Post by A Souless Demon on Dec 15, 2004 19:35:32 GMT -5
Any person who engages in (a)theological discussions has at some point encountered those who claim that "science is just another religion". While science and pragmatic thinking are often replacements for traditional religious rationale, there are many fundamental differences between the two.
The most basic of these differences is the inexorable adherence of the religious to dogma, the doctrines set down by the church to which the 'righteous' must adhere. 'Followers' of science have no static rules to which they must conform, unlike (most) religious followers. Those who support reason find that one should continually view the world as the dynamic structure it is; reforming opinions when they are disproved or no longer apply instead of denying reality by refusing change or alternating between literal and symbolic interpretations of a religion's most basic tenets in order to compensate for its internal flaws. This is not to say exclusively that a theist's beliefs cannot be dynamic; this can (and sometimes does) happen, often in the form of leaving one denomination and joining another when one's personal beliefs no longer coincide with the sect's. The point however, is that it doesn't happen enough, and that refusing to acknowledge a changing situation doesn't keep the situation from changing - it merely creates outmoded beliefs.
The reason for holding to static beliefs is that it is very easy to be content in ignorance. It is easy to ignore the negative elements of life, indulge in wishful thinking, and to anticipate a deus ex machina rather than actually making the effort necessary to solve life's problems. And this blind happiness is self-perpetuating because it means many have no motive to explore alternative beliefs. It is interesting that "hope" can be found listed as a synonym for "faith" in nearly every thesaurus. Hope - wishing for and expecting something positive (without compelling rational reason to do so) - is synonymous with faith. The rationalist, the humanist, the free-thinker, the atheist, and namely the scientist are not content with such wishful-thinking, but rather gain their enjoyment from progression towards the truth. Scientists have come to accept that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being constantly radiating it's eternal love upon us, nor is there an immaculately-beautiful wing'd creature watching our every step to prevent you from injury. Harsh? Perhaps, but that's reality. One could convince him/herself that he/she is the richest person in the world (and be quite happy about it), but the fantasy still would not become factual.
In contrast with religious dogma, a 'science book' is not immediately accepted as being factual. We consider its content skeptically, and test what it presents as best we can (indeed, such books often contain methods for verification). While the average person cannot test and (dis)prove theories related to quantum physics, and molecular biology, we can accordingly consider these as possibilities, perhaps giving some sway to the opinions of those who can and have tested these theories (or, if we doubt, acquiring the knowledge to test them ourselves). Contrary to popular belief, science is not based upon proof. In fact, the only proof that exists in our world comes from human-defined topics (e.g. we know that 1+1=2 because we have defined it as such). Science instead is based upon disproving theories, thereby finding the most likely possibility. True science has two very important attributes which aid us in determining what to believe: (1) Science (by definition) can be reproduced with consistent results, and (2) science is self-correcting (the scientific community is a very democratic structure, constantly presenting and challenging new theories).
A very common attempt to discredit scientific principles involves the claim that "it's only a theory". It is apparently not common knowledge that in a scientific context the term 'theory' is in no way synonymous with "guess". A theory is the highest form of scientific acceptance. A theory is something which has never been disproved and has consistently remained a valid explanation for the topic it concerns. This is only rational as a new explanation could arise at any time. True science is not foolish enough to say "we KNOW".
Religion is in fact, the anti-science. In order to make my point I shall cite the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
"Religion - n. A cause, principal, or belief held to with and ardor."
Broken down, this means what exactly? Even a theist will tell you that 'faith' is "believing in something when there is no firm evidence for it". The other term possibly worth defining is 'ardor', which, according to Merriam Webster is "warmth of feeling". To combine these statements, religion is believing in something when there is no reason to, save for the fact that it feels good. Perhaps we should look up fallacy next. Another term worth looking up is 'science'. 'Science' is information obtained via the scientific method, so I will go directly there.
"Scientific Method - n. The rules, and methods for the pursuit of knowledge involving the finding and stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the making and testing of ideas that need to be proven right or wrong."
