This is another common complaint that I often hear. I think that we need to first of all define what science is. The definition of science is systematized knowledge derived from observation and study.I think that they are trying to equivocate the evolution theory with science and are trying to say that if you reject evolution, you reject science. There are six meanings to the word evolution when used in scientific discussions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9yrrDJ1Tdc&list=PLvFrrGonrTSOO8_ZtChPQrBxx4MSla9Qb&index=5. This question commits the fallacy of complex question by assuming that creationists are against science and incorporating the assumption as part of the question.They could reword the question by asking; are creationists against science, if so, why? This could go into yet another rabbit trail by asking the question; how is science even possible in the evolutionist world view? I might coveer that in another article.
"Religion is evil because of all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion."6/4/2015 This is a common complaint that I hear from unbelievers all the time. There are a few thing we need to address while we answer this. First we need to define a few terms; religion and evil. Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, purpose and nature of the universe.The word "evil" does not even make sense in an atheistic universe because the very word requires a standard for what is morally right or wrong, so when he or she says that word, they are begging the question. This statement also commits another fallacy called a hasty generalization when that person lumps all religions into one group an says all religions are evil.(If you really want to be mean,just say that atheistic evolution is by definition a religion too.) What they should say is that some religions are evil, then they won't be committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.But they still have the problem with defining evil in a atheistic universe. Ill be talking about that in another article when ill be talking about the moral argument.
|
Wyatt MickasArchives
September 2016
Categories |