Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:20:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1309 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 (that we know of), the matter need not really be questioned.
> It is the system
> currently best able to help us arrive at conclusions and explanations for
> observed phenomena.
Most definitely agreed. While there MAY be other methods, there are none
that we know of that have shown themselves to be better at describing and
accurately predicting what we percieve in the natural world.
> Religion by definition revolves around the worship or
> service of either a higher power or a system of beliefs; science does not.
Hmm... I'll have to think on that one-- I've tried to define religion
several times with no success, and that definition may work... Hmm... Could
we then say that science is a religion because it revolves around the system
of beliefs that I stated in my previous post? I.E that we believe that our
perceptions are accurate, our memory unflawed, and our logic logical? Or is
such a system of beliefs so fundamental in nature that to acknowledge it
indicates alternate possibilites (of which there are none we know of), and
as such, should not be construed as a system of beliefs? Dunno where I stand
on this one... Hmm...
> 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);
To beg the question, faith in what? If I have faith in the fact that the
Gods live on mount olympus or that angels live on clouds, could that not be
falsified by emperical evidence? However, faith in metaphysical issues like
morality, emotion, an ethereal God, and the like can NOT be disproven by any
empirical data that we know about. Although assuming my moral theory (or one
akin to it) and a *phenomenal* knowledge of psychology, microbiology, etc,
perhaps it would be possible to discover such things by science... But
that's such a ridiculous way off in the future, I don't think it's really
necessary or plausible to debate, especially due to the nature of the
assumptions necessary for such a debate... Although it would be potentially
interesting... Hmm...
> 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.
Quite agreed. And as such, is it not science's nature to investigate the
fundamental 'faiths' I described in my last post? I think it does, however
those investigations stop as soon as they're started because really, we can
only remotely theorize about anything else, and as such is no longer within
the realm of the scientific method, and hence can be seen as a fruitless
endeavor... Basically what I'm saying is that it is the nature of science to
say that there IS a REMOTELY, STUPIDLY plausible universe which COULD exist
in defiance of our fundamental assumptions, but that because of lack of
evidence, science can not (yet, and probably ever) investigate such
possibilites, and must accept that it cannot disprove such.
Of course the obvious counter argument is that we could examine such things
like mathematics-- instead of trying to seek out 'nature's definition of
'existence', we DEFINE existence to be that which we are capable of
percieving. Hence, our perceptions ARE absolute.
> 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."
I guess my distinction between the two is the degree to which one places
faith in oneself and one's own logic/experience as being more primary than
others', or as I would most likely clarify, our PERCEPTION of others'
logic/experiences.
Hence to say that while I accept (on faith in my perceptions) that I see a
rock falling to the ground, I can also accept (on faith in my perceptions) a
metaphysical experience like God... However, I would be inclined to draw a
distinction in the strength of those two faiths, insofar as my experience of
the metaphysical is less reliable than my perception of the physical.
And as such, a religious person is bound to science, because I know of
no-one who would hold the opposite. I.E. that faith in the metaphysical
experience is more solid than the faith in one's physical experiences. To
say such would (or should) be plainly absurd. However, a scientific person
is not bound to religion because they have the ability to totally disregard
to whatever extent they wish any faith in their metaphysical experiences...
Hmm... I don't think I've quite found the boundary I wish to draw quite yet,
but perhaps I'm closer... dunno... thoughts?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
