Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
What you just wrote is the most ignorant collection of meaningless words I've ever seen....'course I'm just 81.
I wonder how many of those scientists believe in virgin birth. And if they do consider themselves Christians, how do they explain these things scientifically?83% of the general public believes in God.
Only 51% of scientists.
Why's that?
Source Link missing, go figure.Scientists are smart.83% of the general public believes in God.
Only 51% of scientists.
Why's that?
---Source Link missing, go figure.Scientists are smart.83% of the general public believes in God.
Only 51% of scientists.
Why's that?
You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.
Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.
Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.
---You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.
Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.
Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.
---You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.
Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.
Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.
The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.
What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.
Lady on NPR today was talking about "forced" conversions. There are all kinds of forced conversions. From back in the day where you either converted or died, to today where if you aren't a member of the church you might not get a good job because they only hire fellow catholics/protestants/jews/mormons/born agains/whatever.---Source Link missing, go figure.Scientists are smart.83% of the general public believes in God.
Only 51% of scientists.
Why's that?
The source for that correction (33% of scientists believe in "God", not 51%) was in the OP, which has a link to the 2009 Pew survey.
.
Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.---You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.
Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.
Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.
The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.
What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.
Is that why the snake is a fallic symbol?I believe that god created the planet in 6 days and a talking snake and a naked lady ruined it within 45 minutes because SCIENCE!!!!!
---Or your parents raised you so you don't want to disappoint. Or you don't want to go to hell. Scientists who believe in god may also just believe in a generic creator. If they believe in virgin births and miracles then they are dealing with cognitive dissonance.
I can tell just by doing my own personal poll the people who REALLY believe in God is a lot less than most people think.---Or your parents raised you so you don't want to disappoint. Or you don't want to go to hell. Scientists who believe in god may also just believe in a generic creator. If they believe in virgin births and miracles then they are dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Since religion and its beliefs are primarily cultural phenomena, a minority of scientists are susceptible to social/philosophical ideas that science does not explore.
However, the elite scientists (NAS members) are much less susceptible; only 7% believed in a personal god (1998 report by Larson & Witham).
Due to its objectivity & evidence-oriented methodology, science transcends cultural boundaries with a common language ... reflective of our common observations beyond individual fantasies & those referenced in religious books by unknown authors.
.
---Such objectivity exists in religious studies too. It is closer to the objectivity of social sciences and economics, rather than that of natural sciences. And even with that, the general question of the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences is classified a religious debate.---You could swap the two explanations and it would still make sense. Everything is evident within the bounds of its assumptions. Repeatable too. Whether scientific or religious. This is why we call them axioms.---The contradiction between science and religion is a mostly communist dogma, for financial gains. Scientists are not supposed to like dogmas.
I don't think "contradiction" is accurate.
Real scientists seek knowledge via evidence, and are agnostic beyond that horizon between known & unknown, although logical theories are fun.
Religion is not interested in evidence, but engages in imaginary ideas to fill the gaps in its knowledge base, then tries to sell its/his authority (dogma) to the masses for political gain.
.
My assumption is that your axioms are in your subjective head (mind), whereas scientific axioms are based on "objective reality" that is shared by multiple observers.
The evidence used by scientists is observable and/or measurable and experienced in the same objective manner by many scientists to form a body of knowledge that results in practical creations, such as boats, cars, trains, airplanes, space ships, electrical generators, light bulbs, radio, TV, computers, etc.
What practical use has resulted from religious axioms?
.
---
