Separation of Science and State

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

[Rhyfelwyr]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Your attitude is my whole point.

It's because although the theocrats said they were right, but you actually are right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Well that's just prejudiced.

Isn't it?

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Religion deals with quite different issues to science, and in a completely different way. For all that Theology and Divinity are actually higher up the scale in the traditional Academy, largely because they A) took longer to master and B) required a greater ability to make critical use of logic and to think abstractly, etc., etc.

"Science" is just a form of investigation, that is only applicable to a portion of human appreciation of reality I might add, it is not a substitute for philosophical or theological study.

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

...and often made by the Laity with regard to science, witness "Evolution is a fact".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/members.html