Science and Religion...

Something to think about is the assumptions and goals of each. Different assumptions with different goals gives a considerable amount differences.

Science is not a religion as it has its foundations set in opposing assumptions to religion. Sciences attempts to discover truth where religion seems to assume truth.

It's difficult to generalize about religion in this: some religious leaders/sects do rest on assumptions, for example: the Bible is absolutely, literally true and infallible. That's an assumption that many make, but also one that many religious teachers/sects reject. Mature religion does not make assumptions, except that the practitioner can live a better life with practice.

The difference between religion and science is scope and method. Religion addresses the personal difficulty of understanding man's place and purpose, using the method of introspection. Science is an attempt to understand the mechanics of the material world using the scientific method.

Kdryan,

I personally think you're on the right track; there's nothing glaringly wrong with what you've spelled out. I have some differences in how I feel, with what you've said but I think you've got a nice train of thought going there.

One thing I'd like to add, which may or may not be directly related with the Opening Post, is what seems to be a trend towards the alternate Deification/Vilification of of the two distantly-related concepts: Science and Religion. I find this puzzling...[INDENT] ... in many ways it's like a race to the top of the mountain with the contestants: a Pot Roast and a Rubber Mallet - it doesn't make any sense. Science is a method and pursuit, Religion is a system or conception of faith. Yes they do cross lines now and then, and they do butt heads as well, but then one could just as well pick up my mallet and smash the pot roast; because we can set one against the other doesn't mean this needs be done.
[/INDENT]Or even better, how about we use these sources of knowledge as most befits them and/or as the heart dictates. Absolute knowledge is a whisp on the wind and god isn't coming to dinner... fine. So let's learn what we can from each rather than trying to pit them one against the other (which, by the way, seems to be happening just fine on its own - where they do happen to truly cross the streams at those points where we each must examine which jives with our concepts of what is).

And what of the other sources of 'truths' in the world: You friend's idea, Dad's Preaching, Aunt Jane's Lectures, Professor Hanz's theories, Pastor Rick, Father Thane, History, Literature, Hippies, the Great Pumpkin or Mr Universal-Energy ... and the list goes on and on. There are more sources of 'truth' from which to draw than these two - and the choice need not be two-dimensional. Oh, and let's not forget the most important source of gained truth: The earned conclusions of ones' own mind.

<rant off>

Thanks for your patience

I think my problem here is more with science than religion at this point. I KNOW what I believe about the possibility of a higher being. I simply don't believe that it's possible. Science however, is a different animal. The more I look at science and its underlying form (and this is why I chose metaphysics to post this in), the more that science looks simply like another religion. Here is why I believe this.

Science requires as much faith in it's results as religion does. You and I can sit here and say that time slows as we near the speed of light, but you and I do not know that more than we know that God created the universe or Moses parted the Red Sea. You may say that science relies upon fact, but it as impossible for a lay person to verify those facts as it would be to verify the existence of Heaven.

Science is supposed to be incontrovertible because the scientific method does not allow the individual to solely be responsible for accuracy any given fact. Where in a religion, information comes from a higher source, and that source is not to be questioned, under threat of blasphemy, science is supposed to be open for all to verify any information by experimenting. But scientific method is flawed as well.

Any scientist is bound to instinctively skew results in his favor as a much as a priest would be in defending his religion. A person studying the speed of light and relativity is not someone who walks in off the street. This person probably began with an interest in physics in High School. He then would go on to college and invest four years of his life and his money in learning physics. After that, he invests more time and money in post-graduate studies. By the time he is done he has invest 8 years and immeasurable hours setting himself up to just begin his study of light. Understand, he has not even done any real work yet. All of this is in preparation of what is to come. In order to argue religion honestly with a priest, you must BECOME a priest.

But in doing so, you will have invested so much of yourself that any scientific fact that disagrees with what you have learned has become a threat to your very existence. If our boy hit upon a theory that light stood still, he would tend to simply discard it because 'Well, everyone just KNOWS that light moves!'

In the end, there is no real way to verify Relativity, so it really just comes down to the fact that you have to have as much faith in science as you do in religion.

The dilemma is difficult as to tackle it we must first define the two apposing options. Religion can be defined many ways one definition would be, a belief in something beyond the mundane and obvious perceptions of our existence. But this definition also encompasses science. Another possible definition could be a belief in something not yet scientifically proven, far too vague as science will prove something which was previously unproven and thus prove religion correct.
Given the problems with the definitions most people will simplify it to Catholicism or physics, the choice is then obvious but this is a bogus dilemma.
Maybe someone could provide adequate definitions, but it seems the task is beyond me. :perplexed:

ummmm NO


You really think there's just as much faith in science as in religion?

3 is the closest to the truth, but the answer is either none of the above or all of the above.

Science and Religion are not things. They're entirely separate domains of practice and thought. They don't even speak the same language, so there's no real possibility of #1 and #2 being valid -- except insofar as they can convince an individual one way or another about a given issue.

I can't agree with this. Science doesn't depend on the absolute demonstrability of an infinite chain of causation. It just depends on immediate demonstrability.

In English, what I mean is I can demonstrate to you in scientific terms that there is a chair in this room. I can demonstrate in scientific terms that Yosemite Valley was carved by a glacier. I can demonstrate that bubonic plague is caused by Yersinia pestis. You may not have believe in all that quantum and relativity stuff, but that stuff is incidental -- because what I've demonstrated stands on its own merits regardless of quantum science.

You can't demonstrate the same thing with unobservable religious contentions. It's lack of observability that makes a belief require faith. And to people who understand science, relativity and quantum science ARE observable.

Agreed, but you can demonstrate until you're blue in the face, but in the end, if I know nothing about geology, I am just going to have to accept what you say about glaciers forming Yosemite (which I happen to believe is the most beautiful place on Earth, bar none). Have you ever seen your particular bacteria cause the plague? Have you isolated it, fired up an electron microscope, done whatever is needed to prove it? If not, then you are simply accepting what someone else told you. It's not that I don't believe in relativity, I really think it is probably correct. I simply have no way of verifying it for myself.

I think this is called Positivism, but I'm not too sure about that...

I don't think I am really in a position to provide a true definition of science and religion, but I think for our purposes, we can define it as the following. If anyone thinks it's inaccurate, please let me know.



Religion: Belief that the whole of existence is the result of the will of a single or multiple entities.



Science: Belief that the whole of existence is governed by a logical and ultimately unchangeable set of laws.

Kevin, I'm going to focus on this, as this appears to be the heart of your discussion.The answer to this is going to take a lot of introspection. Khetil makes a grand point in that it will ultimately depend on your personal truths. This is what will define you.

First off, conceptually, I understand the Science vs. Religion dichotomy, but realistically, I don't think it holds true. Most scientists, even while completely logical during experimentation, fall to illogical beliefs. Most clergyman, even while completely illogical during sermon, fall to logical beliefs. And those are the extremes; for an everyday member of society (one that doesn't dedicate the majority of their time preaching either direction), the grey may be even more pronounced. In other words, it isn't so black and white. Your #3, as Aedes mentioned, is closer to reality. It is a greater scheme, but like many other concepts, we feel we have to create a fence, a side, a right, a wrong.

Meaning has been everchanging, culture to culture, era to era, as long as we're been consciously observing this world. Centuries before, humanity had a "God" for almost everything, from agriculture, to war, to love, to mercy, to sun. We would think the Sun God was providing us heat, and now we've learned of thermodynamics. We thought we must praise an agriculture God to give us a good yield, and now we've advanced in vegetative genetic manipulation. It goes on and on, the more we learn logically about the world around us, the less we've been leaving up to "God" and the more elusive the notion is becoming. So, now, when you ask of a "God", you don't usually find sun worshippers, as it's just 'silly' to believe in something so illogical, right? We now see the notion of "God" as elusive as ever, undeniably unprovable, in order to not fall prey to a scientific method, or because we have decided some notions to be obsolete. This indicates to me that these two concepts are intertwined, and are one of the same.

As has been said by another poster, belief and critical thinking are diametrical opposites, the more of one, the less of another. Ultimately, the difference is seen in the application of meaning; to critically think dominantly means there is little application of meaning (as a new possibility has already been considered ie. we won't worship the sun now because we have established 'truth'), to believe dominantly means there is more application of meaning (there is no new possibility to be considered, as you've chosen not to contemplate further). One cannot be all of either, because, as you've noted, belief is essential - even a person that critically thinks consistently will have to believe, have faith, in the past conclusion. What I see is not a Science [a branch of critical thinking] vs. Religion [a branch of inherent belief] war, but rather differing perspectives on the application of meaning. It's a spectrum of absolutism and nihilism, a debate concerning intrinsic value.

