The Religion of Science

  • Thread starter Royce
  • Start date
  • #76
Alexander
Royce, it sounds like you don't understand how science works. At all.

Do you have any education/ experience in science? (particularly in physics - GR, SR and QM - because you sound like an expert in these fields)?

Russ and FZ seem to know much more about physics than you do. Why don't you listen to those who knows the object of discussion better?

So, what is your area of knowledge/expertise and how much expertise in physics do you have?
 
  • #77
FZ+
1,561
3
Alex: Royce is partially right. It is not possible really to have evidence that GR etc is wholly correct. We can say that it matches all our evidence to date, but we can't speculate on whether we have taken all possible evidence. Because we can't say the GR etc is complete or wholly correct, we continue to test it any way we can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.
But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.
 
  • #78
1,481
0
Originally posted by FZ+

But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.
But we can gain understanding and explaination through religion also.
 
  • #79
Zero
Originally posted by Royce
But we can gain understanding and explaination through religion also.
No, you really can't. Not understanding of physical processes.
 
  • #80
1,481
0
I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.
 
  • #81
Zero
Originally posted by Royce
I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.
Of course you don't agree. Anything real contained in religion is coincidental, or irrelevant to the point of religion.
 
  • #82
FZ+
1,561
3
Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.

we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate.
This is very wrong.
 
  • #83
1,481
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.


This is very wrong.
Of course it is wrong and I did not mean to imply that. I'm as much a science buff as anyone here. I was refuting the science KNOWS anything as absolute truth, is completely fact based and has a monopoly of fact, truth, understanding and explaination.
Many seem to think that religion or spiritually is pure myth, belief in absolutes and is purely faith based and has no evidence or reason to support anything it says. Any evidence that a religionist may give is immediately dismissed as delusion, lies or can be explained by science.
Just as Zero tried to explain healings as lies and spontaineous remission. Spontaneous remission is not an explaination. What caused it? Could it possibly be faith or prayer? I don't know.
I am willing to say I don't know and realize that ther are more things going on than can be explained by science only. "They" are not willing to admit that that there is anything that is not science.
That to me is being closed minded and just the opposite what any real scientific thinking person should be.
I am not really as devout or dedicated or zealous as my writing and responses may make me appear. I am that devoted to trying to keeping and open mind and judge each new bit of knowledge or information on its own merits. I am not always successful. I too have prejudices and blind spots.
 
  • #84
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Greetings !

Sorry for this late response, I was absent for
a few days. :smile:
Originally posted by Royce
No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, with out visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.
Science does not (at least we probably can't prove it)
uncover absolutes. Science makes LIKELY conclusions.

Likewise, scientists and scientific texts are NOT
absolute sources of credible scientific data, they
are LIKELY sources of credible scientific data.
The simple difference is that faith regards unlikely
things.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #85
1,481
0
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most. Read around in the Physics Forum as well as here. We all are saying "I believe" when talking about physical sciences. This indicates to me that both science and religion are belief systems. Since you nor I can perform experiment on particle accelerators we have to take others words for what they find. This is have faith in them and science.
 
  • #86
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

Peace and long life.
 
  • #87
1,481
0
Originally posted by drag
Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).
That's a pretty fine distinction. They can mean the same thing or nearly so depending on how they're used. I see and concede your point and it's a good one. I could, however say the same thing about religion but I don't think that it would be quite as valid.
 
  • #88
1,481
0
First, let me say that I was raised in a not particularly religious or devout family of protestants. As an adult I was babtized by and a member of a free will babtist church. As a young adult I was an atheist or agnostic depending on the day. I have been facinated by science since I was seven or eight and someone explained that the stars were other suns but far away. I have been a student of science ever since. I beleive in science and the scientific method but I believe also that; "There is more under the stars, Horatio, than is dreampt of by your philoaophers."

We seem to be going around in circles here, repeating our positions over and over again. I am amazed at the reponse to the original post and that it has gone on so long. Thankyou.
Mentor, I think it's time to close this thread and move on.
 
  • #89
1,944
0
Obviously beliefs are thoughts and thoughts can be beliefs. The real distinction, imo, is an attitudinal one. As Lao Tzu said, "Belief is a colorful hope or fear." The Pale Buddha said something similar, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream."
 
  • #90
1,481
0
Obviously! I can not hope to change your thoughts or your believes, nor my own for that matter, I can only hope to change your or my atitudes about our thoughts or beleives. Well put, wuli, Thank you.
(It of course was obvious to me only after you said it.)
 
  • #91
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
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.
 
  • #92
1,481
0
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
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
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, thats 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
1,481
0
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
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.
 
  • #96
1,481
0
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
Alexander
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
1,481
0
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?
 

Related Threads on The Religion of Science

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
53
Views
50K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
Top