do you ever get scared in the dark?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science and Religion Are Not ‘Reconcilable,’ So Stop Trying
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
do you ever get scared in the dark?
GetInTheTruck
Member
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Pretty much. It's the biggest pile of shyt there is: "it was never meant to be written that way"
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,284
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
tmonster said:
so your position is that the bible is a book of poetry.............
No. My position is the whole book represents a wide array of literary styles.
You mean like some of the greatest scientist and discoverers in history? Or like the founders of nearly every discipline of science?
This thread is dumb, BUT I am curious as to when this is ever the case....
That shyt is so rare it's not even worth talking about. I swear you would think that atheist have never attended high schools or universities.. because from what I know they only cover science in science class with no influence from religion. If that shyt ever happens its rare as fukk.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,284
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Type Username Here said:
Criticizing a book for not being what it isn't is just stupid.
That criticism only exists because of vocal trumpeters of those books that do present them as science, though.
Dennett never argued that science and religion are compatible. If you're referring to his debate with Plantinga, that was a restricted discussion about whether evolutionary theory and some version of the Christian God are compatible as ideas. Dennett has also argued that religion deserves no special status due to its faith-based elements, and can and should be evaluated according to reason, but that's only because he considers the purely faith-based view of religion a way for religious people to hide from logical and scientific scrutiny. That's just putting them on the same plane epistemically, rather than making them compatible.
For example, this famous passage on "tribal" religions:
"“I should emphasize this, to keep well-meaning but misguided multiculturalists at bay: the theoretical entities in which these tribal people frankly believe — the gods and other spirits — don't exist. These people are mistaken, and you know it as well as I do. It is possible for highly intelligent people to have a very useful but mistaken theory, and we don't have to pretend otherwise in order to show respect for these people and their ways.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Last edited:
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,284
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
The Real said:
No, I was referring to something he said in 'Breaking the Spell'. Something along the lines of if religion benefits any human group, the question would be to determine whom: all the individuals in society, the members of the controlling elite, or societies as a whole.
No. My position is the whole book represents a wide array of literary styles.
preach on, what are those styles?
that's irrelevant
Ah, ok. Do you have a citation for that passage, by any chance?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,284
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
tmonster said:
preach on, what are those styles?
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45,063
- Reputation
- 8,154
- Daps
- 122,284
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
The Real said:
That was me attempting to paraphrase. I'd have to read through the whole book again to remember. Not a bad idea, just kinda busy with another book ATM.