It is one of the biggest playthings in today's world to argue science and religion. Its a natural if there ever was one. Religion has its proof and science has proof of its own. And let us not forget creationism. What I wish to do here is show that neither has proof.
Religion is an emotional system of beliefs drawn usually through ancient writings and there are those who bolster those beliefs through science itself. In other words, logic shows religion and creationism has to be true. But religion is defined as a belief.
But what about science? Science is defined as a branch of knowledge requiring systematic study and method. It is systematic study and method which postulates a particular statement to be true. The key word there is "postulate" which means assume to be true through reasoning.
The problem with science is the same as religion in that it has "proven" absolutely nothing. A "truism" of science is really defined as today's conventional wisdom. Scientific wisdom is the postulate that best fits the belief of most scientists today and will almost certainly be "proven" at least partially or totally wrong tomorrow by that day's scientists.
Science exists as a branch of knowledge that builds tools, takes measurements, and produces theory of what might be. It is nothing else. Science builds magnificent tools that are used in everyday life, in medicine, for the military and space travel, but truly understands nothing about what is being worked with.
Science knows nothing about time or motion and yet how many equations exist that do not include one or both? Time is a man made mechanical device that clicks a hand and can mechanically or digitally measure. Motion really does not exist in physics. In physics, motion has no physical collateral. It has not been assigned a measuring unit. It is not one of the basic quantities that in physics are the fundamental and exclusive constituents of all things in the universe. Motion is as elusive today as it was in the time of Greek philosopher Zeno with his arrow.
Quantum theory has given us all of our electronic tools of today. It has given us the electron scanning microscope that works through quantum tunneling. This tunneling is described as having an atomic particle on one side of an impenetrable barrier, the particle can suddenly "appear" on the other side without having traversed the distance or used any time in getting there. No one understands it, but we have the tool.
Science knows nothing with absolute certainty, so it can prove nothing with certainty. Science simply makes statements because it "seems" to be that way today. Science is mainly mathematics and mathematics is a language and nothing more.
I have always loved science and always will. What I have written is not to deride science. It was written to show what science really is, and that is a belief system. It is a belief system that changes day to day and advances with it's tools and measurements.
Different religions argue among each other on what it all means, what is true, who has it "right". Scientists argue with each other every day on what it all means, what is true, who has it "right".
Religion is a belief system.
Science is a belief system.
Science is a religion without a supernatural being.
At least not yet.
beyondtheveil posted on Nov 15, 2007
| views: 553
Comments
-
buckrogers said on Nov 15, 2007....
Good post, beyond. Reality is like a fixed camera lens in that we are focused in a particular area, and whether we look closer or father, things begin to get fuzzy and out of focus. I think we must be humble and keep an open mind to all possibilities. I accept both religion and science, but we must always be aware of our obvious limitations. -
bloc said on Nov 15, 2007....
i agree that science doesn't really prove things, but I completely disagree with the implication that it's on the same level as religion. Science backs up it's belief with a rigorous system of testing and peer review that gives us tangible results and regular progress. Religion does not have these qualities and the two are not equal in terms of accuracy. -
mobil said on Nov 15, 2007....
Faith is about not needing proof. I have faith in lots of things and in people too. If I ask my wife a question and she gives me an answer, I have no reason to question her answer. I have faith in her.I suppose Faith is a belief system as it mostly applies to religion. I was walking with my wife tonight and I was talking about how much time I have put into figuring, trying to figure life out. It's a huge task you know? hahaWe have to believe in something Beyond, science, religion, but something. We humans need a belief system, can't move down the road without it. It's my opinion God created this need in us. Some of us are too foolish to realize this and that nature is perfect, it has to be, God is perfect........nice interesting post Beyond. -
bloc said on Nov 15, 2007....
@mobilYes, I agree that we all need faith at some level. I use the term "faith" loosely, not in a purely religious sense. -
VioletEyes said on Nov 15, 2007....
