Because tradition.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 16, 2015, 07:51:21 PMBecause tradition.Tradition here is to sacrifice newborns for good crop growth. Should it still be relevant because "tradition"?
It's the foundation of science
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of science..eh? I don't follow. Do you mean that some of the most notable scientists were religious?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of scienceCome on, man. The fact that the scientific method sprung from a religious society, when religion was ubiquitous, doesn't make religion the foundation of science.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 10:03:29 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of science..eh? I don't follow. Do you mean that some of the most notable scientists were religious?Religions started largely as a way to understand the world. As that understanding grew, that exploration turned into more reliable processes and the members at its forefront became the fathers of modern science. Until the last couple hundred years, science had been conducted almost exclusively by religious institutions, as was education.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:12:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 10:03:29 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of science..eh? I don't follow. Do you mean that some of the most notable scientists were religious?Religions started largely as a way to understand the world. As that understanding grew, that exploration turned into more reliable processes and the members at its forefront became the fathers of modern science. Until the last couple hundred years, science had been conducted almost exclusively by religious institutions, as was education.Right, but religion is not currently the foundation of science. It was, way back when, but hasn't been for a long time.
Religion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:13:42 AMReligion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.I suppose, but that seems more like a technicality than anything else. I mean, religion essentially arose itself out of a need for moral and cultural homogeneity among tribes, but I wouldn't claim morality is the foundation of religion.
Quote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 11:22:11 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:12:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 10:03:29 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of science..eh? I don't follow. Do you mean that some of the most notable scientists were religious?Religions started largely as a way to understand the world. As that understanding grew, that exploration turned into more reliable processes and the members at its forefront became the fathers of modern science. Until the last couple hundred years, science had been conducted almost exclusively by religious institutions, as was education.Right, but religion is not currently the foundation of science. It was, way back when, but hasn't been for a long time.Sure. It's the historical foundation, not the procedural one.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 19, 2015, 11:30:29 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:13:42 AMReligion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.I suppose, but that seems more like a technicality than anything else. I mean, religion essentially arose itself out of a need for moral and cultural homogeneity among tribes, but I wouldn't claim morality is the foundation of religion.I didn't claim morality is the foundation of religion...that just seems circular.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:23:53 AMQuote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 11:22:11 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 11:12:11 AMQuote from: Mad Max on February 19, 2015, 10:03:29 AMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 19, 2015, 07:46:15 AMIt's the foundation of science..eh? I don't follow. Do you mean that some of the most notable scientists were religious?Religions started largely as a way to understand the world. As that understanding grew, that exploration turned into more reliable processes and the members at its forefront became the fathers of modern science. Until the last couple hundred years, science had been conducted almost exclusively by religious institutions, as was education.Right, but religion is not currently the foundation of science. It was, way back when, but hasn't been for a long time.Sure. It's the historical foundation, not the procedural one.Wouldn't that be a reason to leave it in the past though?
Why is science still relevant?
See above. Religion as a means of explaining the machinations the universe is the precursor the rigor of modern-day science.