Parnpuu said:
Again,as I said in my previous post, I think we should acknowledge the difference between religions as well. There are a lot of religions that are based on the same fundamental principle as science is: To find out how the world works.
That is not the fundamental principle of science. It is the motivation. The fundamental principle of science is that this quest is defined only within a context of empirical epistemology. This makes it totally distinct from religions. Epistemology shapes the very foundation of the subject including what we mean by "the world" and what we mean by "how it works".
These religions are more based on self-finding and hightened sensing and so on (not really aan expert so can't go into specifics).
i.e. the epistemology of "wishing makes it so" and "nothing you can tell me will make me stop believing"...
True they make some assumptions (as does science) and they have a more "personal" approach (meaning they are not meant to be provable to everyone, just yourself). This more modern approach that it does not really matter how you approach the subject of learning more about the universe is very far from the abrahamic religions that we all know. The difference is that it has a spiritual approach.
More modern? Its been around as long as man has appreciated his own mortality and began double think to deny the empirical evidence of his eyes. All this reversion to "personal" religion has done is allow the individual to escape the one redeeming quality of the traditional religious dogmas, namely the imposition of personal discipline and responsibility.
The individual can pick and choose what dogma he will believe...when that interferes with his desires he can disallow it.
Don't get me wrong, knowledge and belief have always been personal individual acts. But if you are going to start with the dogma of a scripture then you should take it whole or reject its claims of special insight. Look upon it as any literature, providing insight into the world the author sees and a common source of cultural iconic parables. If you're going to advocate personalized quest for knowledge have the person go all the way back to the true foundation and rethink the epistemological basis of his definition of "knowledge".
Could we agree then that these religions and science lie on the same principles even if they are somewhat contradictory. (Although in my opinion they needn't be) or is there some fault in my logic?
No because the framework of "how we know" is totally different and thus the meaning of "knowledge" and "truth" are incomparable. The only religious founder I've ever read who is an exception to this rule is the original Buddha... he called on the listener to confirm via experience what he was saying rather than take it on faith. (This with regard to conditioned existence and not the world view of reincarnation, et al which was inherited from the pre-Buddhism religions of India).
BTW: I would like to bring to your notice that the quote from Galilei that you have, does not necessarily exclude the spiritual approach to the matter?
My quote is Galilei's argument that science is distinct from gnostic insight, and that he chose his religious beliefs to be compatible with science. But note the distinction he makes and understand his times where failure to conform to the religion of the day was punishable with imprisonment, and possibly death. Recall that Galileo was forced to recant his empirical observations because they were incompatible with the "faith" of the times. Then recall his stage whisper of "yet still they move!". He did not defy the church out of gnostic insight or faith, he defied them because he saw with his own eyes and he knew that if only others would just look they too would see with their own eyes. He was not a prophet he was a scientist and these are very very distinct things.
Let me say that I have great respect for many peoples faith. It is their reason I question when they try to equate their faith with science. Science can never address reality beyond the observable. By restricting itself to that domain it can say more with more certainty within that domain.
Religions can claim anything about anything and by the lack of discipline (within the general class of religious belief) they end up saying everything about everything. So pick your belief... pick your religion... what does it matter...what does it mean? In the end the prophet says "believe me" and the scientist says "here is the evidence. Believe it or not as you choose".
Science is about not taking things on faith, not believing because it is the dogma of the day, but believing even when that belief defies intuition and faith and desire because that is what the evidence gleaned by rigorous observations say the truth must be. You can't get that from meditation or inspiration or prayer.
Finally let me say that science is one thing and scientists are another. Theorists may theorize and many claims will be presented very far from the screen of empirical tests. But the academic peer review process is design to, albeit sometimes quite slowly, filter out the theology from the science.
