You compare Religion to Global warming Science and find them ...... the SAME????????
And you sound offended that we ridicule your view!
Let's compare simple examples of each:
1) Science is based on a series of RULEs. We propose a hypothesis, we explain how we intend to test it and we do the experimentts and produce the results and ask our 'peers' to check our 'facts'. We also invite any OTHER scientist to repeat th same experiment, or a SIMILAR experiment to check of 'deny' our results. One of the key tests is that the experiment is REPRODUCABLE.
So let's take a 'sample' of the work:-
The physics (and chemistry) is quite clearly understood about how a raised CO2 level would raise the average temp of the atmosphere. The experiments have been hypothesised and demonstrated, and the results fit the hypothesis quite clearly. It can be quantified and re-tested producing EXACTLY the same results on each occasion (reporducability). Other, similar experiments have been conducted by HUNDREDS of OTHER scientists and the VAST majority produced almost IDENTICAL results!
That's SCIENCE for you! Say what you believe and then TEST it! If it CAN'T be tested or is NOT reproducable, it is NOT accepted as being TRUE!
Let's now look at an example religion!
Religion:
The figurehead of 'our' local religion died and was entombed. After a number of days, wailing FANATICS returned to the tomb and produced THREE D*I*F*F*E*R*E*N*T versions of being the F*I*R*S*T to see him, 'risen'. Not ONE of them claimed that they HAD 'met' him and, indeed, some of them reported meeting someone ELSE instead! On those COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY reports, a 'world religion' grew based SOLELY on the fact that we has resurected. That religion has lead people to slaughter entire populations, immolate themselves, murder and torture fellow humans and comit some of the worst atrocities that have EVER been produced by mankind. The 'resurection' is NOT 'reproducable', each 'version' of the 'resurection' contradicts the other in detail AND substance! It did NOT fit the 'predicted hypostesis' (read the OLD testament even though it was later MODIFIED to fit the 'chosen view'). For the first 1800 years, anyone attempted to 'test' the 'results' or challenge the 'theory' was tortured and/or put to death! It is STILL a CRIME to RIDICULE the basic tenets of that religion!
So, in comparison to science, the 'resurrection' failed to be testable, repeatable. Each observer reported DIFFERENT results. It didn't fit the previous descrition of what was being 'tested', and in the HISTORY of the religion, only FOUR people have seen the 'risen' body! Nobady else has been anle to SEE (experience) A*N*Y evidence WHATSOEVER about the resurrection! Not a SINGLE SOUL! No one! None! Nada! ZILCH!
*********
Being not very bright, I can't QUITE see the similarity between and untested and untestable, unchallengable, unrepeatable, unreliable, and unBELIEVABLE 'religious views' and TESTABLE 'Science'!
Clearly, you are MUCH cleverer than I and you will be able to show me EXACTLY how your: "....belief is that it is..." the same is based on LOGIC, FACTS or REASON!
I amay not be THAT bright but I'll take bet that you CANNOT!
The only other possibility is that you don't understand how 'belief' systems work.... you clearly don't understand how SCIENCE works!
Ian
|
|