Both science and religion can be described as bodies of knowledge and processes. Science is a body of knowledge comprised of ideas that can be, but have not yet been, disproved. Religion is a body of knowledge comprised of ideas that cannot be disproved. Science is the process in which doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas. Religion is the process in which doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing new and old ideas.
False. Religion is a body of myths with little or no historical evidence to support them. Scientific theories can be tested and repeated. In fact, in order to be a theory of physics, a hypothesis must make a unique and correct prediction about physical events or properties, that can be explained in no other known way. And it must be tested many many times by independent scientists. And they must all get the same results. Science is a process, not a thing. And science produces a body of knowledge that can be tested and verified by anyone with the means. Myths or tested, or demonstrated to be accurate; that makes no predictions that can be tested and are based entirely on faith. Science is the process of discovery, hypothesizing, testing, and replication, to derive models that explain what we observe. Religion asks you to believe what you feel and what you are told, without evidence or proof.
As we progressed through our physics classes, we often had to do the same experiments done by the greats, so we could see for ourselves what actually happens. In short, we walked in their shoes and learned what they learned, the same way they learned it - by doing it!
What a bunch of fun opinions to have. Like nobody could hit you on the hand with a ruler in history-with-agendas? Many people use the Christian Calendar in the world or choose to, not that this science is any more makes a Christian. Clocks are used or waterclocks, for the monks with their strict time-of-day prayer regimens, financed by the Kingdoms. They wrote all the books, and kept even pagan history and knowledge. Someone must understand how strange it is to hear about modernists in Churches, why, what Kind of Church has people with 0 respect for history?! How is that possible?! How does it, Exist?! From rote memorization to thinking on it , to , not caring about history! A few misunderstandings and now there it is, a huge unrecovered chasm mainly, to destroy religion and promote science. Had you heard, that the Islamic imams rejected French technology, because it was Infidel technology, it was from Christians, I think we understand the 21st century.
Your hyperbole betrays your forgone conclusions. Quite unscientific Science, as a process, is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas. Science, as a body of knowledge, is comprised of ideas that can be, but have not yet been disproved. To the scientific mind, it isn't as much that ideas are really ever proved as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved. What remains is what the scientific mind is left to believe, then that's tested, and so on, and so on. The open minded scientist is more likely say that "I am currently left to believe." than "I believe."
Now a Christian Scientist , wouldn't that be nice. Well, I can't take pay for this cancer vaccine. What about Einstein promoting buddhism, or is that just because he just bombed Japan.
Religion exists because it gives meaning, purpose and hope to humans that must be universal. Science removes meaning hope and purpose but gave us TVs and the iinternet. So I got nothing against either. I am agnostic but prefer purpose over meaninglessness. And I hope consciousness is fundamental instead of matter.
Atheist try that trick all the time, the theory of gravity has been proven wrong in black holes, but they want to pick up a pencil and drop it on earth to say it's a fact I cant prove to you my personal relationship with Mother Mary is a fact the more you cant prove man evolved from primates (no way in heck did weak man be able to get the girls running around buck naked in nature)
They could be described as small South American songbirds, it still wouldn’t be correct though. In this context it would be more the core underlying principles of the methods and processes used to determine that knowledge. In practice it’s a fuzzy word applied to a lot of different things in the field though. Outside this specific argument, that poses absolutely no issue or confusion. This is entirely an intentionally manufactured problem. Just no. Religion is a type of thing for a start. There are (and have been) a vast number of diverse religions and religious-like structures, often entirely contradictory and competing. To call religion a singular anything is simply wrong. Religions are also more typically sets of rules and practices, something people do rather than a concrete set of knowledge as you describe. There are all sorts of different ideas and knowledge (actual or claimed) raised by different individual religious structures but none of them can be attributed to religion as a singular generic concept. This whole endless attempt to push the two concepts in to the same discussion remains entirely bogus with underlying constant of the same kind of blatant ulterior motive. Religious beliefs can’t be simply lifted “beyond the reach of science” just because believers don’t want to (and can’t) defend and justify their ideas in the same manner all others are.
First introduced to that fact in philosophy 101 60 years ago. Most science looks from the foundation of philosophical materialism. So no higher purpose or meaning while we historically have yearned for these things.
Einstein clearly thought otherwise, in case you didn't know. Seeing the latter is hardly essential to the former, I'd say if anything removes meaning, hope and purpose it's the latter rather than the former. Wouldn't you?
You dont think seeing matter is fundamental has anything to do with the direction that science took ? Science has a foundation of materialism . We dont try to understand reality using consciousness. Although some early quantum physicists thought mind or consciousness might be involved with their discoveties. And it may be but great efforts have been made to negate consciousness for most scientists are materialists. Ha ha Biology is fully materialistic so much do that it cuts off any consideration of consciousness being involved. For it must be explained only in materialism. So of course science started assuming matter is fundamental and that has always steered it in that direction. I think it is just as likely that consciousness is fundamental and matter is a manifestation of consciousness. Of course if true that would bring back purpose and meaning. That the materialist way of looking destroyed .
You're taking science as the consenus view of scientists, and that's not what it is. Science is the process of discovering new truths about the universe; and it doesn't require any philosophical foundation at all, just the desire and determination to discover.
You know scientists even say their science is materialistic. For it simply is. This has never been denied by those that took philosophy . You wont move out far enough to get the big picture.
Is that clear? People might be able to fling out pity selective quotes and read massively in to them but I doubt we can know the full thoughts of anyone on such a complex topic. Anyway, if that were the case, he'd be wrong. The linguistics of theology wasn't his field of expertise so his opinion on that question is no more relevant than yours or mine.
Everyone's opinion is relevant, because everyone has a voice and therefore they should be allowed to express those opinions. The trick is weighing up which opinions are worth listening to. As far as Einstein goes the man was awesomely smart so his views I would submit carry more weight than many others, despite not being a subject matter expert. As for the the topic at hand? Religion and science are literally two different sides of the same a coin. Both seek universal truths but do so in completely different ways. So why bother debating the differences. Talk science in science threads and religion in religious threads.
Certainly that would explain why so much of what passes for science serves mainly to stultify. Then pardon me while I congratulate myself for avoiding such indoctrination. You're projecting. Perfectly. Happily, I've no need. That you characterize it so indicates you haven't got a clue about it. The basis for this pronouncement is nowhere to be seen. Which might be interesting, were there any reason to believe experts in that field necessarily have anything intelligent to say about religion.
I'm not at all sure what your point is here. Why would an individual see a better understanding of how our physical universe works as a threat to his/her religion?
Yes, we do need to get better at recognizing what is science and what has been dressed up to look "sciency". We teach so little science in our education system that large numbers graduate high school without even knowing what science is or how it works. One can hardly blame them for being behind when it comes to evaluating the boatloads of screed we face from all over on all topics. Our nation would be way better off if we fixed this.
I'm not sure what Your question is. I'll tell you one. Why would there be 4 questions on a Marketing test, and one of them is list your Brand consciousness about 8 brands. So literally, in order to pass that class, is Mainly a display, your outward materialism and education of earthly topics to the professor, which its not a science anyway. Its a good point about the discrimination in effect on the demography of the student body. I don't particularly know anyone complaining about learning, either, or about the models of science. In your head, maybe.