RE: Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?
July 13, 2016 at 8:17 pm
(July 13, 2016 at 4:37 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 13, 2016 at 1:54 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: If a scientist approaches her work with integrity what she finds out will either be reliable or distorted by human error. If a priest approaches her work with integrity you can be pretty sure what she tells you will be consistent with her aims as a priest. In many cases that includes enlisting as many more believers as possible. The goal of science is to understand the empirical world. The goal of religion is institutional. If you must be dependent upon experts, science is far preferable.
You said a preacher's goal is "enlisting as many more believers as possible". That description is incomplete. You are missing a very important component: motive. A preacher's motive is not numbers, it's changing people's lives.
In general, the comparison "why do I accept the scientists and reject the preachers?" in the OP is just nonsense as well as a false dichotomy. I accept both.
That's another difference, when a scientist doesn't know the answer to a question, he says so. When a theist can't answer a question, he cays it's nonsense. Thank you for your contribution. It's appreciated, predictable but appreciated.
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.