Science and Religion?
Before I begin, I want to make clear. I am NOT AGAINST SCIENCE, it is very useful, but I am against statements that attack religions because it is not based on science.
As defined, a Theory in science, with capital T, means that the Theory has not been proved wrong by using the scientific method. And a Law makes a generalized statement about gathered observable Theories. In other words, the premises is that science can never be 100% correct.
It accepts that it is not the end all and be all.
Science requires faith in our human capabilities to make our most educated GUESS of, EVERYTHING we can observe. What about the bottom line question, why does it even exist at all. Or what about what can't be observed. Science simply can't answer this because it is based on what humans can observe ONLY. It is not logical to say everything that does exist can be observable by humans. Are we, as humans, going to say that only what we can observe exists? So the planets didn't exist until we observed them?
Many will argue we need evidence to make any statement, without it we humans can't say anything for sure. The problem is that science's evidence lies in what can be observed by humans, as if WE are the end all and be all, and obviously we didn't create ourselves so we can't be the end all. So science just requires faith that what we observe is the closest thing to truth, but it's not truth, carefully leaving room for all that the scientific method can not calculate. "Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different."
Science actually understands that there are things in the universe that can not be observed but yet do exist. So science is just a useful tool, but not the final answers to our questions of WHY? At best it can offer the how, but not the WHY. Religion uses a different method from the scientific method, but that doesn't make it automatically wrong, as seen Science leaves room for the things it can not calculate. Each religion has its own method, we as individuals need to explore them and than come to a conclusion. But we CAN NOT ATTACK RELIGION saying its wrong because it doesn't have any scientific evidence, because science DOES NOT SAY THAT IT IS RIGHT, it just says it hasn't been proved wrong.
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
There is a conflict, a very real one, but it is not really a conflict between science and religion at all. For it that were so, elementary logic would dictate that one would find that scientists were all atheists and only non-scientists believe in God, and this, is simply not the case. No, the real conflict is between two dramatically opposed worldviews: Naturalism and theism. They inevitably collide. Which worldview does science support, naturalism or theism? E, O. Wilson is in no doubt of the answer: Scientific humanism is “the only worldview compatible with science’s growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature.” Quantum chemist Henry F. Schaeffer III is in no doubt of his answer either: “A Creator must exist. The big bang ripples  and subsequent scientific findings are clearly pointing to an ‘ex nihilo’ creation consistent with the first few verses of the book of Genesis.”Source(s): Lennox, John C. God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion, 2007. 28-30. Print.
- Sd SdLv 59 years ago
While it's true that science can't really ever be 100% true, I"m glad you admit that science is useful. Now, can you explain why a process that can never be 100% true has been so damn useful? This is where the problem is in your argument right from the start. You can say we have faith or w/e but time and time again science, despite never being 100% accurate, gets the job done and provides something useful. Also, your wrong about science not asserting that it's correct. theories do assert that they are correct by providing evidence. If they didn't assert their correctness, then they wouldn't need to have evidence.
Your also making the point that, because we're humans sciences fails because all observations are human observations. Until you can prove that 2+2=4 only because we're human, your statement regarding our non-perfect observation techniques are pointless. I might also bring you back to my first point here, in that despite the fact that we're not a perfect observer, science still manages to get the right answers.
Regarding your last statement, your just stating the obvious. Everyone should know at this point that science answers the how and not the why, this isn't an issue. However, religion has nothing to go on. The methods used to reach religious-based conclusions about how the world got here contradict science-based conclusions, and only one is providing solid evidence. So your wrong, there's plenty of reason to attack religions on the grounds that all religious answers related to where we come from are based on nothing more then stories.
- Randy PLv 79 years ago
"As defined, a Theory in science, with capital T, means that the Theory has not been proved wrong by using the scientific method."
Well, a little more than that. It has made predictions which could have proved it wrong, but which instead confirmed it.
"And a Law makes a generalized statement about gathered observable Theories. In other words, the premises is that science can never be 100% correct."
Yes. You never have a Fact, you only have a Theory which agrees with all the data so far.
