science

**finishhimlarry rolls 44**

Legit or not, makes sense.

Religion without [true] science, is superstition.

Also, http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24949.html

well this is horrifyingly awkward

no worries, mate.

Your view is interesting, but I think it's problematic. The analogies you have provided are not an accurate portrayal of the science-religion relation. I would argue, a more accurate analogy with be this:

~1000 years back~
Son: Dad, what causes the apple to fall?
Science-minded Dad: We don't know, son.
Religious Dad: God does it.

~Now~
Son: Dad, what causes the apple to fall?
Science-minded Dad: Because of Gravity.
Religious Dad: God does it.

Your view seems to make it sound like scientific description is an anti-religious argument, with continuous progress of science and gap-filling of human knowledge, the role of God and religion in the description of nature is getting increasingly restricted. Now this would be the case, were science and religion/philosophy were to address the same issues to begin with. They don't. Science answers the "how" question, religion or philosophy answers the "how" question. So even with perpetual progress of science, the questions that religion deals with- the questions of why, purpose, intentions- they still remain there on the table. Notice how in my analogy, the answer of the religious dad remained one and the same regardless of the time they live in, purely because religion answers questions which are independent of scientific progress. Now I do grant that some religionists would hold the view that natural descriptions are anti-religious arguments. But that's their personal view, and I would argue as above to demonstrate that stance is flawed. Also, this view is very tenured on the part of the believer, because it needs gaps in human understanding to exist for faith to persist. Every new scientific undertaking becomes a potential threat for the individual. But again, this is not a correct portrayal of the issue.

TL; DR:
Science and Religion are not opposed to each other per se; the only plausible room for conflict between the two disciplines is when scripture tries to answer a "how" question and that goes against established scientific reality.

But you see we still don't know where "gravity" comes from or what have. (not sure if I said that right) . So that analogy is fine I'd say.

Even if we end up with a sound understanding of Quantum Gravity, it would still go as far to explain the "How" question, not the "Why" one. At the (now perceived) rock-bottom level of physics, gravity is determined because of the specific effects and characteristics of the graviton particle, which are, in turn, determined by how the string vibrates (still a hypothesis). But one could even go on to ask "Why does the string vibrate in that particular way and not any other?" This question is not demanding any further breakdown of the mechanism of how gravity works, but the intentionality or purpose behind gravity's working (if there is any). This is something science wouldn't answer, it's left upon philosophy (religious or otherwise).

I really like this quote by Will Durant, in the beginning of his epic work "The Story of Philosophy":

"Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces our death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom - desire coordinated in the light of all experience - can tell us when to heal and when to kill."

Rhetoric not mine, and not even intended.

but didn't Einstein's Theory of General Relativity tell why there is gravity?

Yes, but the issue of Quantum gravity is still unsolved. Gravity makes sense in the backdrop of general relativity, the three other forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic) make sense in the backdrop of quantum mechanics. But gravity doesn't make sense in the world of quantum mechanics. So we are left with two dfferent laws of the universe. I remember one scientist putting it this way: general relativity works everywhere, and quantum mechanics works everywhere, but you can't have two everywheres.

i always thought that the strength of the gravities affected the theory

1. I'm not reading all of that 2. I was talking about his analogy being okay with what he was saying. ... I really don't care about anything else. But thanks for your hard worked answer ig

My pleasure, but his analogy wasn't based on the premise that we are yet to completely understand gravity. It was based on the 'God of the Gaps' model of faith...where people use the concept of God as a gap-filler for scientific knowledge. This is, of course, overly simplistic.

er..okay gotcha..I was just talking about one little part of the analogy. the gravity part..that's it.. :D good day sir

Major type on second line of last para: should be religion or philosophy answers the "why" question.

This is the only good kind of copypasta. Thanks for doing it :)

When I saw this content the first time, I loved it.

oh nevermind didn't know it was a copypasta

God is just a way of explaining things we don't understand, it has been for a very long time. It's not long until it all goes away.

this was some content...

What you're talking about is the idea of a "God of Gaps." That is, God is placed as the cause for any gaps in our understanding, which are steadily decreasing.

Uhh, Tyson doesn't claim to be atheism, he doesn't like the term "Atheist" at all, he thinks it's stupid.

Well I sniff it all in.

Funny, but abused meme. :/

The abrahamic god is just as hypothetical as anyother 30000 human made god

Ah, but the belief that the world was flat was a religious belief, not scientific fact

indeedoo

"I believe in science over religion"

I think he was talking about things that can be proven 'through' the use of science, and if not....

We keep trying?



I am not sure i word this correctly....Eh, i got less than 2 hours of sleep.

I'm not trying to start a shitstorm or anything,
but which belief wouldn't believe that "because we say it's true, it has to be true?"

I don't know....

Science did prove the world was round...unless that changed in the past 24 hours. I think what the statement meant was that science will always prove or disprove theories that can be tested (Within our capabilities of course). Once the theory has been proven/disproven it can never discounted as a false statement, because there facts, data, and evidence of it. That is basic science....

I think.

We aren't 100% sure on anything. Even gravity is only a theory because we cannot fully prove it

Gravity's a strange one.

We know it exists and we know how it acts mostly. The problem is we have no idea why it occurs.
There's no way by our understanding that two masses should be attracted to each other in empty space. They just are.

Thing is, while we do not understand the why, we understand the how and are able to use it to our advantage.
It is no possible to intuitively understand quantum mechanics either, but we're able to predict what will happen with an accuracy that is indistinguishable from certainty so far.

This is what fascinates me most.
We do not understand, but we already mastered it.

Exactly what I'm trying to say!
How can we consider something to be true when we aren't even sure about it?

Granted, gravity is most likely true; we've observed it numerous times and we have a pretty good idea of how it works.

Now, that doesn't mean that later on we could discover gravity works in a slightly different way than we imagined.



I'm not saying all theories are incorrect; on the most part they are probably accurate but not all of them will be in generations from now.

Nothing in science is absolutely true its just most likely.

It's precisely that uncertainty and lack of definite truth, that curiosity, that keeps us exploring for the truth and keeps science moving.

Yep. that lack of definite truth is probably the best thing about Science.

But it's precisely that lack of definite truth that makes me say: "Not all science is definitely true."

"cannot be disproved"
Nope.

"we consider to be true are theories"
*Scientific theories. There's a big difference.

But in general, I agree with your statement.