No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

The serious difference is that I can defend mine. They cannot defend theirs. But of course, you, knowing nothing of either, are merely another religious fanatic waving the flag of your faith against all rationale.

“The cat is both dead and alive at the same time … until you look at it.”
“The interference pattern changes if you observe it.”
“Space bends (else our equations won’t work).”
“Time goes backwards in order to satisfy quantum reality.”
“Worm holes in space allows us to travel to distant galaxies.”
“All possible universe exist at the same time, in parallel.”
“The back side of the Moon doesn’t exist when no one is observing it.”
.
.
.
All in the name of Science, taught in schools. But naaahhh… none of the “fairy tale religious stuff”.

“We are wright to the extent that we are correct”.
… emm… hell, who can’t say that.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Science,…

So you agree that Relativity has been confirmed as merely a mathematical engineering tool, not a truth model?

If you actually knew anything about it, that would mean something. Why don’t you just stick to things you know something about. Or is there any such a thing?

If you want to find out if your prophets are correct, just have any decent one of them come and chat with me about it. They certainly shouldn’t be afraid of that. But they are. They leave their defense to loyalist fanatics like yourself so that they aren’t as embarrassed. Religions do that, have for thousands of years.

I said “to the extent its predictions are correct”. Is there still enough juice left in the old battery to understand a simple English sentence? You must certainly know what I mean! Why do you find it necessary to mutilate the meaning? Is it going to prove your theories? No wonder they kicked you out of other forums if this is your method.

I can only know what I read which is what most people do who don’t depend on seances. This includes the writings of some fairly prestigious writers who I’m sure know more about the subject than I do even though they don’t always agree with each other.

As the sole creator and endorser of your own unique theories you don’t have that problem. Lucky you!

I’m not aware or have I ever read of any “truth models” in the context of any absolute definitions. Where it may be or could be applied is within a theories range of operations, that is, within its contextual range implying limits. If you ever read any books on science you would know what I’m referring to but alas that is not likely to be the case.

Yes! This is also the conclusion of so many others just like you on the internet and it always concludes the same tiresome way. “I know, you don’t” and accordingly designated either a communist or a religious fanatic in response. Such an original display of brilliance is hard to beat!

Getting back to Nullius in Verbe whose edict applies equally to you; why should we take your word for anything? It seems you never even thought of that possibility prior to having first mentioned it.

Some much for empty rhetoric.
You keep saying this shit but do not offer anything in evidence, nor do you qualify "modern science".
Last time I looked no one I have seen has been praying to science, especially not to walk in water.
I used to get gout. Now I take a pill called Allupurinol. Science claims that it reduces nitric acid in the blood which causes crystals to form in the joints. I’ve not had a gout attack since I took the medication. It has not involved prayer.
How is this a religion? The link to gout, nitric acid and allopurinol does not involve FAITH.

I can’t tell what your personal experience of science is. But I do note you seem to be from the US. Maybe you attended on eof the many poor quality Universities, that are geared to results rather then teaching good practice?

That’s right, Peachy Neachy. There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief - belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.

BELIEF as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and then it goes:
[size=127]RELIGION => THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY (NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION.[/size]
The result is a new BELIEF (or faith) in truth.

The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be “free” -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

What does that mainly mean?

The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies.

An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture’s modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its “way” from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth. An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture’s modern times is the new theist who becomes a new religious one in order to reach the new religious goal: the new belief (or faith) in truth.

There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly.

The next time you visit the scientific “church” (“universiy”) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific “experts” (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science.

Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers.

Shouty. Not much content.

“Rulers” don’t understand science and are therefore at the mercy of scientists and the media that misrepresents it.

That’s right. Theres is no fundamental distinction between science and religion. Both - and also philosophy - begin and end with the belief: belief in truth.

An excessively naive sentiment.

A good explanation on the difference:

In addition:

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. + strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

Science is based on evidence.

Religion (arguably) not so.

Thus, there is a fundamental difference.

The only way that science and religion could ever be connected, simply is, by an emergence of a faith based knowledge, and conversely a knowledge based faith, predicated on demonstrated commonality of purpose, technic, and prognosis.

It is inconceivable, that the world can survive, without such an emergence. The energy behind feelings of love and social coherence, will have to be advanced to the point, where , the nature of man, can be afforded such faith. This faith will have to generate, within a very short span of time, and the formula is simple. Science has to come up with answers, how to save the world. It has to create an aesthetic ethos of far reaching ramifications, and i believe it is happening.
Electric cars, clean emissions, population control, and the creation of meta social systems, for those who choose to change their life qualitatively. Archaic societies should not be encouraged to modernize, or be subject to economic subjugation. There should be an attempt to colonize suitable space-objects, such as the Space X project , whose development is already on it’s way.

