penguinoftheway (penguinoftheway) wrote,

  • Mood:

I'm late, I'm late!

So I guess I promised something about how religion is more logical than science. Well, here's something to try to irritate you science-lovers and get some sort of argument started:

Religions are very well reasoned because they are self-contained in their simple logic.

Science, on the other hand, is based on the idea that it can never be known for sure, and that everything is subject to radical change. It has been disproven and discarded many times. The basic rules for what makes something scientifically sound have even changed.

Many people have claimed that miracles are performed. I've heard many accounts myself, though not witnessed any.
Many non-religious people confess that things inexplicable by science have occurred. I've heard similar accounts from these people.

Which is easier to put faith in? A religion that explains everything, including the inexplicable as well as providing a meaning to life,
Or a philosophy full of self-admitted holes that is very unstable and could debase the entirety of morality?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
me like science..>.>

Science can be replicated (at least, many things). Religion cannot. Airplanes still continue to fly on Bernoulli's principle (only example I can think of now, sorry). Find me another man who can turn water into wine (probably another bad example).
Ah, but can it really be replicated more effectively than miracles? There are many things that we don't think happen every time we pray for them. For example, praying that some one be healed of cancer doesn't always work.
Meanwhile, there are all kinds of mental and spiritual healing that take place within people all the time.
Similarly in scientific practice there are many phenomena that are attributed some logical explanation, but cannot be reproduced (origins of life, for example) and then there are the ones that are every day occurances, like cumbustion engines, and those are easy to follow.
I see them as equals, except one claims that everything is comprehensible, but has no proof for that claim,
while the other says that some things cannot be explained and proves it very well.

P.S. Yeah, this is a shaky argument, but I am sleepy.