Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • Debate2criticalanalysis 1

    Diunggah oleh

    api-301974021
    12 tayangan3 halaman
    Debate about whether science does or does not support God was very difficult. Pro team argued that science reduces the probability of God because of insufficient evidence. Con team realized there was more evidence that science can support God's existence.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    Judul Asli

    debate2criticalanalysis 1

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    Debate about whether science does or does not support God was very difficult. Pro team argued that science reduces the probability of God because of insufficient evidence. Con team realized there was more evidence that science can support God's existence.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    12 tayangan3 halaman

    Debate2criticalanalysis 1

    Diunggah oleh

    api-301974021
    Debate about whether science does or does not support God was very difficult. Pro team argued that science reduces the probability of God because of insufficient evidence. Con team realized there was more evidence that science can support God's existence.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 3

    SarahCarlson

    WaysofKnowing
    June1st,2016
    CriticalAnalysis:Debate(Week10)
    GodandScience
    ThisdebateaboutwhethersciencedoesordoesnotsupportGodwasverydifficult,
    especiallywithaclassthatstartedoutverybiasedtowardstheprosideinthefirstplace.After
    theresultscameout,itshowedthatthedebatedidnotchangetheaudiencesopinions.Itwas
    pointedoutthatthiscouldbebecausepeopleholdtheirtheologicalbeliefscloserthanother
    beliefsthatweredebated.Theproteamarguedthat
    sciencereducestheprobabilityofGod
    becauseofinsufficientevidence.
    Theconteamstartedoutwiththeargumentthat
    scienceand
    Godshouldbeviewedastwoseparateideaswithoutinterferingwitheachother.
    Towards
    theendofthedebate,however,theconteamrealizedtherewasmoreevidencethatsciencecan
    supportGodsexistence.
    Bothteamshadwelldevelopedarguments,butintheendtheproteam
    persuadedtheaudiencemoreduetotheconteamgettingconfusedonwhattheyreallyargued.
    Thefirstpremisetheproteamhaswasthat,Ifahypothesisdoesnthavesufficient
    evidencetosupportit,thentheprobabilityofitbeingtrueisreduced.Theirmainargumentthat
    wentalongwiththispremiseisthateverythingregardingGodcomesfromunreliablesources
    suchasthebible,personalexperiences,tradition,andcomfort.Usingbayestheorem,theyhada
    strongstatementthatsciencecandisprovemanystoriesandtheoriesthatarewritteninthebible.
    Theconteamsaidthat,Ifscienceandreligionholddifferentareasoffactsorvalues,scienceis
    notavalidwaytoquestionGod.Therebuttaltheyhadagainsttheproteamwasthatthebible

    shouldnotbetakenliterallyandconcludedthatitshouldbereadasastorywithallegoriesand
    metaphors.Thisisaninterestingconceptmostpeopledontthinkofatfirst,evenwhentheyare
    withinthereligionsthatdontsupportliteralinterpretation.
    Thesecondpremisetheproteamhadwas,Thereisntsufficientevidencetosupportthe
    ideaofGod.Thisisverymuchthesameastheirfirstpremise,justwrittenasastatement.They
    useditfurthertalkabouthowthebibledoesntmakesenseusingtheexamplethattheuniverse
    isroughly6,000yearsoldwhenaddedupfromthebible.Thiswouldhavebeengoodevidence
    ifoneofthemainargumentsoftheconteamwasthatmostwesternreligionsdonotsupport
    literalinterpretation.Theconteamssecondpremisewas,Scienceandreligionsupportdifferent
    aspectsoflife.Theoriginalargumentwaswassciencesupportsaspectssuchashowtheworld
    worksandhowwecametoexistwhilereligionsupportsthesoulandthepurposeoflife.But
    laterontheyconcludedthattherearealsomanyscientificthingsthataretoospecifictobe
    coincidencesthathappenedtomakethisearthwork(molecules,bigbang,etc.).
    Inconclusion,theproteamhadamuchbetterdebateuptheirsleeveandkeptthe
    audienceontheirside.Eventhoughtheconsidehadrebuttalsforeverything,theevidencewas
    notassolidandwhattheywerearguingdidntevenstayconsistentthroughoutthedebatewhich
    mighthaveconfusedtheaudience.Oncewhattheywantedtoarguewasfiguredout,theyhad
    moresupportiveevidence,butreliedmoreonreasoningandchancesunliketheproteamthat
    seemedtohavemoreevidencetobackthemselvesup.Thatiswhy,forthemostpart,the
    audiencestayedconsistentonwhichsidetheysupport,thatbeingtheproside.

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai