To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 8751
8750  |  8752
Subject: 
Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:36:07 GMT
Viewed: 
1283 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:

And on another note, isn't science just another form of religion? The only
difference I find is that the 'faith' we put into the scientific method is a
LOT more hard to dispute than the 'faith' one might put into Christianity.

  That's because we don't put 'faith' in the scientific method; that is, we
don't accept it outright and pretend it's an absolute.  It is the system
currently best able to help us arrive at conclusions and explanations for
observed phenomena.  Religion by definition revolves around the worship or
service of either a higher power or a system of beliefs; science does not.
Religion entails a faith in that belief system, and faith by definition
cannot be falsified or proven by empirical evidence (since that would
preclude the need for faith); science entails an examination and description
of observed phenomena in the natural world.  Science does *not* involve
faith; in fact, the opposite is true.  The goal of science is to subject
observations of the universe to intense and logical scrutiny so that a more
complete description of the universe may arise.
The failure to distinguish between science and non-science
("creation-science" being the latter, for instance) has plagued numerous
debates here over the past several months. Including science under the
umbrella of religion both demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of
science and a real dilution of the term "religion."

   Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
 
(...) Did you mean to say that we DO accept it outright AS an absolute? I'll most definitely agree with that with the addendum that such a thing is STILL technically faith, but seeing as nobody has been capable of living WITHOUT such assumptions (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
 
(...) Just to make sure to clarify that; while no answer may in fact BE an answer, it ISN'T an answer as it relates to creationism vs. evolutionism, which may be what you're implying. The only answer it gives is that Steve doesn't WANT to debate the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR