A Conversation for The Tension Between Science and Religion
SvenOstring Started conversation Jan 6, 2004
Unfortunately, the author's explanation in this article is fundamentally flawed, because it assumes that by definition that religion demands unquestioning acknowledgement of its beliefs whereas science remains open to questioning beliefs. This is not actually true.
Religion recognizes that faith is required where direct sensory observations regarding a belief are not available. However, this does not mean that a person cannot question their beliefs and remain convinced of their validity. An unbeliever is not someone who questions his/her faith, but rather someone who questions their belief and then abandons it.
To turn to the issue of science, once again the author is not accurate in his/her description of the field. Science cannot question or doubt everything and provide verification for every possible belief. For example, science cannot verify the following propositions widely held by human beings:
(1) I exist.
(2) An external physical world exists.
(3) My senses give me true representations of the external physical world.
(4) I have a rational mind.
(5) Other human beings have rational minds.
(6) The scientific approach is the rational method for understanding the underlying structure of the world.
(7) The world is regular and uniform in the way it is structured.
Every scientist must ultimately hold these beliefs without having scientific verifcation for them, which is exactly the same position in which a spiritual person finds themselves when accepting a religious belief.
badger party tony party green party Posted Jan 8, 2004
R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- ) Posted Jan 16, 2004
"Every scientist must ultimately hold these beliefs without having scientific verifcation for them, which is exactly the same position in which a spiritual person finds themselves when accepting a religious belief."
Which leads to an interesting point made by Steven Hawking. He said that the reality of a scientific model isn't really important--what matters is tis ability to make accurate predictions. Thus, it doesn't matter whether those seven assumptions are true or not--a theory is still valid if it allows a scientist to accurately predict the future.
Omrow_muslim Posted Sep 17, 2005
Salam to all
Isn't that exactly what a religious person would also claim. That what really matters is accurately predicting the future.
In religion this is known as "prophesy".
R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- ) Posted Sep 17, 2005
Except the religious people tend not to be able to predict the future accurately.
Key: Complain about this post