Difference between science and religion

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Science explained why and how humans invented God, with what mythology, for what reasons, etc. To normal people, this would be enough knowledge, to make statements about any God.

"Normal people"? And yet the majority of the people in the world do believe in god. So how do you define normal?

All I'm saying is that science can only research and attempt to describe the patterns that it sees. If it never sees god then one might can inductively conclude that there is no god but you can see that this can never be known for certain. Science is only concerned with holding a positin on things that can be disproven. So it doesn't concern itself with god either way because it can never be disproven.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think this partly results from a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Scientists who are athiests are not athiests because they believe God has been "proven" to not exist, but rather that he has NOT been "proven" to exist. They choose to not believe something until there is evidence to support it.

Be more specific about where you think the misunderstanding is and who misunderstands. Some people have to have things spelled out to them. What you are saying I agree with completely. But there are some here who think science has "disproven" god. And any "normal" person can see that. Egocentricity is running overtime on this whole thread.

 

[Alexander]

Heus, you posts seem rational but sometimes very and very long. I personally (and I believe, many others here too) am quite busy with work and other activities, thus simply do not have time to read long posts.

So, for better communication, can you (and anyone else, please) keep them reasonably short? Adding a link is always better than copying whole writing of someone (even if it is Einstein, Lenin, Marx, Nitsche, etc) into precious PF disk space.

I always try to be consise myself, understanding that the number of readers exponentially decays with the length of post.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Heus, you posts seem rational but sometimes very and very long. I personally (and I believe, many others here too) am quite busy with work and other activities, thus simply do not have time to read long posts.

So, for better communication, can you (and anyone else, please) keep them reasonably short? Adding a link is always better than copying whole writing of someone (even if it is Einstein, Lenin, Marx, Nitsche, etc) into precious PF disk space.

I always try to be consise myself, understanding that the number of readers exponentially decays with the length of post.

I agree completely, Alexander. Excellent post. I find myself ignoring the postings of pages and pages of text. Not enough time.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Alexander
Heus, you posts seem rational but sometimes very and very long. I personally (and I believe, many others here too) am quite busy with work and other activities, thus simply do not have time to read long posts.

So, for better communication, can you (and anyone else, please) keep them reasonably short? Adding a link is always better than copying whole writing of someone (even if it is Einstein, Lenin, Marx, Nitsche, etc) into precious PF disk space.

I always try to be consise myself, understanding that the number of readers exponentially decays with the length of post.

i absolutely agree with this, we need to keep our posts a little more short, links are an excellent way to point out where information can be acquired regarding your posts...

 

[BoulderHead]

Methinks so too...

An occasional ‘longish’ post is ok, but page after page of long posts seems too much like a force-feeding…

 

[heusdens]

Understood. Will provide a link instead.

 

[drag]

You guys...

heusdens just bothered to post all that
summarizing of philosophy and all you're
bothered with is the length of the posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
heusdens just bothered to post all that
summarizing of philosophy and all you're
bothered with is the length of the posts.

Summarizing? No, I think the word you are looking for is PLAGARIZING.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
"Normal people"? And yet the majority of the people in the world do believe in god. So how do you define normal?

All I'm saying is that science can only research and attempt to describe the patterns that it sees. If it never sees god then one might can inductively conclude that there is no god but you can see that this can never be known for certain. Science is only concerned with holding a positin on things that can be disproven. So it doesn't concern itself with god either way because it can never be disproven.

There is more one can say:
1. All concepts of God we know so far have failed to proof their existence
2. We know religion was an invention of early humanity, to "explain" things for which humanity at that time had no scientific explenation.
3. The world can be known through science
4. There isn't any reason to belief in any God

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Summarizing? No, I think the word you are looking for is PLAGARIZING.

There was a specific demand for a definition of materialism / dialectical-materialism.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
There is more one can say:
1. All concepts of God we know so far have failed to proof their existence

OK.

2. We know religion was an invention of early humanity, to "explain" things for which humanity at that time had no scientific explenation.

I'm not sure I like the word "scientific" but ok.

3. The world can be known through science

This is an assumption of science. It certainly isn't proven. As a matter of fact, many think that we will never be able to have complete knowledge of the world.

4. There isn't any reason to belief in any God [/B]

This is a subjective opinion. Many people will look at a work of art and hold a different opinion about it's origin. Just because you are able to believe an ordered universe originates from a box full of rocks doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a different perspective or appreciation. Your statement might be ok if you started the sentence off with the phrase "Scientifically speaking".

Overall, I'm still struggling with your point. This comparison seems definitely to be a judgement.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by drag
You guys...

heusdens just bothered to post all that
summarizing of philosophy and all you're
bothered with is the length of the posts.

I guess I would agree if I thought it was really a summary. But there's no way he is summarizing. It reads like excerpts from a book. And even if it were a summary, I would still need to comment that it is poorly summarized.

I just don't have time to read through pages and pages of book excerpts on Dialectic Materialism. Especially when I could swear I read the same excerpts in about 5 other threads.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
This is an assumption of science. It certainly isn't proven. As a matter of fact, many think that we will never be able to have complete knowledge of the world.

The history of science shows that we know a great deal now, we didn't know before. There is no end to what we can know.

Fact is of couse, we will never have complete knowledge.
Science is not dealing with absolutes. Absolute knowledge is simply impossible, we will develop from one relative thruth to another relative truth.

This is a subjective opinion. Many people will look at a work of art and hold a different opinion about it's origin. Just because you are able to believe an ordered universe originates from a box full of rocks doesn't mean that someone else doesn't have a different perspective or appreciation. Your statement might be ok if you started the sentence off with the phrase "Scientifically speaking".

Overall, I'm still struggling with your point. This comparison seems definitely to be a judgement.

Yeah. Implicitly the judgement is, wether or not God exists, we can think about it till our head turns round, but we never find an answer to that.

While in science, we can observe, we can test, and we can makes theories, and this means some progress in knowledge can ba made.

My opinion is then, with the first, we never come any further, through science, we will at least be heading towards a better understanding.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
My opinion is then, with the first, we never come any further, through science, we will at least be heading towards a better understanding.

Yeah I can buy all that. But the mischievous side of me can't help but think of the ironic possibility that science will progress it's knowledge only to lend more credibility to the other approach.


I'm not saying this will happen or even could happen. I just think it would be funny if it did.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yeah I can buy all that. But the mischievous side of me can't help but think of the ironic possibility that science will progress it's knowledge only to lend more credibility to the other approach.

I'm not saying this will happen or even could happen. I just think it would be funny if it did.

This would not change the choice pro science, would it?

The other thing is interpretation. No matter how science portrays and investigates the world to be, we can still choose an interpretation of outside reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Science TRIES to explain, it doesn't say it CAN
and MUST be able to. In fact, so far it says
it is most likely that it CAN NOT explain all
things to mankind, because science uses reasoning
systems the common thing about which is the
fact that they seemingly can not fully explain
the Universe.[/B]

The fact that the aim of Science is to describe the phenomena within the Universe shows that, at it's heart, there is an assumption: That the phenomena of the Universe can be explained, to at least some degree of accuracy.