Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
How are you sure that philosphy and religion has no criteria at all (which I feel is what you really want to say) or lacks criteria? In short what is your criterion (or criteria - if you have more then one) to make such an assertion?
To discard philosophy and religion just because a person doesn't understand everything about them seems a lack of understand on the part of the discarder. Not all religions are the same, and it's just an umbrella term that encompasses a whole wide range of divergent religious beliefs, so it is a bit unfair to make a blanket statement about religion. Knowing more about religion then modern philosophy and I can not say I totally disagree with your snide remark about philosophy having no criteria, but I am sure most students of philosophy believe they have criteria if they can only comphrehend it. The reason modern philosphy fails so often is the it notoriously violates "lex parsimoniae" and thus rendering incomprehenisble to average person.
|
religion has a criteria and that criteria is that religion is itself a philosophy and can in no way be PROVEN...save for one of the infamous prophets descending from the sky.
good example: religion attempts to bend and manipulate modern scientific knowledge to support their assertions. i saw a museum dedicated to explaining the existence of dinosaurs through christianity. it was truly sad.
science, on the other hand, both accepts being proven wrong and its main goal is to piece together inferences that we can observe through our advances. it learns from the outside world, it doesn't throw an assumption out hoping to be proven right.