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... show more 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.
14 answers 14