http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2014/04/here-we-go-again.html
Since I have voluntarily sworn off commenting here , but because an itch must be scratched ...
The question is why are we fine with some beliefs that are not scientific in nature (batman is the greatest character ever!) v/s other beliefs (Catholicism is true!) when no one claims a scientific basis for those other belies - other than we " aesthetically don't like religion"
So lets take subjective beliefs - No one claims they are objective - my likes dont match your likes so I might find something to be the best and you dont - There isn't a logical problem there - we all agree.
But what about religious beliefs? Why do we object to religious beliefs or demand evidence? Because some , not all , religious beliefs aren't subjective.
Does God exist? (S)He either exists or doesnt - but it cannot be that (S)he exists for you and not for me.
Did God reincarnate himself as his child and then sacrifice himself to himself in some grand scheme ? Well he either did or didnt - it cannot be true for you and false for me.
Did God found a church and must we now follow that Church ? Either he did or he didnt - it cannot be true for you or false for me
Science does not claim to evaluate the best fictional creation - but it does claim to investigate how the universe began. So a claim that Batman is the best character ever isn't anti-science , but a claim that God created the universe , is - there isnt any evidence to it.
To be sure there might be subjective religious beliefs like religion made me a better person ? perhaps it did and perhaps it made someone else worse - we can react to religion differently so that part is subjective - but whenever Religion is making a fact based claim? Well you need some science there - if you still believe firmly , without evidence , then that is an anti-science attitude.
You cannot handwave a factual claim and say well its not a scientific claim and then use that to be shielded from criticism.
Since I have voluntarily sworn off commenting here , but because an itch must be scratched ...
The question is why are we fine with some beliefs that are not scientific in nature (batman is the greatest character ever!) v/s other beliefs (Catholicism is true!) when no one claims a scientific basis for those other belies - other than we " aesthetically don't like religion"
So lets take subjective beliefs - No one claims they are objective - my likes dont match your likes so I might find something to be the best and you dont - There isn't a logical problem there - we all agree.
But what about religious beliefs? Why do we object to religious beliefs or demand evidence? Because some , not all , religious beliefs aren't subjective.
Does God exist? (S)He either exists or doesnt - but it cannot be that (S)he exists for you and not for me.
Did God reincarnate himself as his child and then sacrifice himself to himself in some grand scheme ? Well he either did or didnt - it cannot be true for you and false for me.
Did God found a church and must we now follow that Church ? Either he did or he didnt - it cannot be true for you or false for me
Science does not claim to evaluate the best fictional creation - but it does claim to investigate how the universe began. So a claim that Batman is the best character ever isn't anti-science , but a claim that God created the universe , is - there isnt any evidence to it.
To be sure there might be subjective religious beliefs like religion made me a better person ? perhaps it did and perhaps it made someone else worse - we can react to religion differently so that part is subjective - but whenever Religion is making a fact based claim? Well you need some science there - if you still believe firmly , without evidence , then that is an anti-science attitude.
You cannot handwave a factual claim and say well its not a scientific claim and then use that to be shielded from criticism.
