The real religion?
August 19, 2016 at 2:28 pm
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2016 at 2:44 pm by LadyForCamus.)
RoadRunner, for the fun of it, let's follow your logical fallacy and see where it leads. Bear with my little experiment here, guys. I'm not sure it's worth anything, but here goes.
The fallacy: 'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'
So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?
*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either. (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)
*I accept one and not the other. (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)
*I accept some combination of both anyway. (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)
Or...
*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient as evidence, and I accept some combination of both.
(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research. So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)
*I accept one over the other. (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)
Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable? I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim. So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge? What does it get you, and how does it move the discussion purposefully forward?
The fallacy: 'Scientific research and religious scripture are on par with each other in terms of their quality as evidence for things.'
So...accepting this as true, what are our options for a position going forward?
*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally insufficient evidence for things, and I don't accept either. (Not sure what practical value that position would carry, but I guess it's an option)
*I accept one and not the other. (Except, you'd have to provide reasons for why you accept one over the other if the evidence is equally inadequate for both)
*I accept some combination of both anyway. (Except, you're admitting you accept things without sufficient evidence, and you'd need to explain why)
Or...
*Both scripture AND scientific research are equally sufficient as evidence, and I accept some combination of both.
(Now you're faced with a dilemma, because there are many accountings in the scripture that blatantly contradict scientific research. So again, you'd have to provide your alternative reasons for why you accept some claims and reject others if the evidence is equally sufficient for both)
*I accept one over the other. (As stated, you'd need explain your reasons for your preferential choice)
Are any of the above positions rational or reasonable? I mean, no matter which way you slice it, you're still left with the responsibility of explaining how and why you accept/reject a claim. So how exactly do you benefit from making that fallacious charge? What does it get you, and how does it move the discussion purposefully forward?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
