can u believe in science

[sleuth]

Science is an epistemology, and religion is another epistemology. How exactly are you defining religion? It seems that you're saying any system of knowledge that starts from an unprovable axiom is a religion. But that's the case with any system of knowledge, and we already have a word for system of knowledge: epistemology.

And that word describes how our knowledge goes from nothing to something.
AT THE LEVEL OF INDIVIDUAL science and religion are epistemologically similar.
An individual can believe in evolution because of overwhelming evidence,an individual can believe in creation becuase of overhealming evidance and facts. To say that religion is based purely on faith and science based exclusively on facts simply ignorant.The bottom line is not faith but trust.

your quite right. they are two systems of knowledge. science has its own methods. the bottom line is that science uses logic, but religion commands faith, and gives no "evidence". if u give evidence, thats not faith. faith is something that you dont see but believe.

I beg to differ.They are 2 systems of knowledge with 2 different methods and they both give evidence,fact and doubt.At the level of individual it's matter of trust.

*faith is something that you dont see but believe.*

Really?The title of your thread is *do you BELIEVE in science*?

[loseyourname]

And that word describes how our knowledge goes from nothing to something.
AT THE LEVEL OF INDIVIDUAL science and religion are epistemologically similar.
An individual can believe in evolution because of overwhelming evidence,an individual can believe in creation becuase of overhealming evidance and facts. To say that religion is based purely on faith and science based exclusively on facts simply ignorant.The bottom line is not faith but trust.

The psychological requirements for individual belief are similar, regardless of what is being believed. That doesn't indicate a whole lot of epistemic connection between science and religion. Science is wholly empirical, relying entirely on input provided by the five senses. Furthermore, science is not an individual system of knowledge. For knowledge to be scientific, it must be agreed upon by large numbers of persons working independently of one another. Lastly, you have the fact that the axioms from which the scientific method is derived are all empirical axioms

Religion is very different in these two aspects. First, it is not entirely empirical. In fact, the axioms from which religious systems are derived are not empirically observable at all. They are intuitive, which brings us to the second major difference. Science is consistent across all fields, whereas there are a good number of different religions that disagree on many things, because they do not all agree on a single method of acquiring knowledge. Science has the scientific method, but religion uses a wide variety of religious texts and the words of many prophets that do not all agree with one another. In fact, the basis of most offical doctrines seems to be nothing more than literary interpretation.

[sleuth]

The psychological requirements for individual belief are similar, regardless of what is being believed. That doesn't indicate a whole lot of epistemic connection between science and religion. Science is wholly empirical, relying entirely on input provided by the five senses. Furthermore, science is not an individual system of knowledge. For knowledge to be scientific, it must be agreed upon by large numbers of persons working independently of one another. Lastly, you have the fact that the axioms from which the scientific method is derived are all empirical axioms

Religion is very different in these two aspects. First, it is not entirely empirical. In fact, the axioms from which religious systems are derived are not empirically observable at all. They are intuitive, which brings us to the second major difference. Science is consistent across all fields, whereas there are a good number of different religions that disagree on many things, because they do not all agree on a single method of acquiring knowledge. Science has the scientific method, but religion uses a wide variety of religious texts and the words of many prophets that do not all agree with one another. In fact, the basis of most offical doctrines seems to be nothing more than literary interpretation.

You are BACK!!!!! I am glad that someone pressed your refresh button.

[garegin]

religion is not a correct word that is coined here.
what we are talking here is about faith. and faith's whole point is believing before seeing. its like your mom telling u something thats gonna happen in the future. u believe her, and wait for the actual event to happen.
faith is something u just believe because u believe. u dont have any evidence

[nunechka]

i agree garegin, we have no evidence of it... but when your mom tells you something thats gonna happen in the future, she tells you out of the wisdom she has gained through experience and education... but faith, thats just something we cant prove...

but i wonder why you dont want to call it religion? isnt it the same thing???

[garegin]

because some religion could be because of inner delusions. some dont neceseraly have faith roots.
when talking about two systems. the systems are faith and reason. there are irreconsilible opposites, because of their different nature. thats why bible doesnt need a 1.1 version. because truth doesnt change. falsehood remains falsehood and truth remains truth. its interesting that christianity doesnt deal with issues that concern the material world. science can never and doesnt aim to answer these questions. the whole point of faith is the redemption of mankind and mans "place in the universe". science deals with finding out the mechanical structures of the nature. it cannot see outside of the box. thats why sciences "shrinks" a the presence of concepts that are eternal or unending. thats why p is an unending number, because science can only conceive knowledge through cubical dots, bit by bit. that is why religion and science come is constant conflict. because science's issues have nothing to do with what religion tries to solve. secularists can forever ponder about the chemical formula of the forbideen tree's bark and the acid concentration of the fruit and the "social status of eve", yet they cannot see that the whole story isnt about the phycological labirints of eve's brain, it isnt about even having more temptation hormones. thats why many socioloists try to look at the "creation story" and call christianity a "sexist" religion. the story is actually about that man tend to blame others for their faults. its a methapor, because the things described are not what people think in conventional terms. its because the story is not at all about what a scientist might think. it isnt about the economic inferioty of the female race, nor is it about the water pressure of Red River, which caused it to "part". Thats why religion seems so scientists is absurd, because they themselves cannot see the inner meaning of the story. thats why some miss the whole point.