Science And Religion

[JaphyR]

Many of the disagreements in this forum come down to a misunderstanding of what science is. People argue about the conclusions of "science", but they are not really talking about science, but some bastardized form of it. So, this is a post to clarify what science is, and what it is not. Perhaps it will avoid some of the back-and-forth in some other threads. (This post was lost in the recent database crash, so if it looks familiar... it is.) Three questions to focus the discussion: 1. What is science? 2. What is not science? 3. What is the problem with "religious" science? __________________________________________________ ___ My thoughts: 1. What is science?[/b] Science is a process. 1. Choose a testable question. 2. Propose an answer to the question. 3. Design an experiment which tests our answer to the original question. The experiment must result in observable evidence. The experiment must be repeatable by other scientists. After the experiment is performed, we evaluate our proposed answer. If our observed results prove the answer wrong, we propose another answer. If the results do not prove our answer wrong, our answer is accepted until another experiment generates results which contradict our answer. If no experiment can be designed which would generate results relevant to the question or answer, then the question or answer may be outside of science. This is not a flaw of science, some matters are simply outside of science. 2. What is not science?[/b] 1. Science is not about asking questions which can't be tested. 2. Science is not accepting only evidence which supports your proposed answer, and ignoring evidence which contradicts your proposed answer. 3. Science is not about accepting the results of experiments which can't be repeated. 4. Science is not what you want it to be, it is what its experienced practitioners have found to be a useful method. 5. Science is not partial. Science does not support any worldviews, or oppose any worldviews. The results of scientific experiments can be used to support or oppose different ideas, but science itself is impartial. 3. What is the problem with "religious" science?[/b] There are a number of religious believers who attempt to use "science" to provide evidence for their religious views. Often times, this is not true science. The "science" these folks practice usually ignores one of the principles of science. They may begin with untestable questions. They may perform "experiments" which no one else can repeat. They may claim certain results for an experiment, but when anyone else performs the same experiment, we get different results. They may reject any evidence which opposes their beliefs, or accept only evidence which supports their beliefs. This frustrates me because there are many good reasons to support some religious beliefs. Clinging to unfounded support for these beliefs undermines the real reasons that people should consider believing. It creates conflict where we could find common ground.

[Seeker]

Good luck with your topic. I cannot wait to see where this one goes. I agree, science is one thing, religion another. One based on verifiable facts, the other based on faith or belief. Both however have their benefits. Many people let their zeal for one side totally blind them to the possibilities of the other. What a loss!