What is 'Science' and can it be the 'next religion'?

Remove all ads!

Science is how things work.
Religion is why things work.

 

I like that, Taza.

 

Evolution may be primarily biology, but the rest of this argument isn't. That is what I'm getting at.

Okay, I tried to be patient with this, but I've probably said it 15 times over these last several threads. SCIENTIFIC LAWS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE PROVEN. I understand that the word "law" sounds as though it might be proven, but it's not; that's just the way things are. It might be backed by extremely solid evidence, but the fact of the matter is, in science, laws are not proven, and they will never be. We will never know that matter cannot be created or destroyed; because we cannot test this "law" on every bit of matter in existence; that is the logic of science. Therefore, the Law of Conservation of Matter, or any other scientific law, for that matter (note- this does not always apply to mathematical laws), cannot be proven; it can merely be strongly supported through numerous experiments. The mighty science textbook has spoken

 

Religion is the fear of death. God exists solely because people fear death, and if there is an afterlife, then there has to be a god or deity of some sorts to regulate the afterlife, or the reincarnation, or whatever you believe happens when you die. Science doesnt mystify death, it explains it rationally, that is why science can never be a religion, because its rational. Religion is irrational.

 

Theorem's are, for the most part, completely different from theories. If I remember correctly, theorem's have been proven to be true by mathematical formula's and are often called 'mathematical laws.'

EDIT: Thanks Chimera (and Equester) for clarifying what you meant with that fact and theory thing.

[ December 08, 2006, 06:12: Message edited by: ChickenIsGood ]

 

And those that don't ask the right questions tend to get into all other kinds of things. It only works for those that do ask questions...

I went through a time like that too. Some Sundays I still don't feel like getting up at 7 am to shower, eat, and wrestle myself into a shirt and tie, then have a 45 minute drive to Church, only to sit through 3 hours of meetings then another 45 minute drive home, meaning that lunch sometimes doesn't come until after 2 pm. But at some point, those that faithfully attend go from "because my parents make me" to "feeling that this is what we ought to do".

I think my biggest problem is that I am asked for details I just don't have, between not having the degree of scientific knowledge that others have and not having witnessed the process of Creation. There has to be a reconcilliation between faith and science, but I don't have all the information to explain it...

Bingo. People don't like being told what to do. When I was younger, I didn't like being told that Booze and dope was bad, I had to learn myself the hard way...

And if they don't feel any connection to the doctrine, then they see no reason why they should abstain from sex, or whatever they object to...

 

The problem with Science and Religion is that one is constently contradicting the other. Anyway, back on the "original" question, I say no. Religion is a matter of faith, while Science a matter of proof and the two (once again) contradict each other. This is a circular argument to which there is no (currently) known answer (which is why these forems are created in the first place).

 

Amen.

 

Well, like I said, I'm not a mathematician - and I don't even pretend to be one on TV. Your statement seems entirely reasonable, and I believe you.

With all due respect, I must shamefully admit that I do not read every single response on every single thread in these fora. I only click on the threads that interest me, and if the title doesn't catch my eye, I won't click on it. There are entire threads that I don't read. However, if I intend to post on a thread I do make a point to read all the posts. So it is entirely possible that I missed 10, or 12, or 14 times that you previously said it. (You said it once previously in this thread, so I didn't miss all 15 times.)

Furthermore, I'm not trying to debate you on this topic. It's a classic case of not having a problem with what you said, but taking exception to the way you said it. Allow me to explain by example. Do you think it is appropriate for someone who has read to U.S. Consitution but never gone to law school or studied it, to tell a lawyer that his/her interpretation of the Constitution is wrong? I don't think it is appropriate. And now to draw the parallel... People like me and Chimera who have each spent 6+ years of our lives in a certain field of education, and in my case I also have 8 years of work experience in my field (and Chimera also has work experience), well we really don't appreciate you giving us a condescending attitude towards a topic that you have most likely not studied nearly to the degree that we have. Can you not see how it reeks of arrogance when you tell someone who has a master's degree in science that we're wrong about how we define scientific laws/theories because you read it in a textbook? As if Chimera and I have never read a scientific textbook?

I don't know - maybe you have a PhD in some scientific discipline, and maybe you are just as qualified as I am to speak about how people in the scientific community define and use these terms. However, unless you have a college degree in a scientific discipline or work experience in the field, it is extremely unlikely that you know all that much about the scientific community beyond what you've learned in high school and what you read in newspapers and popular journals. While your statement is technically correct - that you can never prove something absolutely - it is a debate that is more suited to the realm of philosophy than it is to science. And philosophy is definitely not my forte. When you have a Mount Everest sized stack of evidence in support of a theory, scientists consider it to be fact - absolutely true in all circumstances. If scientists continually got bogged down in the minutiae of what the exact difference between theory, law, and fact was, and further debated whether or not the theory of gravity works in alternative universes (actually some thought has been given to that, and the answer is it probably doesn't - but I think you get my point) there would never be any scientific progress made at all.

Honestly, the point of my previous post was to poke a little fun at your statements - I certainly wasn't attempting to offend you - although it appears I did not succeed in that regard.

 

again, all mathemathic laws are proven 100% true inside there perimeter. oh and since we are stading the degrees i had +A math in college and A level physics (i thought i wanted to continue it on university)

when you prove a law in math you set up the boundries of where it applies then prove it to hold true for any possible number inside that perimeter, you do that by not using numbers in your proof.

 

I think Aldeth just prove how science CAN become religion. Congratulations.

And Gnarfflinger, would you be a completely soulless monster without the fear of punishment?

I can make my own moral judgements without the fear of God or any other higher force. So should you.
Maybe you've just asked all the wrong questions.

 

The germ theory of disease is a good example:
it is one of the most important theories in biology (and medicine); it could be said that, as a scientific theory, it "cannot absolutely be proven".
Yet nowadays, it is considered a fact that microrganisms are a cause of many -but not all- diseases.

[ December 08, 2006, 19:07: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

[Deleted]

 

While no scientific theory is absolute, the beauty of science is that you can go out and test it to your heart's content till you can disprove it. New information either reinforces it, or makes one modify or even completely discard it. You should also be able to make fairly accurate predictions based on the current theory.

 

Is it just me who does not really care about "absolute facts" here? Since there aren't any then what's the damn point in pursuing them or even discussing them? The whole point is moot, and in my opinion for all purposes irrelevant. Or if there's any reason to even be considering this I'd like to know exactly why?

 

If science does become the next religion, Carl Sagan should be the messiah.

 

Nunsbane, a more blasphemous comment has never been made

Ahem, I believe you are forgetting about a little someone by the name of Bill Nye...

 

Damnation is one of those wrong questions. How many people get turned off by Hellfire and Brimstone sermons? Perhaps the right question is what's in it for doing that which is right? A discourse on Heaven would be nice, but the effects of kindness on the world as opposed to the consequences of sin on the world.

Thinking of how good the world would be if people put the welfare of others ahead of their own selfish desires is why I do the good things. God is seen not only as a judge but a mentor in this case.

Would I be a soulless monster with no fear of punishment? I wasn't when I didn't fear it. I still had a soul, and as such didn't feel happy putting myself at the forefront. It wasn't until I focused on God and those around me that I felt any fulfillment...

 

My humblest apologies Blckdeth...Bill Nye is obviously the best choice - he is the light the way and the truth. Amen.