I agree with you on the fact that science is a belief system, however, science is based on facts. It is based on things that for the most part we KNOW exist. I am not trying to put down religion by any means, I agree we as humans need something to believe, and I think anything that you believe which makes you a better person is great. But you can't discount science as faith. They are different. I am currently a science student at university, and lately we have been studying evolution. This is a topic many people are uncomfortable with, as it contradicts most if not all religious teachings. I will agree, that this is only one topic. But there is overwhelming PROOF that it exists. It isn't merely a theory. And yes, small details of the exact process are constantly being reviewed and changed, but is that not to be expected as we learn more? Maybe that is one problem with religion in a general sense, it does not change, and yet the world we live in, and our general lifestyles do. Can you tell me that evolution, based on fossil records, carbon dating, and genetic typing and sequencing similarities is merely a belief system and nothing more? Can you give me proof that Jesus truly walked the earth? Offer me something concrete? Again, I don't mean to offend, but the bible is something you believe, not something which offers evidence that you can touch and see for your own eyes, that's why it requires faith. If you could proove, and offer evidence of an afterlife, of God and of Jesus, then it wouldn't be religion, it would be fact, or science if you prefer, and we would all be Christian. -
quietone said on Nov 15, 2007....
Yes, I agree a nice post beyond. I also have "faith" w/o that I would have little. I also think that everyone has a right to believe in whats right for them, be it science or any other. Thanks beyond -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 15, 2007....
buck- That "fuzzy" example is a good one. Regardless of whether they look at the micro world of particle physics or the macro world of cosmology, the closer they look, the fuzzier things become. It seems like everything in life is like this to some extent.
bloc- My intent wasn't to place them on the same level, there are all too obvious differences which you mentioned. I may have failed in the post to discern those differences. I wanted to show in the post the one element of sameness, which is they are both belief systems and some people wrapped up in science alone fail to either admit or understand this.
mobil- I agree we all need faith in something. I have faith in several things and it would be difficult to get through life without them. Its like you said, we can't move down the road without it.
violet- There are definite differences in how we process the information in science as opposed to religion. But science is not exact or proof and many fall into that assumption. Tools and measurements only take us so far in the never ending learning process. Simply because we can see and feel something does not at all mean we understand it. World class physicists do not describe the human body as flesh and blood, but as "patterns of energy".
Religion provides concrete proof of nothing. Science provides a most modern description of their present opinion of the manifestation of all things we can contact with our senses or tools. And that is again concrete proof of nothing. When you say science is based on fact, the fact is an opinion or belief which can, and usually does in time, change in one of our tomorrows. When you say science is based on things we KNOW exist, there are plenty of physicists who will tell you they do NOT know they exist (at least in the way we think they do).
quiet- Yes, I also think that people have the right to believe in what is right for them. I'm not attacking religion or science, but rather proof of either and to show that science is also a belief system.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2007....
Reading the above comments makes me feel like I should be selling something too. Let's see. I have some used books you could buy. I'll sell them at half the price mentioned on the book. Come to my website www.annoyingspammer.com. But I will also comment on the blog, so you won't think I'm just here to make a sale. I think that religion and science are, umm, huh? The books are in pretty good condition, maybe a bit dusty, maybe I wrote my own comments in them, maybe some spiders crawled into them. It's a great deal. Come to my website. -
preacherman said on Nov 15, 2007....
I definitely like this post of yours beyond. -
Fallyn said on Nov 16, 2007....
how is it possible to have a field of physics to study without the existence of motion? -
quietone said on Nov 16, 2007....
beyond ~ oh, I hope you don't think I was making the statement that you were attacking anything! I do agree that science IS a big belief system too. This was a good post, and gave me things to think about, I like that. :) -
hotaka said on Nov 16, 2007....
Very interesting. I have been reading about how politics uses scientific data to back its arguments, particularly related to the case of global warming. Unfortunately, politics uses only the data that supports its arguments and omits the rest. I felt that in this way, politics is very much like religion.
So, I was thinking today that the religious (and political) pursuit of truth is about finding as much evidence as possible to prove a particular belief is true. Science is about finding as much evidence as possible to find out what is true.
Some things we can be sure about now. Only 30 odd years ago people laughed when it was suggested that the oceans were not just a basin that went down on one side and came up again on the other but were rather filled with mountain ranges, trenches and isolated mounts. Some things science has led us to find out is true. It is that pursuit of the truth - of reality - that keeps people asking and seeking, postulating and accepting, and then later finding evidence to discard an old accepted belief and replace it with a newer better one. I am completely comfortable with the fact that scientific discoveries in one decade might be overthrown by new discoveries in the next. It is the inability to accept new information and give up old beliefs that have been proven wrong that I can't follow.
-
Fallyn said on Nov 16, 2007....
very well said hotaka. -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 16, 2007....
