or - why must religion adhere to scientific rigour?
why is there such an acceptance of the lack of need for proof when it comes to religion? even on these boards, where scientific proof is almost unfailingly required for every single issue or contention raised, when such proof is asked of religious beliefs, the poster is consistently told ‘it cannot be proven either way.’
(this thread contains many examples of such responses)
of course, i do not see a reason for religion to adhere to scientific examination; any request that it does is inherently contradictory. however, other posters obviously do, as the issue has been raised any number of times, and there will always be people who attempt to scientifically ‘prove’ god’s existence.
so why this persistent belief that there is really no evidence either way to prove or disprove the existence of everyone’s favourite deity? despite the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that explains the universe perfectly well without such constructs, when it comes up against religion, however, it is deemed to be very much short of the absolute truth, only a very vague approximation of our limited understanding of the universe.
yet, everywhere on these boards, this ‘vague approximation’ is cited over and over to answer questions, support opinions and ultimately, to fight ignorance.
we can accept that newton’s theory of gravity explains why we don’t fall from the face of the earth. if someone came in here telling us that we don’t fall from the earth, because the earth is sending out mind control waves instructing us to fall back to it when we attempt to leave, they would be asked for evidence. they wouldn’t be told, ‘well, we don’t know one way or the other because science is only an approximation.’
even more confusing is the ‘scientific’ proof given when it is demanded, such as the old favourite – ‘the order and beauty of our universe must have been created by an intelligent being’ – a statement so scientifically flawed that were it used to prove anything but religious belief, its proponent would be dismissed as simple-minded and most unintelligent.
there is nothing wrong with it as a philosophical exploration of religion, but it is most certainly scientific.
must we continue to expect religion to adhere to the rigours of science? why do the scientifically minded expect it to, and why do the religiously minded ever attempt to explain it in such terms?