Name: Anonymous 2008-06-28 17:58
A major problem of religion is it relies on convincing someone that something is true, which can either be accepted or rejected. A Catholic, Mormon, Scientologist, even a Buddhist relies on written doctrine and regurgitated memes, and if successfully described to a recipient, they will accept this information as fact. Religions claim absolute truth and knowledge, so that their worldview is correct, and others are flawed, mistaken, or wrong. No one can have absolute knowledge, or be absolutely correct, because we only know what we can measure.
But isn't it the job of science to do just this? We are convinced of our view of reality by the written and spoken collection of theories of the day, which we believe to be the truth. Science without God or the supernatural is the default position, accepted as truth, while all religious claims are seen as false. Science convinces us that it is the real, absolute, one truth without having to say it is.
The key difference is science uses evidence and testability, but there are a number of scientific theories that are believed in with no testability. Many theories are based on best guesses of what we're observed, without knowing for a fact they occurred- we simply accept their truth based on past interpretations of data, when those interpretations may be flawed, just as ancient sheep herders may have misinterpreted bad weather as the will of God. Sure we have better measurements, but in the end we only know what we think we've experienced in the past, based on limited observation methods, so we can write it down and regurgitate it for the future to accept.
But isn't it the job of science to do just this? We are convinced of our view of reality by the written and spoken collection of theories of the day, which we believe to be the truth. Science without God or the supernatural is the default position, accepted as truth, while all religious claims are seen as false. Science convinces us that it is the real, absolute, one truth without having to say it is.
The key difference is science uses evidence and testability, but there are a number of scientific theories that are believed in with no testability. Many theories are based on best guesses of what we're observed, without knowing for a fact they occurred- we simply accept their truth based on past interpretations of data, when those interpretations may be flawed, just as ancient sheep herders may have misinterpreted bad weather as the will of God. Sure we have better measurements, but in the end we only know what we think we've experienced in the past, based on limited observation methods, so we can write it down and regurgitate it for the future to accept.