Science Is True If You Believe In It Or Not. So Is Anything True, Including Religion

Ed Reit I like Tyson; but he is disappointingly (if that's a word) prone to straw man attacks on religion, which are unnecessary not to mention just wrong. Speaking of which, the good thing about EVERYTHING true is that it's true whether you believe it or not. Science, religion, history, dentistry, ad infinitum. He's stumbled upon a truism. 3 · Reply · 1d · Edited Kim Shinab Ed Reiter There's nothing in that quote about religion. Do you have a link to a context to back this up? 1 · Reply · 1d Mark Rego Monteiro Kim Shinab See my reply to ER below, pls. E Chapple´s work on religion is little used because of the conventional gaps between biology and social theory. I recall that sociologist GH Mead cites him, as did the more biologically oriented team including E D´Aquili et al in their work like The Spectrum of Ritual, and he was published in American Anthropologist, and the like. More recently, C Keener published Miracles in 2011 which addresses the more spiritual-religious dimension of miracles. The late Ravi Zacharias, despite revelations of his own personal indiscretions, often used philosophical truth in his arguments about religion that are valid about Christianity´s coherence and correspondence to reality. I am working on a historical sociological argument that is comparable to J Hannam´s historical work about the History of Science and Religion. · Reply · 39m Write a reply… Mark Rego Monteiro Ed Reit Excellent point. To get clear about that, we can use a simple philosophical exercise. "There is no truth." is simply a verbal statement. Yet, we can perceive that it tries to state a truth, and negates its own message. Simply put, "The truth exists" would appear to be true. "Science is the truth" then, would be Tyson´s claim, along with that of others. However, the definition of "science" is narrower, something like "the use of the scientific philosophical method to study conventional physical phenomena." Oh, and note that they usually neglect to identify it as philosophical. As for religious and Christian truth, and truths, many commentators appear immersed in the doctrine of their Christian upbringing. I was raised atheist humanist, embraced interfaith Taoist UUism, got a degree in bio anthro, and later perceived I could become an interfaith UU Christian as an empirical theist. Thus, my discovery of Eliot Chapple´s emotional-interactional principles of religion didn´t conflict with my empiricism. Basically, historical sociological truth reveals that Christian truth has taken ancient Greek philosophy to University-based study, including all modern disciplines. "Hypocrisy" and "integrity" would be the principles to assess ongoing Christian truth in modernization. Scholars including M Mueller, WR Smith, R Otto, and M Eliade have developed Comparative Religious Studies that reveals various forms of religious truths, whether resonant with Christian truths or natural truths. WL Craig´s argument for God´s existence uses Cosmological physics as the platform for the truths of its modern Kalam Cosmological argument. "Anything that begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. The Univese has a cause." The truth of that First Cause can then be considered. F Turek used that basic philosophical case about truth. It is related to Goedel´s Incompleteness Theorem, but not the same.