Quite simple, and concise. One final time, religion is belief in something because it "feels good", regardless of the 'facts', and science is discovering, and accepting the truth through analysis of the 'facts', even if the truth is harsh. They hardly seem the same thing to me
The most basic of these differences is the inexorable adherence of the religious to dogma, the doctrines set down by the church to which the 'righteous' must adhere. 'Followers' of science have no static rules to which they must conform, unlike (most) religious followers. Those who support reason find that one should continually view the world as the dynamic structure it is; reforming opinions when they are disproved or no longer apply instead of denying reality by refusing change or alternating between literal and symbolic interpretations of a religion's most basic tenets in order to compensate for its internal flaws. This is not to say exclusively that a theist's beliefs cannot be dynamic; this can (and sometimes does) happen, often in the form of leaving one denomination and joining another when one's personal beliefs no longer coincide with the sect's. The point however, is that it doesn't happen enough, and that refusing to acknowledge a changing situation doesn't keep the situation from changing - it merely creates outmoded beliefs.
The reason for holding to static beliefs is that it is very easy to be content in ignorance. It is easy to ignore the negative elements of life, indulge in wishful thinking, and to anticipate a deus ex machina rather than actually making the effort necessary to solve life's problems. And this blind happiness is self-perpetuating because it means many have no motive to explore alternative beliefs. It is interesting that "hope" can be found listed as a synonym for "faith" in nearly every thesaurus. Hope - wishing for and expecting something positive (without compelling rational reason to do so) - is synonymous with faith. The rationalist, the humanist, the free-thinker, the atheist, and namely the scientist are not content with such wishful-thinking, but rather gain their enjoyment from progression towards the truth. Scientists have come to accept that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being constantly radiating it's eternal love upon us, nor is there an immaculately-beautiful wing'd creature watching our every step to prevent you from injury. Harsh? Perhaps, but that's reality. One could convince him/herself that he/she is the richest person in the world (and be quite happy about it), but the fantasy still would not become factual.
In contrast with religious dogma, a 'science book' is not immediately accepted as being factual. We consider its content skeptically, and test what it presents as best we can (indeed, such books often contain methods for verification). While the average person cannot test and (dis)prove theories related to quantum physics, and molecular biology, we can accordingly consider these as possibilities, perhaps giving some sway to the opinions of those who can and have tested these theories (or, if we doubt, acquiring the knowledge to test them ourselves). Contrary to popular belief, science is not based upon proof. In fact, the only proof that exists in our world comes from human-defined topics (e.g. we know that 1+1=2 because we have defined it as such). Science instead is based upon disproving theories, thereby finding the most likely possibility. True science has two very important attributes which aid us in determining what to believe: (1) Science (by definition) can be reproduced with consistent results, and (2) science is self-correcting (the scientific community is a very democratic structure, constantly presenting and challenging new theories).
A very common attempt to discredit scientific principles involves the claim that "it's only a theory". It is apparently not common knowledge that in a scientific context the term 'theory' is in no way synonymous with "guess". A theory is the highest form of scientific acceptance. A theory is something which has never been disproved and has consistently remained a valid explanation for the topic it concerns. This is only rational as a new explanation could arise at any time. True science is not foolish enough to say "we KNOW".
Religion is in fact, the anti-science. In order to make my point I shall cite the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
"Religion - n. A cause, principal, or belief held to with and ardor."
Broken down, this means what exactly? Even a theist will tell you that 'faith' is "believing in something when there is no firm evidence for it". The other term possibly worth defining is 'ardor', which, according to Merriam Webster is "warmth of feeling". To combine these statements, religion is believing in something when there is no reason to, save for the fact that it feels good. Perhaps we should look up fallacy next. Another term worth looking up is 'science'. 'Science' is information obtained via the scientific method, so I will go directly there.
"Scientific Method - n. The rules, and methods for the pursuit of knowledge involving the finding and stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the making and testing of ideas that need to be proven right or wrong."
Quite simple, and concise. One final time, religion is belief in something because it "feels good", regardless of the 'facts', and science is discovering, and accepting the truth through analysis of the 'facts', even if the truth is harsh. They hardly seem the same thing to me