Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog
I never said the Talmud was valid - I said it was an attempt at seeking a truth beyond the Torah... It was ultimately unsuccessful because the Hebrew scope of reality was built upon a mythology, but it was still an attempt to seek a firsthand understanding and not just take the words at face value... Without those kinds of baby steps, science would have never come about.
Besides, religion works best when it focuses on human interaction rather than trying to explain the universe - science doesn't cover philosophy. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING about religion just because it's not 100% true - if one little tidbit has value, then why ignore it? That's not very scientific.
|
You said:
"Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)"
You directly compared science to religion. Saying scientific consensus is no different than religion. That is absurd. Scientific consensus is based on carefully tested evidence. Not superstitions. So no the Talmud is not the same as a scientific theory. Not even close.
Anthropology, psychology, and sociology are soft sciences. If you are concerned about human interaction and behavior I would study those subjects. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
And if any tidbit regarding religion is valid, then it is incidental. No knowledge of value that is gained by religion can't be gained with more validity by science times infinity.