dfx
Contributor
Man, you're really whipping out the fallacies here! First of all, I didn't claim that science made life better. I didn't even claim that religion made life worse. All I pointed out was that there was a correlation. But since you mentioned it: I hope you wouldn't contest the fact that science has dramatically improved the average life span and life expectancy of people. I don't know if you would consider this as "better life," but I would. Has religion ever done anything to the same effect?Interesting statement however it still falls into the contest flaw. IE in the 50's basics of life was shelter and food. to day it is cell phones and sat tv. Likewise you statement could be reworded to say that science has not made life better. science made the bomb. Science created the vehicles for greed and its decendants.
Yeah, science has created the bomb and some other evil things. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
Let's see what we have here. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman for sure. I already explained this like 3 times. If there's a conclusion based on good evidence and this conclusion has been confirmed multiple times over, then that's a good conclusion. It may turn out to be wrong later on, but that doesn't matter. It was a good conclusion because it had good evidence behind it and at that time, it was reasonable to believe it. Now there's new evidence and a new conclusion has been reached. Now it's not reasonable to believe in the old conclusion any more, because the new evidence contradicts it. These are the "challenges" you mentioned. Science embraces this as it's the best way to learn new things. Science never "feels threatened." In fact, science threatens itself all the time. Scientists try to prove other scientists wrong all the time. I don't know how anyone could see this as "closed minded," but hey, it's a good way to slander the process I guess. If there's anything "close minded" about it, then it's the fact that science dismisses claims that "are true because I say so," which is all that religion does. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Science by structure is a system that believes nothing unless it can be proved in a test tube. Science believes there is no other possible position than what is proven by science. Yet the world was flat. science said till they changed their position. Turned out that our world was not the center of the universe. One can not blame science in its youth for believing that. From their limited perspective it was a logical conclusion. Ship sails off and sinks on the horizon... Not factual but an understandable conclusion. What can be blamed on science is the closed mind position taken every time science is challenged or perceived threatened.
Religion on the other hand starts off with the conclusion, assumes that it's true and then looks for confirming evidence. Contradicting evidence is ignored. The conclusion is never changed, no matter what happens, because, well, it's true because it's true and because we say so and we can't possibly be wrong. That's the definition of being closed minded. I don't know if science ever claimed that the earth was flat or was in the centre of the universe, but if it did, it must have had good reasons to do so. Later we found out that this was wrong. How did we do this? Through science! Religion on the other hand has claimed these things based on nothing and has tortured and killed people to keep them from presenting contradicting evidence and finding out the truth.
I am still waiting for science to tell me where the FIRST matter came from and what comes after the absolute end of space.
Argument from ignorance. We don't know. That just means that we don't know and nothing else. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps one day we will, or maybe we won't. It certainly doesn't mean that there can't be any explanation. See a few posts above.
The day science admits that there are some things that are just not meant to be known will be the day when science makes the largest move in their position on religion.
Not sure how that would happen. As I just said, just because we don't know something yet, doesn't mean that it can never be know. How would science ever figure out that something can't be known? I can't imagine a way. Perhaps one day we will know how, but until then we just don't know.
BTW what did we believe in before science found/ explained how the world had gravity? The world sucked??
Science would have said what I just explained: We don't know. Which would have been a very good answer. Other people on the other hand might have invoked something supernatural, as they have done so many times before. They did this without having a good reason to do so, and they would have been wrong. In fact, every time someone did this without any good reason, they turned out to be wrong. It's not a smart thing to do.