Quote:
On 2002-12-03 14:26, Uncle Pervy stated:
I'll leave this thread with a quote from my Psych Teacher, Loren Wingblade: "Don't let Science be your Religion; Don't let Religion be your Science."
Admirable sentiment; impossible application. Science, while grounded a bit more on repeat testing than religion, is still essentially an act of faith.
Consider a fundamental property of kinematics: at the apogee of its arc, a projectile has a vertical velocity of zero.
Everybody uses this. It's just plain true to the vast majority of the world. It's also wholly dependant on belief.
Consider the instant whereat Vy (vertical velocity) is zero. We cannot measure the instant, nor can we capture it with imaging technology (the best we have still cannot take two photos of an object in flight where the object's position is the same; they can come close enough to fool the human eye but not precise graphics computers). Yet, that instant is there. If it weren't, it would be very difficult to do basic kinematics problems, much less more advanced physics (with the exception of theoretical physics wherein that instant does
not exist; consider these a different and contradictory set of beliefs, rather like Christianity and Buddhism), so we take the historically grounded principle, accept it, and build with it.
Let's take a quick look at Hasufin's definition of religion:
Quote:
(1)"A set of rules that allows large groups of people to beneficially live together"
(2) "A set of explanations for natural phenomena given and believed independent of evidence"
(3) "A general method of considering and solving problems"
Now apply those to my example of the idea that a projectile at the top of its arc has an upward velocity of zero.
1. Self-explanatory. Toss out any basic tenent of modern physics (this being actually a result of one of the "Big Four" kinematics equations they teach in just about any high school physics course) and the modern science based off of it goes out the window. We require the assumption for any sort of modern technology; we cannot coexist as effectivly without said technology.
2. As demonstrated, this belief is indeed independent of evidence. The phenomena does seem to be there naturally, though.
3. As number one, self-explanatory. That's what science in general, and kinematic physics in specific, are, after all.
To conclude: accept Hasufin's definition of religion, and modern science is a religion. Thus, anyone attempting to prove religion responsible for the various harms listed in The End 007's inital post needs to be able to prove modern science directly responsible as well (only one counter-example needed to disprove, remember--if this is unprovable, so is the postulation that religion has caused the aforementioned harms). Of course, an alternate definition could negate this argument, but I think it would need an accompanying objection to the existing definition--I'm no theologist, but it seems to me Hasufin has effectivly defined the function, if not the nature, of religion with his three criterea.
Again, just my $.03. Really more of an attempt to make life harder on the other debaters, actually...sorry about that. Must be the lack of sleep.