12 ms·

If you agree religion is based on faith i.e. belief in things not empirically testable or verifiable and that science is the attempt to understand the physical

If you agree religion is based on faith i.e. belief in things not empirically testable or verifiable and that science is the attempt to understand the physical universe through logic, reason, experiment and empirical evidence then at the very least religion and science are two distinct non-intersecting sets of beliefs. Faith is also certainly antithetical to the iterative process known as the scientific method, which means at a minimum the core values of Religion and science are certainly opposed.

DanWaterworth 10y ago
> belief in things not empirically testable or verifiable and that science. Sorry to nitpick, but science isn't verifiable, it's falsifiable. Also, there are religious people who'd agree with your characterisation of faith and there are others who wouldn't.
- jfaucett 10y ago
  Absolutely, I mispoke there. Experiments must be repeatable and hypotheses falsifiable. Truth in science is essentially about minimizing the probability of errors in our models. For example, it could still be the case that the sun won't rise tomorrow due to some unforseen law of the universe, still all our models predict and have consistently correctly predicted it to be the case that the sun rises on the next day, so we can with a high probability assert the Truth that the sun will rise tomorrow.
jorangreef 10y ago
Faith, according to the Bible, is acting today in the light of what has been said and done in the past, in history. If you want it in an academic sense, then you could say that authentic biblical faith is always on the basis of the historical method. For example, see Luke writing to Theopilus: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." And see Paul writing to the early Corinthian church: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."
- Udik 10y ago
  Sorry, but for Catholics, some 1.2 billion people "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Catechism of the Catholic Church.) Which is exactly what science is not. And if all your faith and your preaching depends on the actual historicity of an impossible event, to which you seek no further explanation than something equivalent to "it's magic" (and no further interpretation but "then it means we're right"!), then of course this attitude is very far from being compatible with science.
  - jorangreef 10y ago
    Do Catholics believe that definition of faith you quoted because it first appeared in their catechism or because their catechism quotes it from Hebrews 11? And if it is original to Hebrews 11, then what does the phrase "assurance of things hoped for" mean in context if it does not have the same sense as 1 Corinthians 15 or Luke 1? When you speak of "an impossible event", what do you mean exactly? And when you say "impossible", then according to what logic? Are you saying that it is impossible for God (should he exist) to raise the dead? Are you saying that it is impossible for the dead to be raised because you presuppose that God does not exist? Or are you saying that it is impossible in the sense that we have very few occurrences of such an event and therefore it must be impossible?
    - Udik 10y ago
      > Do Catholics believe that definition of faith you quoted because it first appeared in their catechism or because their catechism quotes it from Hebrews 11? Well, they believe it because somebody told them to. Then, if you're asking why that formulation and not another one, then yes, it comes from Hebrews 11. But even if that passage justified the Catholic one, wouldn't that just shift the question: if they believe so and so because it comes from Hebrews 11, then why do they believe in Hebrews 11? I mean "impossible" in natural terms, according to the believers themselves. If it were possible, but just a rare occurrence, then it wouldn't justify building a whole faith system on it, don't you agree? For a Christian the resurrection must have happened despite being impossible: the impossibility it's exactly where it derives its value from. The impossibility is cherished, treasured. Contrast now with a scientific attitude. It has happened? Therefore it's possible and (until further understanding) it doesn't prove anything except its own possibility. And understanding means discovering the mechanical, reproducible and predictable nature of the process. Any aspect that is not mechanical, reproducible and predictable will have to be ignored by the scientific inquiry. Even if it contains the right answer.

DanWaterworth 10y ago

> belief in things not empirically testable or verifiable and that science. Sorry to nitpick, but science isn't verifiable, it's falsifiable. Also, there are religious people who'd agree with your characterisation of faith and there are others who wouldn't.

jfaucett 10y ago
Absolutely, I mispoke there. Experiments must be repeatable and hypotheses falsifiable. Truth in science is essentially about minimizing the probability of errors in our models. For example, it could still be the case that the sun won't rise tomorrow due to some unforseen law of the universe, still all our models predict and have consistently correctly predicted it to be the case that the sun rises on the next day, so we can with a high probability assert the Truth that the sun will rise tomorrow.

jorangreef 10y ago

Faith, according to the Bible, is acting today in the light of what has been said and done in the past, in history. If you want it in an academic sense, then you could say that authentic biblical faith is always on the basis of the historical method. For example, see Luke writing to Theopilus: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." And see Paul writing to the early Corinthian church: "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."

Udik 10y ago
Sorry, but for Catholics, some 1.2 billion people "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Catechism of the Catholic Church.) Which is exactly what science is not. And if all your faith and your preaching depends on the actual historicity of an impossible event, to which you seek no further explanation than something equivalent to "it's magic" (and no further interpretation but "then it means we're right"!), then of course this attitude is very far from being compatible with science.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  Do Catholics believe that definition of faith you quoted because it first appeared in their catechism or because their catechism quotes it from Hebrews 11? And if it is original to Hebrews 11, then what does the phrase "assurance of things hoped for" mean in context if it does not have the same sense as 1 Corinthians 15 or Luke 1? When you speak of "an impossible event", what do you mean exactly? And when you say "impossible", then according to what logic? Are you saying that it is impossible for God (should he exist) to raise the dead? Are you saying that it is impossible for the dead to be raised because you presuppose that God does not exist? Or are you saying that it is impossible in the sense that we have very few occurrences of such an event and therefore it must be impossible?
  - Udik 10y ago
    > Do Catholics believe that definition of faith you quoted because it first appeared in their catechism or because their catechism quotes it from Hebrews 11? Well, they believe it because somebody told them to. Then, if you're asking why that formulation and not another one, then yes, it comes from Hebrews 11. But even if that passage justified the Catholic one, wouldn't that just shift the question: if they believe so and so because it comes from Hebrews 11, then why do they believe in Hebrews 11? I mean "impossible" in natural terms, according to the believers themselves. If it were possible, but just a rare occurrence, then it wouldn't justify building a whole faith system on it, don't you agree? For a Christian the resurrection must have happened despite being impossible: the impossibility it's exactly where it derives its value from. The impossibility is cherished, treasured. Contrast now with a scientific attitude. It has happened? Therefore it's possible and (until further understanding) it doesn't prove anything except its own possibility. And understanding means discovering the mechanical, reproducible and predictable nature of the process. Any aspect that is not mechanical, reproducible and predictable will have to be ignored by the scientific inquiry. Even if it contains the right answer.