I don't have any fundamental disagreement with what you're saying, except for your basic premise that people are attacking religion because it is not based on the scientific method. That's only a valid critique when religion steps outside its bounds and attempts to formulate a scientific hypothesis (e.g,. Young Earth Creationism) supposedly based on the observations, but without recourse to the scientific method. If you're going to attempt to do science, then you use the scientific method.
And when religious types attack the scientific method itself, or attack the very concept of education or sharing knowledge ("Why would you believe anything written down unless you did it yourself?"), then I *am* going to fight back. Science is important. I don't tolerate those kinds of attacks.
- ?Lv 59 years ago
You are, what is called, arguing by ignorance. Yes, laws come from theories, and theories from hypothesis, but from theories also come absolutes. For example, I know absolutely that pythagoras can help me work out lengths of a triangle, or that the cosine rule can let me calculate angles. This is important, although seems strange.
As proof is something implies it can never be wrong, I agree. But you haven't defined it enough, in my opinion; Proof is implied never to be wrong (important part), but implications can be accidental. For example, I can say that there is proof that evolution is true (which there is) and some Xians think it implies God does not exist (which is irrelevant).
Although, this is all academic; your last statement is the one that I have the largest, astronomically largest problem with:
"But we CAN NOT ATTACK RELIGION saying its wrong because it doesn't have any scientific evidence, because science DOES NOT SAY THAT IT IS RIGHT, it just says it hasn't been proved wrong."
Key word : Religion. This is something everyone needs to GET INTO THEIR HEADS : Science does not say whether religion is true or not. It does not say whether science is true or not. Science simply explains everything. Science does not fight religion; it fights GOD. Scienitific atheists, like me, say that God is a 'God of the Gaps'. He only exists to fill up information we do not currently know. If this is true, then if we believe in God, then there is no point in trying to confirm this, as we supposedly know He exists. If we say it is false, then we are wrong, then we do know that he is completely true.
Also, you say that there is is no 'absolute proof' which is completely true. Unfortunately, this is an agnostic argument (the only one, actually). As we cannot be certain of anything, as there is no absolute proof of anything, God or Science, then we must take an apathetic or neutral view to it. It is not an argument for God, unfortunately (no matter how people try to spin it)Source(s): There is an important question now ; will I get my 10 points for being most factual, or someone else put more information (which I welcome), or will it be a "I agree with you" post?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CoryLv 69 years ago
You lost me at "science requires faith". Faith is "belief without reason". A scientific theory requires 0 faith because it requires 100% reasoned logic.
Your entire premise is just false.
You're right about religions taking a different approach to the truth than science. The scientific method starts with a question, gathers data, and forms conclusions. Religions start with an assumed conclusion, and apologetics work backwards from there.
Show me how that method is useful in any other way. Show me how much cleaner you can make our drinking water by making up a "fact" about it and making apologies for it, and I will concede that science is not the better course for understanding.
- True TruthseekerLv 69 years ago
Based on my humble observations, this is what has been perceived.
Ancient, manuscript copies [MSS], in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, contain information construed as scientific, that, have proven to be way ahead of man's scientific progress.
These MSS are from recorded dates of 3500 B.C.E. to first century C.E., whilst Modern Science is
about 450 years old.
From about the time of Noah's flood about 2900 B.C.E. [ in B.C.E. higher numbers are less recent , e.g. 10 B.C.E. - 9, 8, ... 2, 1 B.C.E. then 1 C.E. ] many flood myths emerged from the region of Mesopotamia. The Bible mentions how the languages were confused in ancient Babylon, thus accounting for the dispersion of these versions of the flood.
In time myths [of various sorts] influenced how philosophers thought, and the early Christian movement after the death of the apostles eventually was submerged by these philosophers, an
event PREDICTED by the Bible [ 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:9- 12; 2 Timothy 4:1- 4, Daniel
12:4, 9, 10].
So by the time of Copernicus, Religion [including professed Christianity], and Science, were more governed
by philosophy, rather than by unadulterated FACTS.
Copernicus, in disproving the misled philosophy of an earth- centered galaxy, tried to show, that the sun-centered galaxy, proves how organized the Bible's God is, but, reason was not a common commodity then.