 Para psychological investigation should be instituted as legitimate study, and the conceivability that we are already in the midst of the progress made by Russia is already an accepted and well known fact.  We may have already made contact with extra-terrestials, as such studies have been going on for at least 50 years,,starting with he enormously expensive experiment involving the use of radio and other energy sourced receptors.

  I expect more and more of extra-real phenomenon to occur, as critical stages are reached in scientific exploration, and rather than trying to disprove such phenomenon, by virtue of preferential bias, they should be further investigated, and legitimized.

Sometimes we’re put into positions where we have to take chances. A position where we don’t have the answers, but there’s reason to act. In these circumstance, all we can do is act on faith - on instinct.

This isn’t wrong.

That’s wrong. Religion is also based on evidence. Both - religion and science - are not the same, but based on the same fundament: belief, belief in truth.

You should not always believe what you have learned in school(s) or universities.

Long ago, before the historical religions, there were only primitive religions, and this primitive religions were based on evidence too. Most crucial is the belief, the belief in the truth. And primitive pople believe as well in truth as modern people. There is no difference. The fudament is the same. Different are merely the objects and the methods, but neither the objects nor the methods are the fundaments of science. When science has its objects and methods, then it has already left his starting point since a relative long time. The fundament of religion, theology (divinity), philosophy, and science is always belief in truth. Then they go different ways or meanders. At last they find together again, but as new forms.

I concede that Religion does offer ‘evidence’.

I personally find the evidence remarkably unpersuasive, especially in comparison to the evidence of inconsistencies and general track record of religious claims.

The prior points stand though.

Religion makes unfalsifiable statements, science does not.

Any scientific theory is open to being proven wrong.

Religion doesn’t accept the possibility of being wrong, and doesn’t give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of it’s claims.

Science does also make unfalsifiable statements.

Any? Really? - No. Come on, Ben! That is merely what the priests of the scientific church have been telling you for so long - too long.

That’s not typical for religion as such. Another issue are the specific religions or specific religious communities. But all this can also be said about science. Some specific sciences (branches of science) or scientific communities do not accept the possibility of being wrong, and do not give opportunities to truly test the accuracy of their claims.

Again: Religion and science are not the same, but they have the same fundament, and that’s the reason why they are similar and often “behave” in the same way.

Human are able to see, the most animals are able to see. Are humans and animals the same? No. Can they act in the same way? Yes. They are related, have the same origin, the same fundament.

Science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

If it’s not falsifiable, if it’s not testable, if it can’t be demonstrated - it’s not science. Some claims to be scientific, when they really aren’t. They do not reflect science, rather use it as a guise for their pseudo-science.

The OP claims there’s no fundamental distinction between science and religion.

Real science is open to being demonstrated false. Why? Because knowledge is power. To rule out possibilities, is progress.

To be less wrong.

I can’t honestly see the same in religion.

The ONLY thing that REAL Science does is test a theory to see if it is noticeably wrong.

There wasn’t anything wrong in doing that. But before long, Science was no longer merely testing theories, but programming the world into belief. The only evidence was “when we use one of our favorite theories doing technological work, we can produce technology that works”. That’s great, but unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that the theory was right.

Truth is more complicated than that. And when they weren’t programming the world into the belief of their pet theories and exclusive of any alternate, also workable theories, they weren’t a religion. Today Science proclaims and proselytizes the holy truth that religion is false, and yet not falsified and that their pet theories haven’t been shown to be false, a lie. That makes a Science a religion.

You cannot see the same in the religon because your perception about religion is very limited and flawed too.

Religion is not only what Jesus said or writen in the Bible. There is a lot before and after that too. Jesus is merely a chaper in the book of religion, for a specific purpose, to explain some particular points, at a particular time and to a particular audience too.

with love,
sanjay

James,

Do you lump real science (as you describe it) with religion?

I can’t tell.

=

No doubt, I am (willingly) ignorant of religion.

This is not to say I intentionally try to misunderstand religion, rather, I don’t invest the energy to research their beliefs, values and practices.

“Real Science” is merely a verification philosophy for discovering materially noticeable error in reasoning.

REAL Science is merely one piece of what a religion becomes. When that one piece is taken to dictate and proselytize truth, it is not only a religion, but a notably false religion. And it crossed that line about 135 years ago.

Priceless: from the man that thinks science is faith based.
Something wrong with rulers don’t understand science? You don’t that’s for sure.
Dah!

That is precisely what i am saying and i appriciate your honesty too.

In the essence, religions are the result of quest of some dedicated people to find some philosophical answers, just like we do in the science. There may some wrong and incomplete findings in them. They also evolved with time but after a certain time, the geunine researchers left the religions for various reasons and they became stagnated.

But, till then, they have been accumulated a lot of popularity. Some shrewd people took the advange of the faith earned by the religions to fulfil their own lusts. They twist and tweak the interpretations and made a mess of all.

This sums up the story.

with love,
sanjay