Obviously we all know what a hammer and a screwdriver is. A hammer is a tool that is used to impel nails and a screw driver is use to drive screw. Both tools have specific tasks, but you can also use them to do other certain tasks. Hammers can also be use to ply metal or to crack stones. Screwdrivers can also be use to puncture holes. Sadly, both tools can also be use to destroy properties or even to kill people. That’s the same with science.
Recently, I’ve notice that a lot of religion today is starting to use the word “science”, especially Christianity and Islam. I think they’re using it to corroborate their religious claims. Some like Islam use science to claim the foreknowledge of the Qur’an as if it is a matter of great importance. In Christianity it is worst. We now have “creation science” which is trying to fit Genesis in science text books and public schools. There is also these so-called “science class” in some evangelical Christian services that teaches “science” on children while their parents attend Christian fellowships. There are also these pastors who use the word “science” on their Bible studies, saying that their Bible study is…er…scientific.
What is Science?
When we talk about science here in the Philippines the first thing that enters a typical Filipino’s mind are children age 4 and up wearing lab gowns and glasses – acting like annoying geniuses, while they look at microscopes, Plastic balls replicating the Solar System and Albert Einstein’s portrait - nothing much to start with. Here in the Philippines, the average Filipino virtually never heard about modern science. Sad to say, science here in the Philippines joins the rank of Sesame Street and Sponge Bob Square Pants.
I will not define science in a usual textbook manner. I think I’ll just share to you how the late Carl Sagan described it. In an article from Parade Magazine, Dr. Sagan summarized his thought on why we as a society need to understand science. According to him, “science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best match the facts. It urges on use a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything – new ideas and established wisdom."
Science and Religion
When it comes to science, religion has two views: 1.) That science is compatible with religion and 2.) That science is a materialistic knowledge that takes away people from God.
Non-believers are also divided on the issue of science role with religion. Some believe that there is no conflict between science and religion because each subject has a legitimate magisterium or domain of teaching authority. Science only concern is the natural world while religion is only concern about morality. The problem with this view is that believers are not satisfied on defining religion just as a moral philosophy. They want more. To establish the superiority of their belief, they have to make basic pronouncements in the natural world. They have to enter science’s turf.
In the beginning of this article I said that most religion today is using science to justify religious faith. But science doesn’t care if its findings will jeopardize certain religious doctrines. The theory of evolution doesn’t give a damn abut the fall of man and Jesus Christ. So religion (especially Christianity) must appeal to their theology and try bending science to fit it.
If religion has placed God in the boundaries of the Natural world, then science is free to evaluate it. Religion has now no special immunity from being examined under reason and objective observation.
But can science step off religious turf? According to Karl Popper and Rudolp Carnap falsification is restricted to empirical statements. Philosophical theories or metaphysical theories will be irrefutable by definition. That means the question whether God exist or not is not a scientific problem. But if God entered the realm of the natural world via the pronouncements made by theologians and religious philosophers concerning God’s activities in the natural world, then He must be ready to lie down on the examination table in a laboratory and be examined.
Lame Religion, Blind Science
Believers often use Albert Einstein’s quote to prove the compatibility of religion and science – “religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.”
But Einstein’s definition of religion is far different on how an average Christian or Muslim defines it. According to Einstein, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Here are some more quotations from Einstein about his religion. “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
"I have found no better expression that ‘religious’ for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.”
Einstein’s religion is without an anthropomorphic conception of God. It has no dogmas, creed or a church. His is of a superior feeling – without fear or guilt, just a feeling of awe and inspiration – a “rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law”.
So what’s the difference?
The only similarity between science and religion is that both searches for the truth. But other than that there are no similarities. Science is a search for the facts and laws of nature, as Kant and Hume have said, science tells us what is, not what ought to be.
Science is based foremost on evidence not authority or revelation. Scientist doesn’t invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works.
Science is more open. Truth in science resides in putting the question to nature base on experiments and observations. Science is open to challenge. It abandons currently accepted belief when a better theory is proposed.
Let’s face it, science will not compensate God but science is a threat to God. As science fills the gap with knowledge, the God of the Gaps is being kicked out. The more gaps being filled, God is left without a home.
Until next time.
John the Atheist
Recently, I’ve notice that a lot of religion today is starting to use the word “science”, especially Christianity and Islam. I think they’re using it to corroborate their religious claims. Some like Islam use science to claim the foreknowledge of the Qur’an as if it is a matter of great importance. In Christianity it is worst. We now have “creation science” which is trying to fit Genesis in science text books and public schools. There is also these so-called “science class” in some evangelical Christian services that teaches “science” on children while their parents attend Christian fellowships. There are also these pastors who use the word “science” on their Bible studies, saying that their Bible study is…er…scientific.
What is Science?