7- Those spammers are gone now, but if you have some dusty old books, I'd still be interested. Spiders and all.
preacher- I must say I was a bit uneasy about how religious people would take this. There was no intent to ire anyone. Your comment comforts me.
fallyn- I don't believe it would be possible to have physics without motion. But motion, like time, is not an entity that can be explained, it is used as a tool. There is no equation in existence that describes motion any more than there is one that describes time. No one knows if either exists in deep reality.
quiet- I'm glad you liked the post. I just put that word 'attacking' in there to make sure anyone's beliefs or rights- unless they believe science was the final word.
hotaka- Excellent comment on two points. It truly bothers me when political entities present supporting (facts?) only, even if true, it is almost always a half truth. Religion does this also, but remember that science is very resistant to change and new ideas to the point of ruining careers of those who would speak out. It has happened many times in the scientific world.
I'll give one example. Until a few years ago, it was conventional wisdom fact that no lightening was possible above clouds during thunderstorms. From WW II on, pilots saw it but would not report it officially fearing loss of their job or accusations of sanity. One scientist took the pilot to pilot chatter seriously and took a plane with proper equipment and proved lightening in somewhat the shape of a tornado existed above cloud cover. They mentioned no one knows how many planes have been lost to this non-existent lightening and were lost to unknown reasons.
-
bloc said on Nov 16, 2007....
"I wanted to show in the post the one element of sameness, which is they are both belief systems and some people wrapped up in science alone fail to either admit or understand this. "
many people will read "belief system" and see it as meaning a view based on faith and faith alone. In this regard science is not a belief system. experimentation and peer review ensure this. -
beyondtheveil said on Nov 16, 2007....
quiet & hotaka- I made some worse than usual grammatical errors on my comments. I can just hope you understand them and my points. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 16, 2007....
I read the book Contact by Carl Sagan. If you saw the movie, you still won't be prepared for the book, because a huge part of the book concerns something that apparently bothered Sagan a great deal - the corruption in science. Truth isn't foremost. There's a lot of politics in science. Sagan makes the world of scientists seem really disgusting. I guess he had a few axes to grind, a few problems with colleagues. That's why the movie starring Jodie Foster is a lot more enjoyable than Sagan's book, because after all, who wants to hear about the shitty side of science.
And then there's the string theorists, first the way they were laughed off, then the way they became the In thing, and now there are counter theories, like that there are two time dimensions and only about four spatial dimensions, and that string theory is a bunch of crap from the word go, and you have to be on the right side of things to get funding and jobs, but the right side may not necessarily be the right side. -
silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2007....
i've always viewed as the fundamental difference between religion and science as being the difference between asking why things happen and how things happen, myself.
i don't think that either is superior to the other: i think that we need both, in equal measure. w/out the how, there could be no scientific discovery: no technology, no greater understanding of science, etc. yet w/out the why, we would have a very difficult time understanding what our place in the world is, understanding the things that make life worth living.
JMHO.
ed -
Fallyn said on Nov 16, 2007....
beyond...what is the difference between deep reality and not so deep reality?
lf i think there are cliques and trends and gotta have it pieces in science the same as there is in say...fashion.
in science however it can do a lot more damage.
-
bloc said on Nov 16, 2007....
the fact that science isn't perfect doesn't reduce it to a faith based belief system. And to be more precise, you aren't arguing that science is flawed, you're arguing that people are flawed. We know that already and that is why science is the best method we have to learn about the world. Peer review and reproducing results helps remove the human flaws from the knowledge. -
Fallyn said on Nov 16, 2007....
bloc. i think that's what i was trying to say and just couldn't quite get it into words. -
oceanwaves1 said on Nov 16, 2007....
I agree it was a good post, but what do "YOU" believe and why? PEACE-DL -
hotaka said on Nov 16, 2007....
beyond, it sure seems silly that with all the things believed to be true that have since been proven incorrect one could actually be ridiculed for observing something previously thought not to exist. A friend of mine told me about a hiking trip in his younger days when they had to reach shelter in a big hurry because of a thunder storm. Though they were above the clouds the lightning was actually racing up the mountainside. To me that sounds like lightning above the clouds as well, though obviously different from what you mentioned. I would say if someone has an idea then let them test it or let's take a look into it. Nature is full of surprisesd. You never know what knew things can be discovered. Tesla, I think it was, experienced some crazy things with his experiments which have since not been recreated because no one has felt like trying to replicate what he attempted. -
StupidGenius said on Nov 17, 2007....
Definition of religion
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. ...
Science can’t be compared to religion. It does explain the origin of species and it clearly supports evolution and natural selection.
Science itself evolves. It is constantly re-testing theories to confirm accuracy. Religion relies on scripture that is centuries old, written by many different people, is inconsistent, historicaly inacurate and in no way shape or form can be proven.
