Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.

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.

[SeanL]

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.