@Rhakim
I'm gonna take it as you were typing before I asked you to take this to the DMs, so I could get some sleep. So I'll do you the courtesy of responding to this right now.
Breh, anything you post publicly I'm going to respond to publicly. If you want to take it to DMs then YOU post your response in DMs, posting it publicly and then asking me to respond privately is just a bullshyt way of trying to get in the last word.
But the faith does not exist without that record. Those 1.3 billion people were not there for Christ's birth and death. They are here, today, and THEY base their faith on the book. This is just a fact, I don't know why you're even debating this.
That's a nonsense assertion considering the Catholic faith spread just fine before there even was a book and continued to spread without the book. You don't know why I'm debating it because you still haven't even understood the basic reality how Catholics spread their faith. Catholics don't spread the faith by passing out Bibles and they don't become Catholics by sitting around and reading the Bible. Catholics from the very beginning have always spread their faith via church and community teachings, people telling it to each other. Like I pointed out, they didn't even PRINT Bibles in people's own language until relatively recently.
If the Bible had never been written, the exact same faith still would have been spread through church the way it always has - the same same way that the 95% of Catholic teachings that aren't in the Bible are spread and continue to be spread.
The fact that you don't even understand what the debate is about is worrysome. If you think Christianity wouldn't have existed without the Bible then you don't understand Christian faith outside of a very small slice of modern protestantism.
And again, you are suggesting scientists BELIEVE in science; science is a verb, my guy-- you DO science. You cannot *believe* in it. This is a common tactic by the religious, attempting to equate science and religion. One is a fact-based methodology, and the other is the acceptance of something in lieu of evidence, and sometimes, in spite of the evidence.
You are confused.
The
underlying logic of an analogy is supposed to be
fundamentally the same.
I have no idea where you got the idea that analogies are supposed to be "fundamentally different". The *logic* is the point of an analogy, so that you can make an argument more clear to a reader/listener.
The logic you presented wasn't sound, therefore it's a poor analogy: you tried to say scientists *believe* in science the same way the religious believe in their faith. Those two concepts have zero in common, as scientists DO science, they don't *believe* in it. It is a fact-based methodology for cataloguing natural phenomena.
a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect; resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
But your analogy is broken because there is no belief that is taking place. Science textbooks are documentations of things that can be shown to be true with experimentation and math. A holy book is a doctrine, one that must be taught, and taught against all contrary evidence, and must be believed despite all evidence. What experiments can be done from a bible? Name one!
How can you not understand the fundamental difference and flaw with your reasoning here?
I didn't say they "believe in science", you're straight misquoting me. Scientists don't believe "in" science, but they have a great deal of beliefs
about science. For instance, they trust the vast majority of the laws of physics to be true - in other words, they
believe those laws to be an accurate representation of the world, or the
believe in those laws. In fact, if you actually knew physicists, you'd know they believe in many of them with something quite akin to religious belief despite their distaste for that comparison, but that's besides the point - as I already pointed out to you, that comparison was irrelevant to the analogy. But you don't even seem to have understood that yet.
If you are being hung up on the word "belief", like most scientists are due to its religious associations, then we can easily change it to "trust". Scientists trust the laws of physics that they've been taught. They don't attempt to independently verify all of them, and outside of their specific field they rarely read the original experimental papers describing them - they believe what they've been taught. But it would be a complete misnomer to claim they believe in those laws just because the laws were in textbooks. Scientists don't trust the laws of physics because they're in textbooks, just like Catholics don't trust the teachings of the Church because they're in the Bible. The laws of physics are put into textbooks because the scientists already trust them, just like the teachings of the church were put into the bible because the church community already trust them.
The logic of both statements is exactly the same. But like most of the conversation, your hangups are causing you to miss the point.
www.goarch.org
Print