As time progressed, Modern Science, became more and more refined. Religion on the otherhand did not see a LIGHT, until a group known as International Bible Students, started to study the Bible
in a 'scientific' way.
Bible truths revealed the fallacious Neo-Platonic concepts of Eternal Torment, Trinity, and Immortality of the Soul.
Although Modern Science has 'dropped' most of its philosophical baggage, it has retained the fallacy
of Evolution. Certain branches of science although largely dropping metaphysics, has introduced
Theoretical Physics, which, may run the risk of introducing the religion of blind faith in science.
It therefore is prudent, to consider ALL the facts, in any deliberation of TRUTH.Source(s): Seeking
- SamwiseLv 79 years ago
I think you're underselling science a bit--and some of the respondents are overselling it, a great deal.
Science can, indeed, provide proof of a restricted sort. It cannot prove things beyond a certain range of conditions over which testing is possible, but within that range, it can establish something as dependably true. We are quite confident that the planet Jupiter will not suddenly leave its orbit and pass close enough to Earth to cause our planet to be torn apart by tidal forces--unless Jupiter is affected by some other large body, currently unobserved and statistically unlikely to pass close enough to our system to cause such an effect.
Vast amounts of our technology are founded on this reliability of science, and it ought to be taken seriously.Moreover, ALL of it ought to be taken seriously; there's no excuse for "tuning out" findings that don't please us. This means, for example, that the last half-century has drastically changed the evidence for evolution, because we've developed an understanding of DNA encoding so thorough we can rely on it in court to establish parentage. On a different scale, that same utterly reliable evidence allows us to examine relationships between species; the only possible alternative to evolution, for anyone willing to examine all the evidence, is an intelligent creator who designs each species' DNA specifically to convince us that evolution is true. Once you're down to an alternative that requires you to believe in a God and, at the same time, reject the explicitly manifest will of that same God, I don't see much room left in the corner you've painted yourself into.
But while science has solidly established evolution as the sort of theory we can treat as reliable fact, just like gravity, it still hasn't disproved any religion except those that won't face such facts. Creationists are wrong, and proven wrong by science, but that says nothing about whether there was a creator; it just says the creationists deny plain evidence of details of the process.
The notion, expressed by one respondent, that by describing psychological bases for religion, science has proven it cannot be true, is flawed a couple ways. We can equally well describe psychological bases for our attraction to logic and mathematics; does that prove them untrue? Nor does the psychological basis for one person's belief in a God necessarily say much about the basis for another person's belief; the notion that people are indistinguishable from each other in their thoughts is contrary to all experience but fundamental to this sort of application of "science."
What I can find is considerable psychological basis for people passing off as "science" things that are not, in fact, scientific at all. Most such arguments fall into that class.
- 9 years ago
But can religion, any religion, give answers and provide NEW knowledge? Can this knowledge be verified and tested? No it can't. This is why you can thank science for air conditioning, heating, refrigeration... the list goes on, and not religion.
The explanation religion gives to your "why" question is essentially meaningless because there is no way to verify it. Sometimes asking why something happens is meaningless in itself without the BS answer religion gives. Why is there gravity? Why not?
And yes we can say religion is wrong. We can say something is wrong all the time. If the answer you give is pure BS I can say you are wrong. If I can give you a reason as to why you are wrong I can attack your viewpoint. This is done all the time, not just in science.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Your description of a scientific "Theory" is incorrect. It's not something that hasn't been proven wrong, it's something which evidence shows is RIGHT. I can say that there is a layer of green cheese 100 meters below the surface of Mars, and nobody can prove me wrong...but that doesn't make it a scientific theory. It makes it a worthless, unsupportable claim without any supporting evidence.
And your claim that human observation is worthless because "obviously we didn't create ourselves" is rather silly. You're assuming that something else "created us," and there's no evidence of any kind to show that is the case.
Finally, you should keep in mind that science doesn't "attack religion." Facts science finds shows religious claims wrong. That's all.
- tinkatinkateeLv 49 years ago
I understand you are talking about physical science. Expand your view of science to include the psychological sciences and social sciences and try again. How can an observer be separate from their observation, and what are the limitations of the observer?