I take it back, you didn't understand my point.
Perhaps you could explain the scientific method as you see it, and we'll go from there.
What's the Difference Between Science and Religion?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
I take it back, you didn't understand my point.
Perhaps you could explain the scientific method as you see it, and we'll go from there.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
There is a difference between "can be observed" and "actually have been observed." Science is free to hypothesize about forces they have not observed, the constraint is that their hypothesis be falsifiable. Supernatural explanations are not.
Their hypothesis is not a theory until evidence supporting it arises, however indirect proof is enough. If I have a theory that tells me how oil is formed, and based on my theory I can also make predictions about where oil will be found, if my predicted locations p[rove to be better than random guessing on a statistically significant basis, that is evidence for my theory, even if I never see the actual oil form or an actual instance of evolutionary speciation.
And those things, or the explanations of them are not science, they tend to be metaphysics (which is still not the same as religion). What happens to an electron when no one is observing it is a good example, as the answer is "we do not know." There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that purport to give an answer, but no one confuses those interpretations as scientific theories. That's why part of the Copenhagen interpretation can be boiled down to "Do not ask those questions."
Scientists sometimes do create thought experiments of the sort Russell notes, but usually as illustrative aids or as a result of speaking loosely rather than because the scientists believe they "know" how such situations would really be.
Again, science works with theories that are falsifiable, and in order for that to be the case, it has to be possible that when turning to nature (or experiment) you will find evidence that cannot be explained by your theory. Even if you *never* find such contrary evidence, it has to be possible, in principle, that such evidence exist or else what you have is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical theory.
In religion, the basic assumptions are non-falsifiable. My omnipotent God took Action X. There's no evidence that disprove the acts of an omnipotent God. Even if you can explain the same thing using natural forces alone, perhaps God make the natural forces operate. Any argument offered a believer can dismiss as you are left at bottom with the equivalent of the trying to prove a negative: trying to prove that God does not exist or could not have done a thing.
*Some* metaphysics is religion, but not all of it. Religion tends to rely on agencies that are separate from natural forces (i.e. supernatural forces) and able to vary or ignore the natural forces to accomplish their ends. Religions also tend to have a broader scope, in that they try to explain significant parts of society or the world.
Children can tell the difference. You must be a toddler.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Science and religion can both be considered philosophies. But they are very different philosophies.
Religion is a philosophy based on instinct. Humans have an instinct to believe in supernatural phenomena, in general require no rigorous evidence to support this belief, and will generally sustain the belief even in the face of evidence to the contrary. A religion is a collection of what Jung named archetypes, motifs that occur in nearly all cultures in nearly all eras. Archetypal beliefs feel true, and thus are held onto more dearly than even beliefs that are derived from experience.
Science is a philosophy based on reason and learning. The uniquely massive human forebrain gives us the ability to transcend and even override our instincts, and develop behavior by reasoning and learning. The fundamental principle of science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be understood and predicted using theories derived from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This puts it in stark contrast to religion, whose fundamental principle is that creatures dwelling in an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe have the ability to capricioiusly alter the behavior of our universe, which is therefore by definition not a closed system and so all efforts to understand and predict it are doomed.
Science and religion both have an element of faith. But the faith of science is a reasoned faith. The scientific method is a set of rules for studying the universe that have been painstakingly developed by experimentation, and have been found to work consistently. Theories developed by practicing the scientific method have an extremely small probability of ever being proven untrue, to the point that the scientific canon is not shaken by the occasional falsification. The faith of religion is a stubborn, unreasoned faith in supernatural phenomena, based primarily on the desire for those phenomena to be true.
That's the classical definition of Aristotle, which would call cosmology a metaphysical discipline. But today the colloquial definition that everyone except a student of philosophy uses is that metaphysics presumes the existence of a supernatural universe and attempts to study it. In classical times metaphyiscs was a bridge between science and philosophy, but today metaphysics is a branch of religion.
The modern field of metaphysics can be seen as the analog of science for people who believe in the supernatural. Metaphysics attempts to understand and predict the behavior of a universe that is perturbed by supernatural forces. Science uses reasoning and empirical observation to derive its theories. Since the supernatural universe by definition is neither logical nor observable, I have no idea how metaphysical theories are developed, or whether the construct of the theory even has a place in metaphysics.
BOOM!
end of thread/
end of thread/
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Religionists don't agree that they ignore contradicting evidence.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
They say the gods planted it deliberately to test their faith.
Speak for yourself. On the planet I come from metaphysics is based upon logic.
That must explain why scientists are so dogmatic.
Maybe your religion. Not my religion.
I wish.
That's what I call hubris and arrogance.
I wasn't aware that science has a single fundamental principle. Says who? Also, you have ignored the fact that at times science is not empirical, relies upon a priori theories, and also makes non empirical claims.
Somehow I think Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton would disagree with your description of their philosophy. Your dichotemy is absolutely false and based upon your own personal religious views. If my religion was anything like the way you describe yours, I would consider it to be unscientific as well.
Amen.
LOL. That's hilarious. So according to you it's impossible for science to make an unreasonable claim and impossible for religion to use reason?
Good thing religious people can use the scientific method.
That is hilarious. So according to you, no scientific theory since Bacon has been proven untrue?
That is hilarious. No scientic views are falsified?
Speak for yourself. Your religion might be like that but mine isn't.
There is nothing supernatural about metaphysics so far as I know. Motion and causality are 100% natural.
And so does religion. Science can also use unreason and a priori theories that do not refer to observation.
The supernatural world has nothing to do with Aristotelian metaphysics.
Quit dodging, and answer how a religious practice has provided scientific knowledge, and is testable, and repeatable, like a scientific process is.
Sure. The Holy Bible speaks of a place called Egypt that was ruled by people called Pharaohs. That is what the Bible says. Now this is scientific knowledge because you can go there and see for yourself. It's testable and repeatable and one of the millions of confirmed truths in the Holy Bible.
It doesn't mean anything other than you think myths are real. There is no evidence that Harry Potter ever existed. However the scientific and archaeological evidence for Pharaohs is overwhelming.
I've observed the opposite. Ask a scientist what caused the first motion in the universe, or the Big Bang, and they have no explanation other than something like "magic" or "witchcraft" which is a typical atheist response. Ask a religious person and they have a logical and scientific explanation, namely God.
OilIsMastery, a master of avoiding the point.
- Status