Thread: Religion

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

Religions really do draw the conclusion first and then look for the evidence to support their claims.

So do many scientists. I've already listed an example in this thread.

Speaking of "intelligence and logic", you committed the fallacy of hypostatization(aka reification) in the above quote.

Originally Posted by troubador

So do many scientists. I've already listed an example in this thread.

Speaking of "intelligence and logic", you committed the fallacy of hypostatization(aka reification) in the above quote.

If a scientist finds their conclusion first and then looks for evidence to support their claim then it is simply not good science and I'm sure that there are no shortage of bad scientists in the world.

Religions use this method time after time in one way or another.

Real science is not biast as it has no specific conclusion to favour and it only searches for the truth. I'm not claiming that there is no God but science has most certainly debunked the superstitous teachings that our ancestors once believed.
We can't just pick and choose what we want to believe from these ancient books that are considered by many to be the literal word of God, they are either right or they are wrong.

Originally Posted by troubador

So do many scientists. I've already listed an example in this thread.

Speaking of "intelligence and logic", you committed the fallacy of hypostatization(aka reification) in the above quote.

No, most scientist who are practicing accepted science frame the null hypothesis, and test for the opposite of what they want to see in the data.

Also, you don't understand what hypostatization means.