religious beliefs or science
Debate Rounds (3)
which one is true
i think we have to follow science because it has strong reasons behind everything and this can also diminish the social division of religion
http://chem.tufts.edu...] which states we should only focus on the natural. Most religion focuses on the supernatural, of which science makes no claims.
Pro's other error is that he is assuming all religions are dogmatic. Dalai Lama XIV has said "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[http://www.goodreads.com...] This again shows Pro's false duality between science and religion.
He claims that science provides us with strong reasons for claims, however this doesn't entail what he's attempting to prove. Strong reasons for something about the world tell us what is true, they don't tell us what we should do. He hasn't demonstrated that we should accept science.
Furthermore, Pro is stating that we should favor science over religion because science provides strong reasons for claims whereas religion doesn't. However, any reason for a claim must itself be based on something that is unjustified. Reason must give as a criteria of knowledge (X is true if and only if) as opposed to faith which just claims X is knowledge without telling us how it is knowledge. The problem is, in order to justify any method of reasoning, it must derive that from actual cases of knowledge. Which without a method is simply faith.
Lastly, science itself suffers from the problem of underdetermination. Differing theories can explain the same data, so how can we know which theory is true? Certain consequences either imply that theories aren't falsifiable or are unverifiedable [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The refutes the idea that " science follows a theory supported by reasons".
Science depicts what is true and what is not . Taking this as reference we can figure out what to do rather than following a command sent by 'god'.There is a reason why science is looked into with great interest . It is because they help in the development of the human race and give us answers to unlock the secrets of our surroundings.
Religious beliefs give reasons for a particular saying but where is the evidence that the reasons told are true rather than a wide range of belief. secondly, scientists come up with different theories for a particular data but the so many different theories help the scientists to increase their range of perspective and after many discussions there is an ultimate theory placed which results in giving us even more clues and keys about our surroundings. Whereas religion has its own beliefs and such beliefs can disturb a normal persons lifestyle. People who seek astrologers look for good dates to start a business join a company but what if the date said is very far from now then the person will lose any opportunities that he or she might get in that period whereas a practical person would join the company right away and avoid any loss (loss of pay, company regulations etc).
I conclude that science should still be followed because it can explain things which we can see and not just imagine.
He has also not bridged the is/ought gap. He has yet to show that depicting what's true means we should take that action. He states the help the development of the human race, yet this again is stating what is, not what ought to be done.
Pro doesn't talk about the problem of criteria that shows science and religion are both ultimately based on faith (unjustified propositions). He fails to answer the problem of underdeterminism. He states that scientists come up with different theories and they discusses which one is the best. He hasn't told us what the method for selection is nor how it's sound. The fact that there are other theories that explain the data just as well as any other means we have no reason for selecting one or the other.
He claims that science still should be followed because it can explain things. But the problem of underdetermination shows that science can't do this. It shows no theory is falsifiable, since we can just deny that the theory entails the flawed results or posit something to explain the experiments. And since there are a multitudes of interpretations, then no theory is verifiable, as any evidence for one is just as much evidence as the other.
I conclude that there is no reason to favor science over religion as there is no duality between them, they both fundamentally rely on faith, and science itself is flawed.
hbk24 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty easy. Con pointed out the false choice between science and religion, and Pro continued on as if nothing happened. Also, conduct to Con for forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.