Would Religion Survive a Resurrection?

[neerdowell]

Jay520 said:

neerdowell said:

If you blacked out science would it survive?

 Even if religion didn't survive after a blackout that doesn't indicate a lack of basis as much as it does just how open people are to influence (since they would just blindly accept whatever took religion's place).

For this matter, is most people's faith in science honestly based around their own understanding or are they simply taking somebody's word for it? Would this mean that science is just as much without basis as religion since it is passed down through others?

 Let people have their faith. It's no different than you wishing to retain your own belief in science. For the record, science is only "provable" by the laws of science, it's self-fulfilling, in the same manner as any other form of "logic". However, it only makes sense if you accept its underlying premises, much in the same manner that religion only makes sense if you accept the notion of supernatural factors.

Science requires no faith. It's quite the opposite actually; science promotes skeptism. Science is merely making observations in the most objective way possible. We know science is correct most of the time because we can have different people perform tests and we can see if what science says is true.

Even if science gets something wrong, that wouldn't disprove science. Science is not defined as being absolutely correct all of the time. Science is the quest for knowledge. So if sceince does get something wrong, we would still learn something. We would learn what's not correct, which can oftentimes still teach us mistakes and could push us closer to the truth. So it's still science.

You make science out to be some created concept which some people don't believe in. Science is the quest for knowledge and is a natural part of humanity. The term 'science' was just attached to it to make it easier to communicate. If science is destroyed, it would always be 'recreated' as people try to make sence of the world. When people make claims and find out that they're false, then they won't believe those claims. If people make claims and test that they're true, then they would believe those claims.

And you can see for yourself how helpful science has been. Computers, internet, buildings, phones, television, etc. All made possible by science. A lack of science would have made it impossible for our species to advance.

Science requires faith in one's senses, or those of another, in order to ascertain the certainty of one's observations. When one accepts the findings of another scientists without personally seeing the experiment I find this no different than accepting the stories of people 2000 years ago about a God they swore to have seen). Likewise, even if you had perceived the results personally, there is no guarantee that you are of sound judgement. Science also requires the assumption of truth and untruth, something I don't believe in.

I would also consider philosophy the quest for knowledge; I would consider science the quest for worldly knowledge. Likewise I consider philosphy very much a part of religion which means there is a pursuit of knowledge even within relgiion.

Perhaps you are correct in me mistaking science as a concept and not a process. This is likely due to the manner in which it is handled by many in which theories are accepted into practice and people's misapplications of science, namely trying to apply its uses where it doesn't belong. For example, when people try to disprove the existence of God by citing an alternative theory to the existence of the universe. I won't get into it here, but there is good reason to believe that the existence of God can neither be proven nor unproven, particularly not through the methods of science.

I also feel that the scientific process promotes an ego-centric perspective, looking inward for answers rather than outward and while it does promote some level of skepticism it discourages skepticism of one's self or their peers. This also promotes the notion that all answers are obtainable given enough time and there are no limits to our advancement.

Since science promotes the seeking of truth, this leads many to attack what they perceive as an untruth, regardless of the reasons such a perspective was adopted. Many living a religious life recognize the scientific fallacies of their beliefs, they choose to have faith regardless of those matters, not because they are ignorant of them (as much of the scientific community treats them).

I'm not denying that science has its uses (I majored in computer science after all); however, it is not the alpha and omega.

In short, I have no qualms with science itself, just the assholes who use it as a manner of discriminating against those of opposing views, who have a lot more in common with those "religious bigots" than they would prefer to believe. As I stated above, I originally mistook the intentions of this thread as another attempt to discredit religion by demonstrating that it was based more upon hearsay than scientific reason.