When we talk about science here in the Philippines the first thing that enters a typical Filipino’s mind are children age 4 and up wearing lab gowns and glasses – acting like annoying geniuses, while they look at microscopes, Plastic balls replicating the Solar System and Albert Einstein’s portrait - nothing much to start with. Here in the Philippines, the average Filipino virtually never heard about modern science. Sad to say, science here in the Philippines joins the rank of Sesame Street and Sponge Bob Square Pants.
I will not define science in a usual textbook manner. I think I’ll just share to you how the late Carl Sagan described it. In an article from Parade Magazine, Dr. Sagan summarized his thought on why we as a society need to understand science. According to him, “science is much more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best match the facts. It urges on use a fine balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything – new ideas and established wisdom."
Science and Religion
When it comes to science, religion has two views: 1.) That science is compatible with religion and 2.) That science is a materialistic knowledge that takes away people from God.
Non-believers are also divided on the issue of science role with religion. Some believe that there is no conflict between science and religion because each subject has a legitimate magisterium or domain of teaching authority. Science only concern is the natural world while religion is only concern about morality. The problem with this view is that believers are not satisfied on defining religion just as a moral philosophy. They want more. To establish the superiority of their belief, they have to make basic pronouncements in the natural world. They have to enter science’s turf.
In the beginning of this article I said that most religion today is using science to justify religious faith. But science doesn’t care if its findings will jeopardize certain religious doctrines. The theory of evolution doesn’t give a damn abut the fall of man and Jesus Christ. So religion (especially Christianity) must appeal to their theology and try bending science to fit it.
If religion has placed God in the boundaries of the Natural world, then science is free to evaluate it. Religion has now no special immunity from being examined under reason and objective observation.
But can science step off religious turf? According to Karl Popper and Rudolp Carnap falsification is restricted to empirical statements. Philosophical theories or metaphysical theories will be irrefutable by definition. That means the question whether God exist or not is not a scientific problem. But if God entered the realm of the natural world via the pronouncements made by theologians and religious philosophers concerning God’s activities in the natural world, then He must be ready to lie down on the examination table in a laboratory and be examined.
Lame Religion, Blind Science
Believers often use Albert Einstein’s quote to prove the compatibility of religion and science – “religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.”
But Einstein’s definition of religion is far different on how an average Christian or Muslim defines it. According to Einstein, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Here are some more quotations from Einstein about his religion. “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
"I have found no better expression that ‘religious’ for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.”
Einstein’s religion is without an anthropomorphic conception of God. It has no dogmas, creed or a church. His is of a superior feeling – without fear or guilt, just a feeling of awe and inspiration – a “rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law”.
So what’s the difference?
The only similarity between science and religion is that both searches for the truth. But other than that there are no similarities. Science is a search for the facts and laws of nature, as Kant and Hume have said, science tells us what is, not what ought to be.
Science is based foremost on evidence not authority or revelation. Scientist doesn’t invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works.
Science is more open. Truth in science resides in putting the question to nature base on experiments and observations. Science is open to challenge. It abandons currently accepted belief when a better theory is proposed.
Let’s face it, science will not compensate God but science is a threat to God. As science fills the gap with knowledge, the God of the Gaps is being kicked out. The more gaps being filled, God is left without a home.
Until next time.
John the Atheist
1 comments:
Hello there John,
I kinda want to answer your question about "what's the difference between science and religion?
1) first science lacks something you can't explain but science made something up to cover for its lacks "The Theory Complex" lots of theories but have you find out about the truth yet, you said science is looking for the truth but the real difference is Religion is home of the truth, but not all religion is the truth you have to seek it and you will find only one.
2) The Bible is talking about science and Bible teaches about science, like when Abraham was told about circumcising the 8 days old baby boys, is there even a doctor yet on that time? but using science methods to carbon date when that writing was written you will see that it will make science just a grade level lower cause if you research when that study was only first use by doctors you won't believe the gap
how about the Kings that the Bible said who ruled the Assyrians which no History books where kept by or written by any Assyrian well after finding a tablet that says there really is a King of that name which is the only record was the Bible
3) And then you said you don't believe in God but you yourself is using the Bible which is what Christians are using and which is the primary book that says their is someone greater than anything here on the universe for He made it
If you don't believe in someone or you don't acknowledge its existence you don't have to do anything just to deny it does not exist, but the truth that on the back of your mind that there is really someone who is there that gave life to all things here in the universe, you are just to afraid of the truth that is why you don't even want to confirm it with all the power you have in you.
I know atheist are knowledgeable people, put that knowledge into effect and do something be a member of all the religions in the world which pertains to serving God and His son Jesus then after doing so you can tell it your whole heart that from all of them there is really no God because you yourself was with them and then can say directly to them in your face I have proven it and I am right so that's when you have authority to say something but now, you only know 2 religions but you did not even go to lengths to know all from those religions.
That's just my comment, but without saying about what is written in the Bible of Psalms 14:1
prove then that the Bible is wrong about this one then I rest my case.
Post a Comment