1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayi think my grasp on science is pretty sound, just that we see things around us and we can use science to explain these things, and as look we see some more things, so we look deeper and deeper using science as a form logical reasoning to try and explain what we are seeing.
I would say you do not have a grasp of either science or religion
if you believe mother nature is something special.
my grasp on religion is less sound, but that doesn't mean i don't repsect it
both science and religion have the same goal: they are there to try and explain the universe we live in. both are eternally doomed not to be compatable with each other. therefore the argument will never be settled
Originally posted by soulbyI disagree that they are doomed to not be compatible with each other.
i think my grasp on science is pretty sound, i'm wasn't implying that mother nature was special, just that we see things around us and we can use science to explain these things, and as look we see some more things, so we look deeper and deeper using science as a form logical reasoning to try and explain what we are seeing.
my grasp on religion is less s ...[text shortened]... rnally doomed not to be compatable with each other. therefore the argument will never be settled
Reason being because you are assuming to many things, what is and
is not accepted as a starting position in the universe colors all else in
both science and religion. If for example someone rejects God, than
all matters of complexity that needed to fall out perfectly for evolution
to be the method of life being the way it is, is explained one way, while
a person of faith in God would see it quite another while both look at
the same thing. This does not mean that both people cannot be
people of science, only that their foundational belief systems color
evidence to be viewed a certain way. One that basically acknowledges
what they are comfortable with, and walk in the faith they have.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by soulbyI disagree that science and religion are doomed to incompatability, and I disagree that they have the same objective. Science seeks to understand physical phenomena; religion hypothesizes and explains the ineffable.
both science and religion have the same goal: they are there to try and explain the universe we live in. both are eternally doomed not to be compatable with each other. therefore the argument will never be settled
Certain religious beliefs run aground on the rock of science, and certain claims by scientists cross over the waters of experimentation and observation to unchartable terrain. Both religion and science satisfy the fundamental human quest for knowledge. Each has a history of errors and successes.
Originally posted by WulebgrTwo things:
I disagree that science and religion are doomed to incompatability, and I disagree that they have the same objective. Science seeks to understand physical phenomena; religion hypothesizes and explains the ineffable.
Certain religious beliefs run aground on the rock of science, and certain claims by scientists cross over the waters of experimentation and o ...[text shortened]... e satisfy the fundamental human quest for knowledge. Each has a history of errors and successes.
Firstly Religion does not explain the ineffable, the ineffable by it's definition cannot be explained and religion offers nothing in the way of proof anyway, it offers a possibility which someone can choose to believe in.
Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between the processes of science and those of religion and that is empirical data. Science attempts to measure and categorise things based on this measureable empirical data. Yes it may theorise, but these theories are set up upon the burden of proof, if no such proof exists, then the theory requires more and constant research.
As Kelly says the two are not mutually exclusive, but they do have fundamental differences in approach and subject matter. A scientist may be religious and a religous man may agree with aspects of science.
The difference we are really talking about is that of faith and from the aspcets of theism and atheism. Despite being an atheist I do not have a problem with the idea of a theist being a scinetist, just as I could be a theologian. 🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanYour lexicon has been abridged too severely.
Two things:
Firstly Religion does not explain the ineffable, the ineffable by it's definition cannot be explained and religion offers nothing in the way of proof anyway, it offers a possibility which someone can choose to believe in. ...[text shortened]... of a theist being a scinetist, just as I could be a theologian. 🙂
The word fate comes from the neuter past participle of the Latin word to speak, from which we get the word ineffable--not able to be spoken, as the name of G-d.
A full etymology of the word "ineffable" would reveal that, by definition, it names precisely the realm of religion. Although, technically, one cannot speak of divine truth, humans do so because we perceive that we must. This quest for unspeakable, unknowable "truth" is the ground of religion.
Because beliefs are tested through experience--a sense of inner peace (ataraxia), for example--I have called religion the science of the ineffable. Beliefs that fail to produce certain desired results are discarded.
You are correct, however, that science is empirical, and that it must therefore be distinguished from religion on this ground.