Spectrum wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Science and Religion are both tools to facilitate survival.
Religion as a tool is targetted at the gross and crudest form of survival. Religion (especially the Abrahamics) is for a drowning man grabing at straws trying to survival at all costs. That is why the word 'saved' is often associated with religion.
The focus of being 'saved' is confined to the individual and thus religion is in a sense 'selfish'. Religion is in essence/substance a tool for the the 'salvation' of the individual from eternal hell or sufferings, of which both are fundamentally related to the cognitive dissonance of mortality. The rest of the other activities of religions are merely their forms.
Science (to know) is a general tool to seek knowledge to facilitate the survival of the specie. The difference between Science and Religion is, science is an accumulation of a scientific knowledge database for mankind sake, rather than on for any individual's interest. As such, Science is targetted at the survival of the specie via individual.
Btw, both Religion and Science has their pros and cons which are relative and imo, time and situational bound.
Religions (especially the Abrahamics) are based on IMMUTABLE holy books and worse, some verses are laced with violent elements.
Science is on the other hand is open source and flexible.
Reality is dynamic where change is the only constant.
From the above, it follows that it is not effective to unite Religions (esp Abrahamics) with Science. Since reality is dynamic with time, while the Abrahamics are based on immutability, the Abrahamics must be weaned off in time and the other other religions to follow suit.
Instead of uniting Science with Religion, Science should be united strongly with Philosophy-proper to enable humanity to deal with the reality of 'reality'.
I think it is unfair to categorize religion and science as "tools for survival". Religion makes people understand that life is not all there is. How can it be a tool for survival when its main premise is that our life on this planet is not everything we have to worry wbout? And in any case when you talk about "survival" you imply that you accept some philosophical dogmas, correct? Do you think this is the ultimate purpose of man?
-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 6:36 am to add the following --
Rederic wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Yes, but they're not assumed to be correct until they've been examined & tested by scientists over many years. Such a theory is evolution.
-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 5:30 am to add the following --
(Nested quote removed.)
The Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Wikipedia
But it does not matter how much you "test". You will always find things which can be found based on the AXIOMS you started from! If you change axioms, then you will be able to "find" new things and test them as well!
It sound spooky, but it is as simple as that.
Unless you think that some axioms (and their derived theories) are more "true" than others...
-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 6:46 am to add the following --
DeeElf wrote:Science just means "knowledge" and it's just a philosophy.
-- Updated November 17th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --
(Nested quote removed.)
What evidence did Galileo use to disprove Aristotle's doctrine of motion? What observations did he make? What predictions did he make based upon such evidence and observations?
And on how earth did he do it before the debate about who invented "the scientific method" or who coined the term "the scientific method" had even started? The debate continues to grow and an answer seems farther away than ever.
Indeed.
The models created by science are not "true" or "false".
And you cannot say that one is "better" than the "other" easily as one might think.
A motion can be described in many ways. You can change the observation point or the reference system and result in an equally "true" model.