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.

He should have said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on an objective authority, and science, which is based on imperfect human observation and reason.
Science will win because it works."

Interesting though. I didn't realise there was a battle to be won by science against religion.

Does this mean that Hawking is in a fight with religion? What an idiot! If there is a God, then there is no conflict between science and religion. But if there is no God, then what is Hawking so worked up about?

Could it be that deep down inside Hawking is in conflict with himself because he knows there is a God?

Originally posted by josephw
What an idiot!

You're calling Stephen Hawking an idiot?! 😲

Originally posted by josephw
He should have said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on an objective authority, and science, which is based on imperfect human observation and reason.
Science will win because it works."

You believe that all religions are based on objective authority? Or just your own?

Interesting though. I didn't realise there was a battle to be won by science against religion.
Does it have to be a battle? Why not just a friendly competition?

Does this mean that Hawking is in a fight with religion?
Now you are stretching things. Is Stephen Hawking the epitomy of science, or just a scientist?

What an idiot!
Before you call people idiots, make sure you have actually understood what they said. Your insult is based on your own mistaken interpretation of his words. And words that may even be out of context at that. Do you even know what he was suggesting science would win?

If there is a God, then there is no conflict between science and religion.
Correct. Therefore, science cannot loose, and at a minimum will win over every religion but one.

But if there is no God, then what is Hawking so worked up about?
Possibly the fact that so many people believe in one? Or perhaps he isn't worked up at all and it is you that is getting worked up and putting it all on him. He was probably just responding to the interviewers question.

Could it be that deep down inside Hawking is in conflict with himself because he knows there is a God?
Could it be that there are actually some real atheists in this world? Why are so many people so reluctant to believe we exist?

Originally posted by Diodorus Siculus
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 ...[text shortened]... in our modern cultures. Belief systems which are based around faith change painfully and slowly.

I would disagree with you, science does have beliefs and faith wrapped
up in them that is because people are so very limited it is required. With
respect to religion, maybe various and sundry cults would discourage any
questioning but that does not at all mean religion does any more than
finding some scientist who accepts a ton of thins on faith without support
would mean all of science does.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

Religion is a way of life, it does color all of the universe with foundational
views on why things are the way they are.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 i ...[text shortened]... t - I guess you could call this a belief system too, but I would probably call it a philosophy.

"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. "

One that we can all believe in? When I think of science I get this train of
thought that we are never "sure" about anything, because all things are
on the table to change as soon as we get a better understanding. The
thing about religion is, it settles some points, but it does not do it with
science our abilities to scan and measure and so on it is faith in X whatever
X happens to be for people.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
One that we can all believe in?

No, I said "that we all believe in".
Whether you realize it or not, the basic assumptions of science are made by everyone. We have to or we would fail to function.

When I think of science I get this train of thought that we are never "sure" about anything, because all things are on the table to change as soon as we get a better understanding.
But we can of course still be very very sure, just not absolutely sure. That is because we all know that observation can never be proved to be perfect, and we can never be sure that a rule we believe we have found has no exceptions, as it may be a subset of a larger rule, or we may even be mistaken about the rule itself ie it may fit very well but not exactly.
But the two basic assumptions are never really in dispute by anyone.
Your focus on this lack of being "sure" is unwarranted as it mischaracterizes the reality of science. In general science has lead to a vast body of very useful very reliable information which we can and do rely on for our daily lives. To pretend that we go about our lives with a total lack of faith in its validity is clearly false. As much as you may get that 'train of thought', you sure don't act accordingly. I am sure you don't go around expecting your car, computer or tv to explode or stop working at any second, and even if they did, you wouldn't for one moment think that the cause was due to a lack of understanding of the scientific principles they are based on.

Religion on the other hand is, as you say, based on unwarranted faith. ie you believe something without reservation, but have no valid reason for doing so. Sure you can give reasons for your beliefs, but there is no valid reason for unconditional absolute certainty in anything. Every possible reason you can give should leave at least a sliver of doubt, as there could be some other possible explanation which must be left open however unlikely it may seem.

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

Yep. It's a belief system that says there are patterns in nature which allow us to predict and control future events. So?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yep. It's a belief system that says there are patterns in nature which allow us to predict and control future events. So?

It is a belief that 'we' me included are wise enough to know where we are
on solid ground with what we think is true and where we are not.
Kelly

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.

I see no conflict between science and religon/spirituality.
I'd love to have a beer with Fabian over this matter😉
(clue-science is well defined,spirituality/religon is not)

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a belief that 'we' me included are wise enough to know where we are
on solid ground with what we think is true and where we are not.
Kelly

Yes. I would say that you are describing the philosophy of science. Bbarr is the expert on these matters.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I see no conflict between science and religon/spirituality.
I'd love to have a beer with Fabian over this matter😉
(clue-science is well defined,spirituality/religon is not)

(clue-science is well defined,spirituality/religon is not)

Absolutely the key problem, certainly on this Forum, where it is very difficult to have any debate for long without someone seeking to change the rules and the definitions and the .... If we are to debate with any effect, I think it has to be about well accepted religious beliefs which are documented and reasonably consistent. For example, we can debate Catholic teaching fairly easily, Christian teaching with more difficulty because so many pot-heads claim to have discovered the correct version of Christianity and, when an error is established, they just disown it and shift their ground.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes. I would say that you are describing the philosophy of science. Bbarr is the expert on these matters.

Yea, I know...I have a question I normally end up asking him every year or
so...which I could recall what it was so I could spring it on him again. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would disagree with you, science does have beliefs and faith wrapped
up in them that is because people are so very limited it is required. With
respect to religion, maybe various and sundry cults would discourage any
questioning but that does not at all mean religion does any more than
finding some scientist who accepts a ton of thins on faith without support
would mean all of science does.
Kelly

Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.

In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical analysis of data where confidence intervals and errors can be estimated and then the potential veracity of the proposition assessed in the round as a feasible model. In what I agree you rightly call the religious cults, questioning of dogma and belief revision is actively discouraged and no thought is given to the possibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.

Originally posted by Diodorus Siculus
Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.

In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical ana ...[text shortened]... sibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.

I remember when I was young, and in the discussion inchurch with other same-age friends together witho our spiritual leader asked the innocent question "What if God is female?", Oh my god, I was pmöu a thin line from being expelled.