I'm not smart enough to see the whole so I'm going to need your help. I'm going to go through this sentence by sentence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Waves
Religion is just as objective as science because they are both objective sources of information that one looks at to explain the world around him/her.
|
I don't understand how religion is a source of information. As new information comes in, religion does not bend. Only as social strife has come in has religion had to bend its rules, which I still think should be considered blasphemy and anyone who opposed the changes of the church should be going to hell. How can you change God's Word? God's Law?
Quote:
|
The results of the information may be more subjective in a sense that there is a wider range of possible beliefs and perspectives that a person can get from reading a religous text as opposed to the efficient sameness offered by science, but it does not make religion any more inherently "subjective" in any sense.
|
I think it totally makes religion subjective. The rules of religion are unchanging because they are supposedly the word of God. You can't change that with new information no matter how much new information comes in. All that information is irrelavent unless it follows the reasoning of the church.
Quote:
|
Just because science offers consistency in its beliefs does not make it more objective. It makes it more consistent.
|
What makes science objective is that it's peer reviewed. What makes science credible is its methods. What makes the scientific method credible is that the scientific culture has always found reasons to change and alter its ideas, but no one has ever come up with a better way to evaluate the world around us than the scientific method. You'd think if there was some flaw in the method someone would have pointed it out. So far, only those who discredit science in general have found a reason to be critical of the scientific method.