DiscussMormonism.com

Sometimes believers point out that science does not yet know all there is to know about the cosmos, our world, and us as beings. That is true. Science keeps adding to what we've known, and debunked notions such as:

1-The age of the earth at 6,000-7,000 years

2-That the sun revolves around the earth

3-The astronomy is not as JSJr said it was in the BoAbr

4-Species, including humans, are evolving

5-Matter is not created ex nihilo but is simply energy in another form

Etc., etc., etc. But the best part is, even if we had a complete listing, stay tuned... because that is the best part about science. It is a method of discovering truth, and promises more in the future.

Now, I am wondering what the believers can point out to are truths about the cosmos, our world, and us as beings that we learned by faith in religious concepts, since believers often argue that there is epistemological value in believing before there is evidence.

Science wouldn't exist were it not for religion.

Modern beer was invented by monks.

More seriously, inquiry used to be more heavily entwined with the priest class and religion. It's really difficult to answer this question because there's a difference between knowledge coming from religion as religion and knowledge coming from religious practice using other means. Monasteries might produce incredibly tasty honey, but they didn't come by their production methods through revelation, in other words. So if you look at the Pythagrorean cult, are you going to say their contributions to mathematics stemmed from their religion or their mathematical reasoning? It's not an easy answer because religious people sometimes call their ordinary, secular faculties such as intuitive inspiration a religious thing.

Simon Belmont wrote: since believers often argue that there is epistemological value in believing before there is evidence.

Science wouldn't exist were it not for religion.[/quote]

There's a bit of truth to that, by the way. What with monks and peas and all...

VRDRC

Simon Belmont wrote:
Science wouldn't exist were it not for religion.

Yes it would.

EAllusion wrote:Yes it would.

There is no way you could know that.

Simon Belmont wrote:
There is no way you could know that.

I'm of the school that regards science just as sound empirical methodology. I think that people would stumble their way towards better methods for reasoning with observations as a matter of trial and error cultural evolution, if nothing else. I think it a discovery waiting to happen given enough time and social complexity: like the wheel or writing.

But if you want to make this assertion, you've more or less just refuted yourself. You claimed that science would not exist if not for religion. In other words, you are claiming to know that if there was no religion, then scientific inquiry would not have existed. How can you claim to know that when you think it is impossible to know the reverse?

Simon Belmont wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Sometimes believers point out that science does not yet know all there is to know about the cosmos, our world, and us as beings. That is true. Science keeps adding to what we've known, and debunked notions such as:

1-The age of the earth at 6,000-7,000 years

2-That the sun revolves around the earth

3-The astronomy is not as JSJr said it was in the BoAbr

4-Species, including humans, are evolving

5-Matter is not created ex nihilo but is simply energy in another form

Etc., etc., etc. But the best part is, even if we had a complete listing, stay tuned... because that is the best part about science. It is a method of discovering truth, and promises more in the future.

Now, I am wondering what the believers can point out to are truths about the cosmos, our world, and us as beings that we learned by faith in religious concepts, since believers often argue that there is epistemological value in believing before there is evidence.

Science wouldn't exist were it not for religion.

To match the profundity of Belmont's one-liner, one might say that aspirin wouldn't exist if it wasn't for headaches. And one would be more to the point ...

Hey Sock,

sock puppet wrote:
Now, I am wondering what the believers can point out to are truths about the cosmos, our world, and us as beings that we learned by faith in religious concepts, since believers often argue that there is epistemological value in believing before there is evidence.

I would suggest that the biggest thing that I would "point to" for the cosmos, our world, and us- as human beings, is that the most reasonable conclusion (without exception, in my opinion) is that there is/was a Creator of all these awesome, wonderous, mysterious, and unexplainable things that we see (Not to mention all that we do not see)


Peace,
Ceeboo