Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:18:39 PM
I don't find it time-consuming to write posts that are restricted to about 950 characters, so this doesn`t take up much of my time.
I find it amusing that you have made a very basic error in English while praising the clarity of your own posts.
Would you like to explain what point you were trying to make that you think I`ve missed?
In particular, I`d like to see you explain why science is like religion. I`m just not seeing how "this is the best explanation we have based on the available evidence" is so similar to "this is the truth because someone wrote it down centuries ago, no evidence is needed."
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:47:34 AM
The points in question were:
i) Why does the fact that belief is not fact means that science is the same as or similar to religion?
ii) Why does that lead to a rejection of atheism?
I'm still hoping that SarahofBorg will answer.
Incidentally, I am well aware that science is not necessarily about absolutely proven facts and I`ve never claimed otherwise. Science covers everything from "the maths works but we`ve no physical evidence" to "this has been tested a billion times and always comes out the same way".
Science allows for degrees of confidence in the accuracy of an explanation and allows for any explanation, no matter how well it`s held up so far, to be wrong.
That`s sometimes portrayed as a weakness by people who don`t understand it and prefer a system in which an arbritary explanation made up without any evidence is claimed as absolute fact.