You say that neither side upholds it's promises, and I say there were no promises. Each consciousness not only applies it's own meaning, but decides the frequency of application. A miracle to me might not be a mircale to you, and a scientific breakthrough to you, might not be one to me. It's relative to not only the subjects experiencing, but the time in which we live. It's your personal journey, you're constructing your own reality, and don't ever let anyone tell you either road is better. You make that choice.

But the method and the jargon is there for you to learn, and the evidence still exists. So if you choose to make the effort you can garner enough evidence about any scientific topic that it becomes evidence based and not faith-based.

Science is a method, not a belief.

Of course you cant verify it for yourself but thats why you rely on evidence. A good example is the orbital rotation of Pluto. It takes Pluto more than 200+ years to make a full orbit. No one person has or maybe even will see Pluto do a full orbit around the sun but does that mean it hasnt or doesnt orbit the sun? No. The evidence and mathematics says it will and does. Remember science isnt just one person, its a method to help understand ultimate reality. Science is open to interpretation and peer-review so a wack theory will be exposed immediately through scientific scrutiny. Unless theres some massive global conspiracy, science is as objective and unbiased as you can get.

But you do have to believe in what knowledge the method has already deemed. Otherwise, there's no stepping stone to continue, right?

Evidence is only evidence because we have faith in the premises.

Exactly. This is why I called science a system of beliefs rather than a method...

No, you don't -- at least not to believe any given contention. If I contend that Yosemite Valley was carved by a glacier and the Grand Canyon was carved by a river, I will have ways of demonstrating that don't require reference to another study.

Now, the thing about our brain, (and this is NOT a phenomenon of science) is that we cannot know/read/remember everything. So we have a body of scientific publications that goes back hundreds of years in some fields that provides all the stepping stones. And while you need to trust the integrity of that work, if you don't it is always there for you to challenge and retest.

This seems to be going around in circles here. One person will support that science is based on faith, the next says science does not require faith, etc...

Anyone ogt an idea how we can break out of this?

You said it right there - to 'believe' a given contention. To believe, I'd argue, carries faith. Of course, with science there is evidence to support the claim through the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it is always true, and it also doesn't mean that people aren't believing.



Sure, it's always there for us to challenge, but so what? Eventually, people will have to trust the claim if they wish to progress.



These are theories, and there are even multiple theories on how each of those sites came to be. With multiple theories, multiple demonstrations, coming from multiple people, this example breathes faith even more than something like Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Well, if you're going to take this to the extreme, you could also argue that you cannot believe that you have a left foot except when you're looking at it -- and every time you look away its existence is a matter of faith.

But come on, beliefs come in a whole gradation of confidence. And things that demonstrate themselves over and over and over again, like the fact that our blood circulates, means that we don't have to go back and repeat Harvey's experiments; and the fact that we constantly are reminded that we have cells means that we don't have to go back and repeat Hooke's experiments.

So fine, you can use the word faith, but you need to find some way of differentiating from among word-of-mouth beliefs that have LOTS of empirical basis, SOME empirical basis, and NO POSSIBILITY of empirical basis.


Eh, not really, beyond minor nuances. I mean there is NO dispute that the Grand Canyon was carved by a river, namely the one that continues to carve it. There is NO dispute that Yosemite was carved by a glacier. Some "intelligent design" advocate who says that it was the Great Flood does not get to proclaim that as a theory -- because claims that are unsupported by empiric evidence are not theories! Call it a hypothesis, call it a claim, but a theory requires demonstration. Creationists think of the word theory as synonymous with 'opinion'. Not so.

And the less a contention even has the possibility of empiric demonstration, the less plausible it is. If you contend that the Grand Canyon was scooped out by a gremlin with a giant shovel, that does NOT get equal weight to the consensus in geological circles until you provide demonstration.

Well, the way to break this is breaking out of semantics.

We would all have to agree about a definition of "belief", "knowledge", "truth", and perhaps a few other terms that are ambiguous, on at least some level.

After that, we can attribute a distinction between science and religion that may satisfy the majority.

Aedes,

You're absolutely correct.