Science is a philosophy, not a science unto itself. It has its own axioms that must be accepted without scientific rigor. For instance, A scientist takes on faith the existence of a "nature" to which science can be applied. It's not a very hard assumption to swallow when you also take on faith that your senses provide you with information demonstrating the existence of nature, but nonetheless there is a faith component to science.
I believe the point of conflict between science and religion goes down to their mutual epistemological roots, not their details. It's not about man or god, it's about knowledge. Both beliefs purport to claim knowledge of some kind(and I include understanding as a form of knowledge). I don't believe in the Socratic notion that knowledge is impossible to attain. Science asks you to assume that nature exists, which requires the assumption that your senses impart correct information about nature. Religions ask you to assume that whatever supernatural elements the given religion has exist, and that what they say is correct, and that what they do is real.
To me, the main advantage science has as a means of understanding the universe is repeatability. If a physics textbook tells me that the radius of the Earth can be determined by placing two poles in the ground pointing straight up, measuring the angle at which they point away from one another due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, then using that angle and the distance between them to calculate the hypotenuse of the triangle that they form, I believe it because I can actually try it and find out for myself. No convincing necessary on the part of the textbook. No religious texts have this level of reliability. They ask you to believe without an explanation that satisfies the senses. They sometimes threaten with violence(argument ad baculum fallacy). They often rely on their popularity to convince those with weak wills(argument ad populum fallacy). They almost always rely on the indoctrination of children(also argument ad baculum). All science needs is "Try it and see for yourself. Maybe we're wrong."
Now, I could go into science's reliance on mathematics, which is a whoooole other ball game. Another philosophy with another epistemological foundation. But I'll just say that most religious apologists rely on mathematics as well(any apologist who has ever said "The Earth is 6000 years old", for instance), so that balances out. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math here.
Pretty easy question for me to answer. I have no religion. I never believed in any kind of god at any point in my life, and the furthest I ever went into believing the supernatural was, for a while, believing in ghosts, but eventually I figured out that that was just a function of my fear of death and stopped believing in those too. Anything that can be observed is a part of nature, and anything that is not a part of nature doesn't concern me.
Ironically(or perhaps not), whenever I play an Elder Scrolls game, I always play a believer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Science is a philosophy, not a science unto itself. It has its own axioms that must be accepted without scientific rigor. For instance, A scientist takes on faith the existence of a "nature" to which science can be applied. It's not a very hard assumption to swallow when you also take on faith that your senses provide you with information demonstrating the existence of nature, but nonetheless there is a faith component to science.
I believe the point of conflict between science and religion goes down to their mutual epistemological roots, not their details. It's not about man or god, it's about knowledge. Both beliefs purport to claim knowledge of some kind(and I include understanding as a form of knowledge). I don't believe in the Socratic notion that knowledge is impossible to attain. Science asks you to assume that nature exists, which requires the assumption that your senses impart correct information about nature. Religions ask you to assume that whatever supernatural elements the given religion has exist, and that what they say is correct, and that what they do is real.
To me, the main advantage science has as a means of understanding the universe is repeatability. If a physics textbook tells me that the radius of the Earth can be determined by placing two poles in the ground pointing straight up, measuring the angle at which they point away from one another due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, then using that angle and the distance between them to calculate the hypotenuse of the triangle that they form, I believe it because I can actually try it and find out for myself. No convincing necessary on the part of the textbook. No religious texts have this level of reliability. They ask you to believe without an explanation that satisfies the senses. They sometimes threaten with violence(argument ad baculum fallacy). They often rely on their popularity to convince those with weak wills(argument ad populum fallacy). They almost always rely on the indoctrination of children(also argument ad baculum). All science needs is "Try it and see for yourself. Maybe we're wrong."
Now, I could go into science's reliance on mathematics, which is a whoooole other ball game. Another philosophy with another epistemological foundation. But I'll just say that most religious apologists rely on mathematics as well(any apologist who has ever said "The Earth is 6000 years old", for instance), so that balances out. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math here.
Pretty easy question for me to answer. I have no religion. I never believed in any kind of god at any point in my life, and the furthest I ever went into believing the supernatural was, for a while, believing in ghosts, but eventually I figured out that that was just a function of my fear of death and stopped believing in those too. Anything that can be observed is a part of nature, and anything that is not a part of nature doesn't concern me.
Ironically(or perhaps not), whenever I play an Elder Scrolls game, I always play a believer.