Science
Out of context: Reply #423
- Started
- Last post
- 1,014 Responses
- scarabin1
i think the problem with the topic is the term itself. not only because "belief system" lacks any specific definition here. there's nothing inherently wrong in believing something, only in believing something that shows very little evidence of being true. (morning_star's probablity)
dawkins breaks belief down further into a five-tier heirarchy of sources:
evidence, tradition, authority, faith, and revelation.
a comparison of the properties of each source shows that science and religion do not occupy the same intellectual turf at all. faith might be the closest, but the kind of faith required by science only needs last until evidence for a better explanation comes along. this is the important difference between religion and science. science willingly updates itself based on evidence and observation while religion requires unconditional faith even when all evidence points to the opposite of what is being held as "truth".
- Religion for mass consumption requires faith. mysticism effects the physiology and enhances the senses. Makes it a tool of for knowledge wisdom and growth.yurimon
- knowledge, wisdom and spiritual growth. relevant experiences. 2nd of some religious archetypes have been converted to science.yurimon
- and there is a link to science progressing from mysticism.yurimon
- mysticism doesn't affect physiology you fucknutmonospaced