Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Difference between science and religion

  1. May 19, 2003 #41
    I think the people in a few decades or century will say the same about our current day philosophies and science!
     
  2. May 19, 2003 #42
    Objectivity in the realsm of QM poses a problem perhaps to our ordinary sense of objective reality. But still we don't consider the outside reality, as figments of our thoughts, or in any way dependend on our minds. Our minds also belong to the same outside reality, that exists objectively.
     
  3. May 19, 2003 #43

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    These respected gentelmen appear to have likely
    made a crucial mistake - they made the absolute
    assumption that something they or others consider
    must be true or false. Thus, they ignored the
    PoE and the likely infinite indetermenacy of the
    Universe. This led to another problem in their
    PoV - that they can, should and must connect
    their overall view of the world to observation.
    But, the seemingly most likely and lacking
    of assumption path is not to make any additions
    to observation beyond those that are abstract
    "CLOSED circuit" connections between them. Thus,
    no definite conclusions or assumptions are
    possible because there are apparently no "open
    ends" which to assume or deduce and trust
    absolutely.

    We're going deep, please make sure your BS
    pressure suits are ready and working and
    your oxygen tanks are full...

    Live long and prosper.
     
  4. May 19, 2003 #44
    Physicalism is something entirely different as materialism.
    And the mentioned 'limitations' of materialism, are not real limitations of materialism. Matter denotes a category of existence that is outside and independend of the mind. It is left to the task of science, to actually describe the forms of matter and their laws of motion. Matter therefore covers all known and unknown forms of material existence, the baryonic or leptonic stuff (protons, neutrons, electrons), the energy (photons), and fields (gravity, electro-magnetism), etc.
     
  5. May 19, 2003 #45

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, my personal philosophical perspective
    actually plans to live forever...
    I think they'll need quite a few ray-guns
    to vaporize it...
     
  6. May 19, 2003 #46
    The Dialectical method

    The Dialectical Method

    Lenin's "Elements of Dialectics"
    Lenin summaries the dialectical method in his Philosophical Notebooks as follows:
    1. "The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
    2. the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
    3. the union of analysis and synthesis". [/list=1]
      And in greater detail as follows:
      1. "the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself).
      2. the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
      3. the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
      4. the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
      5. the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum and unity of opposites.
      6. the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
      7. the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
      8. the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
      9. not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
      10. the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
      11. the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
      12. from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
      13. the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
      14. the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
      15. the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
      16. the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)".[/list=1]
        [Philosophical Notebooks, Volume 38, Lenin's Collected Works, p221]
        Lenin's list is as good as any. It might be rewarding to return to this checklist from time to time while reading Hegel.

        One could hardly do better, either, than Marx's famous reaffirmation of Hegel's gains

        Theses on Feuerbach
        I
        The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism -- which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.

        Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary", of "practical-critical", activity.

        II
        The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth -- i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

        III
        The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

        The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

        IV
        Feuerbach starts out from the fact of religious self-alienation, of the duplication of the world into a religious world and a secular one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis.

        But that the secular basis detaches itself from itself and establishes itself as an independent realm in the clouds can only be explained by the cleavages and self-contradictions within this secular basis. The latter must, therefore, in itself be both understood in its contradiction and revolutionised in practice. Thus, for instance, after the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.

        V
        Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants contemplation; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.

        VI
        Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.

        In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

        Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is consequently compelled:
        1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract -- isolated -- human individual.
        2. Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as "genus", as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals. [/list=1]
          VII
          Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the "religious sentiment" is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he analyses belongs to a particular form of society.

          VIII
          All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.

          IX
          The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.

          X
          The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.

          XI
          The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

          Summary
          For my part, I have identified the following features of the dialectical method:
          1. The validity of things as moments or stages of development;
          2. Not definitions, but the genesis of a thing;
          3. Knowledge begins with Immediate perception, but all knowledge is mediated: Being is Nothing;
          4. The objective immanent movement of a thing itself;
          5. Both phenomenon and essence are objective;
          6. Subjection of all concepts to criticism the source of movement and change is internal to external;
          7. The Conception of a thing as a Unity of Opposites;
          8. The discovery of the internal contradictions within a thing;
          9. Practice is the Criterion of Truth;
          10. Not the Thing or its Other but the Transition between them;
          11. The Absolute is Relative and there is an Absolute within the Relative;
          12. Negation of Negation: the retention of the positive within the negative;
          13. Quantitative change at a certain point becomes qualitative change;
          14. The struggle of form and content, the content is also a form, the shedding of form and the transformation of content into form and form into content;
          15. Cause and effect are relative moments, merged and canceled in actuality;
          16. Chance and necessity are relative moments, merged and canceled in actuality;
          17. All that is rational is real, all that is real is rational and all that is real deserves to perish;
          18. Freedom is the understanding of Necessity;
          19. The truth of actuality is a concept;
          20. Knowledge proceeds from Abstract to Concrete;
          21. The truth is concrete;
          22. Subjectivity is also Objective, objectivity includes the subject;
          23. Analysis and Synthesis are inseparable, the alternation between synthesis and analysis;
          24. The Means is realised in the End, the End is realised in the Means;
          25. Life is Cognition;
          26. Theory is the comprehension of Practice.

            [/list=1]
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2003
  7. May 19, 2003 #47
    The contradiction is about the relation of Being towards Thinking.
    Idealism sees Thinking as primary and original, and Materialism denotes Being as primary and original.
     
  8. May 19, 2003 #48
    No Alexander it is about a different understanding of concepts and the scope for science. Science says nothing about the existence of god. Sorry. The things you mention can be argued to be evidence against "SPECIFIC" gods of people in the past but it can NEVER disprove god as a global concept. No one here will agree with you that disproving god is in scope for science. Of course, you could just hold the opinion(and probably will) that everyone else is wrong but you. LOL.

    Anyway, I see this thread has turned into another place for Heusdens to paste pages and pages of excerpts from his philosphy text book. There's plenty of that in this forum already so I'll be moving on. Have fun!
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2003
  9. May 20, 2003 #49
    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.
     
  10. May 20, 2003 #50

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. May 20, 2003 #51
    "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.
     
  12. May 20, 2003 #52
    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.
     
  13. May 20, 2003 #53
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2003
  14. May 20, 2003 #54
    I agree completely, Alexander. Excellent post. I find myself ignoring the postings of pages and pages of text. Not enough time.
     
  15. May 20, 2003 #55

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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...
     
  16. May 20, 2003 #56
    Methinks so too...

    An occasional ‘longish’ post is ok, but page after page of long posts seems too much like a force-feeding…
     
  17. May 20, 2003 #57
    Understood. Will provide a link instead.
     
  18. May 20, 2003 #58

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You guys...

    heusdens just bothered to post all that
    summarizing of philosophy and all you're
    bothered with is the lenght of the posts. :frown:
     
  19. May 20, 2003 #59

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Summarizing? No, I think the word you are looking for is PLAGARIZING.
     
  20. May 21, 2003 #60
    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Difference between science and religion
  1. Is Science a religion? (Replies: 49)

  2. Religion in science (Replies: 2)

Loading...