Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Science Can’t Replace Religion [View all]skepticscott
(13,029 posts)98. So in other words you have no answer
Except to repeat what you already said and make new things up.
It's utterly false that "just about anyone" can do the tests and see the evidence for the electron, or that "just about anyone" can understand those results. The vast, vast majority of people can't do any of that. And what about muons, neutrinos and quarks? How is accepting the existence of those fundamentally different? What percentage of the population must understand the theory and the math behibd the evidence for those particles (NONE of which are observed directly, btw) for your threshold to be met? How much does the equipment for testing them have to cost before accepting their existence becomes a matter of "faith"?
Still waiting for your objective, concrete standards.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is this a fight between believers and non believers? People who are firm in their beliefs do not
upaloopa
Aug 2012
#1
Religion throughout history attempted to explain the unexplainable until science explained it.
Lint Head
Aug 2012
#10
Your link takes me to Discover Magazine, but I get: Error 404 - Not Found - once there.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#11
How does mathematics, neurology, population genetics and behavioral science explain morality?
rug
Aug 2012
#20
If it's simply behavioral, and the result of . . . whatever, then it's not morality.
rug
Aug 2012
#28
Of all the things that can be known, I would suggest that we know a minuscule amount.
cbayer
Aug 2012
#22
Because science doesn't promise you'll go to heaven if you believe in it and give it money?
truebrit71
Aug 2012
#27
"For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#37
No, belief in the Higgs boson is not the same as belief in Brunei or tsetse flies.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#85
Believing in the Higgs boson is fundamentally different than believing in electrons because ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#96
No, actually I didn't just make up the fact that just about anyone can run an equivalent ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#116
For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith *in science*.
enki23
Aug 2012
#78
The article suggests religion has been around for a long time, won't go away. It's like
dimbear
Aug 2012
#50
You can understand that religion has emotional power without believing any of the dumbshit tenets
Nay
Aug 2012
#53
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
SarahM32
Aug 2012
#73
Oh for fuck's sake. Science is constantly replacing religion as an understanding of the world
enki23
Aug 2012
#76
My position is that despite all that science has taught us, we know only the most
cbayer
Aug 2012
#79
Science is the process by which we encroach ever further into the former provinces of of the divine.
enki23
Aug 2012
#81
Well, it's great to know that someone around here has the definitive and final answers
cbayer
Aug 2012
#82
"rational explanation...can't match the feeling evoked by...religious symbolism"
PassingFair
Aug 2012
#90