What should we believe in? Science or Superstition
Side Score: 92
Side Score: 32
How do you know that the evidence is true? Michael Crichton from the book state of fear in, or so I am told, an effort to debunk the myth of global warming. Also, what does it matter what 'WE' believe in? 'WE' probably share both a great deal of opinions and a great deal of adversity - though it is for neither of us to decide for the other.
Religion does fit the dictionary definition of superstition.
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Science is mostly a set of rules determining what we can prove and so know.
I could argue that the sky is purple, but it's not true
I could also argue that it's blue, and that would be true.
But if we had lived in a tomb for a long time and had lost knowledge of it's color over many generations there would be no way to tell, and science would shun both ideas as indeterminable. Not necessarily true or false.
Speculation outside the region of what we can know and prove is pointless because guess what:
We can't know or prove it.
Science makes the most sense insofar as consistency and rational coherence and is based on observation.
Superstition is the primative brain making all sorts of assumptions about the nature of existence and the world around a person which are totally unsubstantiated.
Please note that I am not advocating for this side.
Believe: hold something as a truth.
It seems to me that society should not believe either subsection of this debate. Superstition is quite fool hardy and has no real backing. Believing in science, however, would be to completely ignore the true meaning of science. Science is never meant to create a unifying truth; it is meant as a means to compile ideas about the world around us. Truth, from what I understand science to be, is never obtained through scientific study. Physical laws and scientific theories are not facts; they are outstandingly supported hypotheses. Further, science is not a single, completely unifying field. Behavioral science is a subsection of science, and it is a portion that I think holds no full bearing on complete life.
To summarize my ideologies, we as individuals should not believe in anything; we should look at each thing that is presented to us with skepticism.
"the Catholic Church have executed the illuminate a science group and what did they do the science fools went underground instead of fighting like men or Believers" ???
1.What exactly do you mean by "believers"?
2. this last statement supports the view that we should believe in science since they are "so willing to DIE for it". following your train of thought, if so many of the science group "the illuminate" were killed, then "something was behind it".. and thus, we should believe in science. According to your own logic that is.
Personally I think we should believe in science because it is a fact. Period. Makes it much easier than trying to find the reason why someone has to be killed.
TRUTH should not require the shedding of something so precious as a life.
there is nothing rational about the idea you evolved from hydrogen gas.
That's not what evolution says
or that life is a mistake
No one thinks that
at the end even Darwin gave up on his theory.
That's not even remotely true.
Congratulations, in two sentences and one fragment you managed to be wrong three times. That's actually pretty impressive.
What you think as superstitions are not superstitions. They are logical facts. When they are followed from the time of ramayan, who are you to say them superstitions.
when you don't know the logic behind them, you consider them superstitions but when you come to know about the logic you consider them as science.