Science & Religion

[cold]

We always here about this war between science and religion, personally I think it's kind of a taboo thing to talk about, I don't think there is really a 'war' per say.
But it did get me thinking the about 'what' is the difference.
Allow me to share my thoughts on this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

All that religion calls for is belief, it doesn't matter how much understanding or knowledge you have, if you believe, your in the money.

However one's understanding in science is mandatory to fully conceptualize.  ie. I always here religious cooks saying " oh well science has its flaws" but do they really understand science? I mean the people who truly understand the downfalls of science are the people who study it, there is no denial of this. As an engineer, I am fully aware of the error associated with the scientific method, most things are eyeballed and approximated, total precision is impossible.  In other words an understanding of science is critical to really judge whether or not it's valid.

But total precision is useless anyway, we live in an imperfect world, but the logic behind it in my mind is bulletproof.  I view it as a method, not an object or belief, it's just how we logically follow up on things.  Religious people believe in science to, but I would venture to say a lack of understanding in science is present and thats why it's so easy for them to write it off as some "mystic magical thing that has no reasoning". I guess I'm starting to stereotype here so I'll quit now.

Tom

[Katie]

Many religious people, when they debate against science, assert that scientists merely worship it. To them 'Science' refers to the findings, when in reality, 'Science' really refers to the scientific method. That's why they often assert that 'Science has been wrong' when it's been either something wrong in the testing, or the scientists merely interperted the results incorrectly.

There is a clever comparison somewhere.

Science: "Here are the pieces of evidence, what facts can we conclude from them?"
Religion: "Here are the facts, what evidence can we get to support them?"

[Brennan]

Science and religion are similar in that religion is in a sense an accumulation of hypotheses that explain various aspects of the world. Science is a constructive series of doubt and questioning with reason. Religion is not doubted or questioned and is absolute where science is not, that’s how there different.

It seems to me is that science has constantly been debunking religious views (I speak only against Christianity mind you). Right now I’m thinking of where in Genesis 8-20 it states every inclination of mans mind is evil from birth.

[trevor]

You could say that the problem with science is that we're looking at everything through human-coloured goggles.  We can only conceptualize and test things in a framework that makes sense to humans.  I mean, everything that we know about the world could be just one huge shared illusion, and we're really living in the Matrix or something.  All brains in jars somewhere.  Yet, despite that, we've been able to explain a huge number of things about our wolrd, and through those explanations we make predictions about what else might be true.  From there, someone figures out a way to test those predictions, and so on and so forth.  I mean, we can manipulate things in 3-dimensions, and we experience the 4th dimension (time), yet physicists have been able to hypothesize and visualize what ten dimensions are like (see this awesome video).  In a way, science is a way of surpassing human cognition by exploiting our knowledge base and technology.

To be kind to religion, you could say that the founders of various religions realized early on that we could never fully understand the world because we are limited by our five senses: we can't see infrared light, we can't feel and decipher radio waves, we are seeing only part of what's really out there.  So, they instead turned to supernatural and metaphysical ways to explain the world.

The problem with both science and religion is that most people have lost the curiosity that created science and religion.  Religious people have one book that contains everything they need to know, and don't bother looking for other explanations.  A lot of scientists just do the minimum amount of required work to get their advanced degrees and don't question old theories.  Of course, there are exceptions, but this has been my experience from talking with grad students and professors.

So, to sum up, I would say that religion is pessimistic ("Bah, too complicated, might be wrong anyway, so let's think of another way to explain things.") and science is optimistic ("This is the best way that I can explain things, hopefully it's useful to someone").  An oversimplification, but hey... whatev's.

[cold]

There is a giant gap between scientists and the lame - so to speak. 5 years of studying it and I feel I'm about middle of the road, the amount of work done to progress science is astounding, and I think it is difficult for people to get into it without any education.

I think of science in simpler terms though, to me it's just a trial and error process. Like cooking for example, we add a little salt this time, if it turns out too salty we put a little less in until we perfect the recipe. I sincerely believe we are all scientists at heart and we all practice this simple process several times a day, from driving your car to choosing how many layers of clothing you will need on any given winter day. Scientists just take it a little farther and study more complicated things that typically require years of education to understand, and therefore people say 'ooh that seems dicy, i think they might be wrong'.

Trevor I would generally disagree with your statement about scientists doing just the minimum to get their degrees.  The phD's I have met are brilliant people and truly understand the underlying laws of what they study, questioning old theories only comes into play when new ones don't pan out.

[trevor]

You may be right in the general case.  I'm just going by the people that I have met in my limited research experience; and even then, my experience is only in computer science.  Perhaps I'm just jaded and overly cynical.

[january]

Trevor, I like the Kantian sentiment...the human-coloured glasses, and all that.

I agree about the curiosity thing. I don't begrudge religious beliefs, but I do get annoyed when people refuse to question how they see the world (through science, jesus, drugs, or whatever).

I only took philosophy at school because of all my questions. I love to look up at the stars and imagine infinity...that to me is where science and art and religion collide. Because we're never going to know the answers to many questions...those traditionally 'metaphysical ones'...not with any definite certainty. There is always the possibility that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

But then, I am evidently no scientist. I do find Quine far more convincing than the Bible, though. And he thinks anything we know, we know through investigation, and therefore scientifically. He's one of those 'if it's knowledge, it's science'- types. I do like that argument. Metaphysics= vague substitution for physics.

I mean, I'm an Arts student though. I do find it fascinating to hear the metaphysical opinions from people who undestand real physics. I always found myself convinced by Quine, but for all I know, he could be a witch doctor.