Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Steven Hawking: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.
Science will win because it works."

I don't know where this comes from so it could be a fake. However it's a very thought provoking quote.

Wouldn't it be ironic if we all uncritically accepted Hawking's opinion simply on the basis of his authority as a scientist?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or searching for personal meaning.

Religion does not have aims. It is not a methodology. It is a set of beliefs and the practices that result from those beliefs.
Since those beliefs often include beliefs about the physical universe, there is often a conflict between religion and science.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Wouldn't it be ironic if we all uncritically accepted Hawking's opinion simply on the basis of his authority as a scientist?

Indeed it would be! Good thing I don't do that.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, we cannot ever know if there is other life out there, but from our vantage point, it is indeed lifeless.

I would just like to add, if there is a God and he cares nothing for us, for all intensive purposes he is "dead" to us.

to Whodey

Our advantage point is likened to a flea on the back of a very very large dog, what does a flea know.

life is everywhere, bacause god is omni present.

god not caring for us seems like life isnt going to well, and we have an anrgry young man

cheers vishvahetu

Originally posted by Conrau K
Wouldn't it be ironic if we all uncritically accepted Hawking's opinion simply on the basis of his authority as a scientist?

A decent scientist wouldn't expect people to accept what he/she says simple on the basis of their authority as a scientist. You would be expected to question it and any claim can be investigated yourself through references to the original sources and experiments.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Our advantage point is likened to a flea on the back of a very very large dog, what does a flea know.

life is everywhere, bacause god is omni present.

How would you know? You're just a flea.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since those beliefs often include beliefs about the physical universe, there is often a conflict between religion and science.

Right, because religion [organization and people therein] overextends its grasp in making so many claims about the physical universe. That's precisely what I'm suggesting they not do.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Wouldn't it be ironic if we all uncritically accepted Hawking's opinion simply on the basis of his authority as a scientist?

On another thread I encountered a creationist citing Hawking in support of his position - sadly the relevant paper was one that Hawking himself had subsequently refuted and rejected as wrong.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The aim of science is mainly understanding how the physical world works.

The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or searching for personal meaning.

Religion and Science have [or ought to have] completely different aims. As such, I don't see how one can 'win' out over the other.

The aim of science is mainly understanding how the physical world works.

The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or searching for personal meaning.


Seems like the reality is that many religions "aim" much broader than that. They seek to provide answers to many "what", "how" and "why" questions of existence with many of them having done so for much longer than science. Not sure why you believe that they "ought" to make their aim smaller. What they "ought" to do is make their aim "truer" by continuing to seek truth rather than standing pat. By and large, Hawking's observation that religion is "based on authority" seems on point to me as is his prediction that science will "win".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Right, because religion [organization and people therein] overextends its grasp in making so many claims about the physical universe. That's precisely what I'm suggesting they not do.

Why do you conclude that religion overextends its grasp? Why do you think religion should restrict itself to certain areas? Why should they not make claims about the physical universe?
Most religions are largely about claims regarding reality. Why should they stick to certain areas of reality? Why should science?
If God exists, then science can study him too.
If the universe exists then either religions can make claims about it, or religious methodology of making claims is fundamentally flawed and all religious claims should be discarded.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They compete for peoples' belief in reality. Only by abandoning all material claims slowly, one at a time, can religion survive.

Becareful, you are nearly saying science is a belief system here.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Becareful, you are nearly saying science is a belief system here.
Kelly

One of the greatest features of science is that it works as an algorithmic process of belief revision. No scientific belief being held can be said to be absolutely true, no matter how convincing it is. This is how science compensates for the small amount of faith it requires. All scientific beliefs are wrapped in a protective condition: A scientific belief can only be true if the basic assumptions of science are true, and absolute certainty cannot be obtained due to the problems inherited from subjectivity. All scientific statements have a built in emergency exit! Beliefs are able to change in light of new evidence or ideas.
Religion in this regard, is a polar opposite. Beliefs are dictated and taken on faith. Belief revision is not encouraged. Indeed, religion has difficulty changing its dogma when pressured. Take for example, Christianity’s recent struggles to keep up with the rapidly changing times. Changes in the Christian belief system have had to been made with regards to the equality of women, homosexuality, and other social changes in our modern cultures. Belief systems which are based around faith change painfully and slowly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Religion does not have aims. It is not a methodology. It is a set of beliefs and the practices that result from those beliefs.
Since those beliefs often include beliefs about the physical universe, there is often a conflict between religion and science.

No aims? No methodology? Try telling that to the Crusaders or the jihadists.

Originally posted by whodey
No aims? No methodology? Try telling that to the Crusaders or the jihadists.

That some religions have aims, or that some religious people have methodologies is not in dispute. What I stated was that religion by its nature is not a methodology.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Becareful, you are nearly saying science is a belief system here.
Kelly

I think at its core it probably is. But it must be noted that if it is, then it is a belief system that we all believe in.
The basic tenet of science is that what we observe follows consistent rules and exists. If you don't believe that, then God help you. If those two tenets are valid, then science is a reliable method for studying reality.
Similarly if God exists, follows consistent rules, and can be observed then he too could be studied through science.
I must point out however that all scientific study is limited by our ability to observe. If we cannot observe something whether directly or indirectly, we cannot study it through science
It is interesting to note that many scientists go a step further and claim that anything that cannot be observed does not exist - I guess you could call this a belief system too, but I would probably call it a philosophy.