Do religion and science attempt to show the same thing?

[dms1972]

This is a quote that is from a fairly recent book :

"Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it."

I have some questions on the philosophy of science.

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

It'd probably be easier to ask what science can't study...

 

[paulm50]

Religion has the answers, without the evidence.

Science has the evidence, by having for the answers. It also has a lot of evidence and answers, it's no clue how to join up.

For instance we know something exists, no what doesn't make it work or cure it. We know the Earth exists, we know it wasn't as Genesis describes it. And don't know what does describe how it all started. Same goes for many diseases.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is a quote that is from a fairly recent book :

"Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it."

I have some questions on the philosophy of science.

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

Hi dms1972,

Although Eugenie Scott is an atheist, I'm going with her answer. We can talk about it if you want.

2PhiloVoid

 

[essentialsaltes]

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

Science studies the empirical world.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a quote that is from a fairly recent book :

"Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it."

I have some questions on the philosophy of science.

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

Science studies physical reality in an attempt to explain physical reality.

Religion is a case of asserting the answers before asking the questions.

 

[dms1972]

Although Eugenie Scott is an atheist, I'm going with her answer. We can talk about it if you want.

I agree with her (Eugenie Scott), as to what the problem is: People who say science by itself compels a philosophical or theological position. It doesn't. I still like to think about the issue. But I held something like her view myself at one point. I think there may be other factors in regard to the assumptions one brings to scientific study. But I tend to agree. However I am still open to possiblity evolution is wrong model / theory, because its been explained to me the observations can be interpreted or accounted for in other ways.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

dms1972 said: ↑


Ok then what can't science study?

Anything that's not scientific like the supernatural.

 

[bhsmte]

Science studies physical reality in an attempt to explain physical reality.

Religion is a case of asserting the answers before asking the questions.

This!

To me, religion starts with an assumed answer and then works hard to justify that answer.

Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations.

Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis and religion, tends to shy away from critical analysis.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Ok then what can't science study?"

Things that have no effect on the empirical world.

 

[dms1972]

To me, religion starts with an assumed answer and then works hard to justify that answer.

Its a matter of faith or doubt. Science is based on doubt (not necessarily doubt that there is a God - for many early scientist firmly believed there is), religion on faith. You can't use science to answer a religious question. (Disagree with me here if you want, I certainly don't want people taking anything I say as infallible or unquestionable and following it.)

There are two sorts of questions (actually there are more than two), both equally valid, and important.

"Why?" questions

and

"How?" questions

A "why" question, cannot be answered with a "how" answer!

I think people sometimes confuse the words "how" and "why".

 

[bhsmte]

Its a matter of faith or doubt. Science is based on doubt (not necessarily doubt that there is a God - for many early scientist firmly believed their is), religion on faith. You can't use science to answer a religious question. (Disagree with me here if you want, I certainly don't want people taking anything I say as infallible or unquestionable and following it.)

There are two sorts of questions (actually there are more than two), both equally valid, and important.

"Why?" questions

and

"How?" questions

A "why" question, cannot be answered with a "how" answer!

How do you go about finding answers to both; Why and How questions and what method do you use to increase the chances you have the right answer?

 

[dms1972]

Would you care to give an example of each sort of question?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would you care to give an example of each sort of question?

Seeing as you brought it up... why don't you give an example of both and use those examples to answer his question.......

 

[dms1972]

I came across this insight the other day - people will pray whether they know for sure there is a God or not, just as a man stranded with a broken leg in the Alps will cry out "Help" whether or not he knows there is someone who will come to rescue him. Even if he thinks its likely there is not anyon, will he not still shout?

What matters? That he is shouting when there is no one there?, or that he continues to cry out. Will he say to himself "I'll stay silent cause there might not be anyone near, and I'd be stupid to be shouting out" How will he increase his chances of knowing he is right, or wrong? By philosophical speculation, or shouting "Help"

Would staying silent increase or decrease his chances of finding out? If he stay silent and no one came would it prove there had been no one there?

 

[bhsmte]

I came across this insight the other day - people will pray whether they know for sure there is a God or not, just as a man stranded with a broken leg in the Alps will cry out "Help" whether or not he knows there is someone who will come to rescue him. Even if he thinks its likely there isn't anyone he will still shout.

What matters? That he isn't shouting when there is no one there?, or that he continues to cry out. When will he know he is right? Would staying silent increase or decrease his chances of finding out?

If someone is in a desperate situation, will they not attempt something, even if they know it has little chance of being successful?

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a quote that is from a fairly recent book :

"Religion deservedly comes in for more criticism in its failures than science does in its, because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true, whereas science claims for itself only the ability to quantify the probability of a thing being wrong. A genuine truth arrogantly asserted - that is, without so much as a guess at the likelihood of its being false - is a most pernicious kind of falsehood, far worse than a mere mistake, because it alienates people from it."

I have some questions on the philosophy of science.

Firstly what is its proper circumscribed domain, what can science study?

The "Scientific Method" is a model that is the most likely to define the limitations of Science.
In the model, data and conclusions are documented to whatever degree the writer chooses
then peers decide if the documentation is sufficient, then the data and conclusions are
published as a foundation for further analysis by "hostile" researchers.

If the data/observations cannot be reproduced by "hostile" researchers, then it falls outside
of the ability of science to examine.

This doesn't mean the original research was wrong or "right." Just that it cannot be
recreated on demand. For example, our dreams seem to be connected with reality.
But that is not proven, because often, they are not. The same with "prayer." People
have had prayers answered (I have), but it can't be reproduced by others on demand
so it is outside of the field of science.

Science can use past events to model the outcome of future observations
and hope that things turn out the same, but past events cannot be examined.
Science can only see forward to future observations, not back.

 

[SkyWriting]

because religion claims for itself the ability to know what's true

Spiritually speaking.

Jesus never claimed that water was really wine.
He expected others to figure it out themselves.

Jesus never said He was God.
He said...make your own observations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science can use past events to model the outcome of future observations
and hope that things turn out the same, but past events cannot be examined.
Science can only see forward to future observations, not back.

Have you informed detectives doing crime scene investigations that they are waisting their time?