Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Let’s not try to dig ourselves out of that.
If we had different words for “scientific belief” vs. “religious belief”, I don’t think you’d be trying to make this same point.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines “belief” as opposed to “fact” in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesn’t change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason we’re having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which you’re now trying to obfuscate by saying “belief is different in science than it is in religion,” when that isn’t what matters, because the other user’s arguments were still erroneous.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and can’t believe.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expression…
But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
The only reason “science” even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If you’re going to categorically dismiss all those people because they’re religious, then there’s no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you can’t see through your own biased point of view.
Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
You’re viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They don’t need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a person’s life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
I don’t really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I don’t care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then you’re not the one I’m arguing with. Unless you’re trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case you’re contradicting yourself.
What I don’t agree with is your attempt to conflate “belief in religion” with “belief in science”.
I wasn’t conflating the two. In fact, you’re conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. I’ve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we don’t need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you don’t see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and that’s okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I can’t help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring, and if that’s all you can focus on then I think this conversation is over.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Let’s not try to dig ourselves out of that.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines “belief” as opposed to “fact” in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesn’t change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason we’re having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which you’re now trying to obfuscate by saying “belief is different in science than it is in religion,” when that isn’t what matters, because the other user’s arguments were still erroneous.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expression…
The only reason “science” even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If you’re going to categorically dismiss all those people because they’re religious, then there’s no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you can’t see through your own biased point of view.
You’re viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They don’t need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a person’s life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I don’t care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then you’re not the one I’m arguing with. Unless you’re trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case you’re contradicting yourself.
I wasn’t conflating the two. In fact, you’re conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. I’ve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we don’t need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you don’t see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and that’s okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I can’t help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring, and if that’s all you can focus on then I think this conversation is over.