Topics List Inbox Friends Search Admin Information  
 You are not logged in.   
Username: Password: Register

Message

 Search For:

TOPIC: Social Issues and Politics
[I.M.P.] Monday, August 24, 2009 11:06:02 PM 
Your previous post explains perfectly why science is not a religion-it is the stark differences between scientists and clerics.  Facts=/=Faith.  No way, no how.

The differences in approach is what defines each.

Can a cleric who claims things based on a book be called a scientist?

The emotional attachment that scientists have to their specific area of study, and who are part of hot button issues (like global warming) might be similar to a cleric's attachment to their religion.  But that attachment is simply a by product of their persuit.  The fervor of clerics and scientists is based on two completely different things.  An imperfect analogy would be to compare the fervor between a Priest fan at a Priest show and a tween at a Hannah Montana show.  The tween is not a metal head, despite the similarities in enthusiasm.  The cleric is not a scientist.  Both seek answers, both are defined by their method.

That is my two cents anyway.
  [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, August 24, 2009 10:03:15 PM)
1 Messages Displayed.