Religion of Science: A Brief History

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Royce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion Science
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the historical evolution of science, emphasizing key figures such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Erwin Schrödinger. It delineates the transition from Classical Physics to Modern Physics, highlighting the impact of Einstein's theories of relativity and Schrödinger's contributions to Quantum Mechanics. The conversation critiques the hierarchical structure of scientific disciplines, contrasting pure mathematicians, research scientists, applied scientists, engineers, and technicians, while asserting that science is fundamentally distinct from religion, defined by inquiry and skepticism rather than absolute truths.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Classical Physics and its principles
  • Familiarity with Einstein's Theory of Relativity
  • Knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle
  • Awareness of the scientific method and its application in research
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Einstein's General Relativity on modern physics
  • Investigate the principles of Quantum Mechanics and Schrödinger's contributions
  • Study the scientific method and its role in distinguishing science from religion
  • Research the historical context of scientific hierarchies and their evolution
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, historians of science, and anyone interested in the philosophical distinctions between science and religion will benefit from this discussion.

  • #91
Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most.
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by russ_watters
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.
Shall I post the entire Apostles Creed? Pretty much EVERY belief in EVERY religion is based on faith. Again, that's part of the definition of religion.

A few:

God
Garden of Eden
Noah's ark
Noah's age
Moses
10 Comandments
Prophet Isaiah
Virgin birth
Resurrection
Heaven
Hell
Satan
Burning bush
Speaking in tongues
Soddom and Gamorrah (badly spelled)
Transmutation (Catholic communion)
Jonah

Clearly the list is endless.
 
  • #94
Faith is not an absolute. Islam and Judeo-Christian are only two religions amoung how many(?) that have one absolute, that God is. Off hand I personally don't know of any others. I am not an expert however.
 
  • #95
So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false.
 
  • #96
Quoted from Alexander
"So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false."

_______________________________

Only according to your personal truth, logic and facts. Since I don't and can't accept your personal beliefs as my own, we disagree.
Our disagreement is fundamental and can not be reconciled. There is therefore no point is discussing this further. We simply agree to disagree and move on.
 
  • #97
Of course, you can disagree with anything and everrything. Say, you may disagree that 2x2=4. And we all respect that. Opinion is something which is private and we don't have right to change it.

I was talking about accepted definition of truth as according to dictionary (truth = what complies with observed facts). By THIS definition science is true and religion is false.

ONLY by THIS commonly accepted definition of truth. In no way I try to say that by your own, proprietary definition of truth it shall be the same.

In fact, by selecting very different definition of truth (let's then call it "truth" to distinguish from commonly accepted definition) it can be vice versa - religion can be "true" and science can be "false".
 
  • #98
Okay, Alexander, Suppose I say that a number of religion events, phenomena or miracles have been seen, documented, verified and colaborated. Would you then accept it as fact=truth?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K