
Premise 2) Unstated

Conclusion: Religion is fairy tales and I will assert this forcefully.

I will repeat my previous question to illustrate what I mean:

I'm always on the side of bad poets, but even so, this guy shouldn't quit his day job.

Dan Baker is a good liberal, who is pushing an agenda that is against superstition and in favor of rationality. Baker is doing more for the liberal causes then any phony religious "liberals".

Superstition is believing in things that you can't understand. Often religion is believing in things you can't understand. Isn't that a form of "blind faith"?

Religion IS all about believing in the superstition that is handed down by dogma. Concepts of hell and everlasting paradise based on what your preacher says in church, the derogating treatment of the gay community, hatred of non-believers, instigating violence around the world.

Some (I don't know how many) believe that non-believers will literally burn in hell, as strange as that may sound.

Religious followers just want to burnish anyone who thinks different then their belief system. Their bronze-age fairy tales actively tells them that such rational people are the nadir of the world. Such a shame some progressive would subscribe to religion when the Gods are such homophobic, misogynist, racist, intolerant creatures ever known in ancient fiction.


For the record, I'm a Deist who believes God created a world where He doesn't intervene.

How is that a falsifiable hypothesis? I'm perfectly fine accepting that it isn't, and wouldn't take that to necessarily discredit that view. But, it is seemingly contrary to the position that all science is the only way of knowing things. How do you reconcile them? Also, posing any kind of position on these sorts of questions is philosophy by definition, so it would appear you have to allow for some place for philosophy beyond "mumble-jumble schlock like religion that spoon-feds whetever makes the person feel good inside of itself". Even if you argue that there are multiple right answers or no answers that are either right or wrong, or that all propositions are actually an illusion and thus there are not true or false statements, every possible permutation that I can think of (and I have good reason to think it truly is all possible permutations) do require some philosophy.