Posted: Nov 11, 2010 11:47 am
sanja wrote:Will S wrote:
Very often in discussions between religious people and non-religious people, a religious person will say something along the following lines:
...
Or sometimes it may sound more reasonable. Often it's along these lines:Therefore, we must recognise that there are other ways of finding out about reality, such as our intuitions or our emotions, and we should use these to supplement or even to correct what we learn from science.
The second of these caveats certainly sounds plausible. Surely, it's clear that in everyday life we find out a very great deal without using science? So science seems to be limited in the kind of way that the religious person claims. However, I suggest that this whole argument is misleading, and for one simple reason: it relies on a definition of science which is woolly and unsustainable.
Why do you believe only religious person would think like that?
I would say that Artur Schopenhauer was pretty firm atheist.
He thought pretty much like that (not quite like that, but pretty much so)
But I don't necessarily believe that only a religious person would think like that. Nor did I say it!
You can (presumably!) adopt a definition of science which is 'woolly and unsustainable' without being religious - though, admittedly, I think this is a very common vice amongst religious people.