Religion is a scam
Science is the evolution of knowledge
SG -
lfbno7 said on Nov 17, 2007....
Religion is a scam. Science overrates itself. We're still in the dark ages scientifically yet we think we've got it all figured out. Humanity looks in the mirror and sees wisdom. I look at humanity and see ego and foolishness. What passes for science is not bad for kindergarten. How about they find what makes cancer kill, and remedy the situation. Their string theory is probably a bunch of bullshit. They haven't found any evidence of it in the real world. That's too difficult for them, most likely because it is a bunch of bullshit anyway. Nice try, kiddies, keep at it, maybe in a thousand years you'll come up with something that works. Make that ten thousand. They still can't correlate Einstein's relativity with quantum mechanics - it just don't add up somehow. They still can't explain the origins of our universe without resorting to the silly concept of a "singularity", an impossibility, because their math breaks down and comes up with nonsense. Scientists may be our best and brightest, but they are still utterly ignorant and shooting blanks in the dark, and they need to remember their humility because they don't know a thing. -
Antimatter said on Nov 19, 2007....
... And you accuse the scientists of an ego and bloated self-image? I’m not sure which scientists think we have everything figured out, because that’d put them out of a job.
Also, only the popularized Big Bang Theory talks about a singularity. The theoretical model describes the expansion and development of the universe — not the universe’s origin — and does not describe events before the first Planck time. Nothing is known about time 0, and Big Bang Theory is clear on that point.
-
seekingwisdom said on Dec 25, 2008....
Thank you, "beyond". This is an excellent subject matter and thanks for your points. I would like to weigh in on some of the comments that oppose the religious search as not being scientific. Science is based upon gaining knowledge and seeking truth. No scientist will tell you that finding out the ultimate cause of the universe and us is not a scientific search. Currently the theories of physicists who have postulated the string theory, the M theory and the theory of everything are certainly no more scientific than the position that behind creation was a Personality--an Original Person. When we consider that not only do we have atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc., but we also have people--personalities. Where did all these personalities come from?
The argument between science and religion has become polarized between factions that are adhering to details, rather than objectively seeking the ultimate truth. For all those "scientists" who are convinced that God does not exist and religion cannot be scientific, I ask one question: When you die, and are heading to your next destination (as clinical death research has determined), what if you find out you were wrong?
I would therefore respectfully request that you keep an open mind, and keep the search up.
--c.w. adams, http://www.thescienceoftruth.com
-
StupidGenius said on Feb 18, 2009....
What a load of rubbish!
Science is progressive thought while religion is stagnant. Science investigates while religion claims to already know the answers. Science is logical and religion is delusional. Don’t compare science and religion as they are not even close to being similar.
Sorry, this post missed the mark by a long long way!
SG
-
beyondtheveil said on Feb 18, 2009....
SG- Its just thrown out for discussion.
Science is progressive, investigative, and usually logical. But no matter how you cut it, science is still a belief system. We mostly believe scientific conventional wisdom until they themselves come up with something better.
-
StupidGenius said on Feb 19, 2009....
That’s where the progressive comes in. A belief system doesn’t challenge itself to improve. Using the word system implies set laws that are never challenged and as you will see throughout history the fundamental laws of science are always being questioned and tested. No comparison to religion im afraid.
Religion is an inherently misguided and repulsive institution.
“Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time” Richard Dawkins, "The Root of All Evil”
SG
Comment on "The Religion of Science"
Related Posts:
sheltercrow
posted 3 days ago
| views: 15
|
Since the publication in May of his book, ''Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science,'' Ian Plimer has been the darling of conservative media commentators and the global network of climate change skeptics... read entire post
WriterCarlDobbs
posted 3 days ago
| views: 22
|
Exactly how much "in the image of God" are we? Do we have Godly powers to create matter even without knowing that we are? How do we define "reality" and what does science say about the matter?... read entire post
wishyouwerehere
posted 6 days ago
| views: 97
|
I wonder how he does it sometimes, my little yoda. He called me at 2:15 am last night. It's ok, me and my chattering thoughts were wide awake."Do not become your doubts," he said quietly.
Ah - but there are so many of them, Yo... read entire post
truthsayer
posted 4 days ago
| views: 211
|
Not to be mistaken for the Flaky Cafe'!!!Mysticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
Mysticism (my trusty Webster's New World dictionary):
The doctrine or beliefs of mystics; specif., t... read entire post