Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?

[John316]

What actually is the theory of evolution?

 

Thankyou: theory of evolution.... I agree its a theory,

BTW evolution is a fact,

 

no its still a theory, I will check out the web site, in the mean time answer this: what guides centrioles to align chromosomes and then separate the cell? one function of mechanics of the cell

[Reg Prescott]

@ Endy. Your 1-3 above are presumably directed at me.

 

I asked my questions not to be gratuitously annoying, but rather to highlight the dangers of you (and others) falling into the trap of perpetrating precisely that which you were fulminating against above, namely, dogmatism.

 

In the first instance, your characterization of what constitutes a scientific theory might be more appropriately presented, I suggest, when hedged with a "by and large" or "generally speaking" clause -- lest some asshole come crawling out the woodwork with a counterexample inimical to your rigid definition.

 

In the second instance, it's my view -- shared by many others -- that we have excellent reasons for believing there is no such thing which can be properly called "The Scientific Method". To go into these reasons would no doubt take us too far afield. The point I want to make, however, is that when scientists and science aficionados constantly assert, in no uncertain terms, this ethereal entity called "The Scientific Method" (which they all seem to agree exists, but offer wildly divergent characterizations of its nature), while there is, at least, some reason for suspecting the entire idea is illusory, is to expose oneself to allegations of dogmatic thinking.

 

And we wouldn't want to do that now, would we?

[John316]

You could have at least tried. Insteas, you doubled down on ignorance of even the most basic concepts of science and philosophy of science.

Shame, really. Then again, it's what I expected.

 

My point is not that you don't have the right to study it, teach it or believe it, but don't teach it as fact, you are the rigid one.

[pzkpfw]

... I agree its a theory, ...

Do you know what "theory" means, in the domain of science?

[John316]

Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.

Darwin was more eloquent, but makes the point, each cell in your body is irreducibly complex.

[pzkpfw]

...

 

Darwin was more eloquent, but makes the point, each cell in your body is irreducibly complex.

That's an utter lie, which fails to acknowledge "... which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications ...".

 

You're simply doing the standard "gosh that looks complicated, therefore God" dance.

[swansont]

Science >> Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...

 

!

Moderator Note

 

That this is following the usual script, line for line ("it's only a theory", "it's a religion", claiming to understand it while demonstrating little understanding, mixing up fact and theory, saying it's unproven, demanding a specific set of evidence, citing Darwin as if the theory has not advance since then) is exactly why I said we're not going down this path.

 

The topic under discussion is can science explain everything. As far as the development of life after it appeared on earth, yes, science has an explanation: evolution. That you reject the theory is entirely beside the point.

 

Any further discussion along these lines will simply be deleted. No muss, no fuss.

 

 

1. Can you please share with us the "mountains of evidence" backing up string theory?

 

2a. Can you please tell us what "The Scientific Method" is?

 

2b. If I find someone who offers a different characterization of TSM from your own (assuming you offer one), can we safely assume that he/she is just plain wrong?

 

!

Moderator Note

 

This, too, is off-topic.

 

Do not continue the path off-topic by replying to a modnote.

 

[Phi for All]

no its still a theory, I will check out the web site, in the mean time answer this: what guides centrioles to align chromosomes and then separate the cell? one function of mechanics of the cell

 

No. Absolutely no. Evolution, that it's happening right now, is a fact. The theory of evolution (which is different from the observable fact that species evolve), that which describes its mechanisms and models its behavior, supported with mountains of evidence from many fields of endeavor, is our best current explanation for the observable fact of evolution. It's not a proof, that's not what science looks for, it's a theory and represents the collaborative efforts of thousands of people who've actually studied these things, instead of people like you who've only been taught old ignorance from people who have religious reasons to confuse and lie to inquisitive people.

 

We don't discuss creationism here (because it's all the same old lies, repeated and refuted over and over ad nauseam), and that's not my intent at all. Evolution is a perfect example of science explaining reality is such a way that god(s) are squeezed completely out of the ignorance gaps in our knowledge. But there is little to be done for those who think their flawed bible is inerrant and can be used to calculate the age of the Earth. These are people who, for some reason, are willing to add orders of magnitude more layers of confusion and irrational arguments in order to claim inerrancy. I think one needs to see a reason why supernatural explanations aren't necessary before one can discern why trust might be better than faith.

[John Cuthber]

This

"Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God?"

is an interesting question.

It's perfectly possible that there is a God (I doubt it, but I can't claim to know for certain- that sort of certainty in spite of a lack of information is the realm of religion)
And, if there is a God, then science will need to "explain everything in the universe with a God".

 

If that happens then science won't mind a bit.

[Reg Prescott]

First of all, I'd like to point out an ambiguity in the title of the thread. When, under mysterious circumstances, a corpse turns up in east London, for example, it is often the case that several explanatory hypotheses or theories (hereafter, simply explanations) are put forward in an attempt to render intelligible that which was previously unintelligible: Sherlock Holmes has one, Watson has a different one, Inspector Lestrade has yet another, and so on -- but presumably not all of them can be described as correct or true.

 

It's important, therefore, that we distinguish between what I'll follow Carl Hempel in calling a potential explanation and a true explanation.

 

So, now we need to ask the OP: what exactly is it you're asking?:

 

(i) Can Science provide a potential explanation for everything in the universe without a God?

 

or

 

(ii) Can Science provide a true explanation for everything in the universe without a God?

 

 

Obviously, (ii) presents a taller order than (i). A potential explanation, if true, would explain the phenomenon under examination, but given that it's not true, it explains absolutely nothing. Only a true explanation actually explains. Given that the victim died from the bite of a venomous snake, precisely as Holmes conjectured, Watson's axe-murderer potential explanation explains nothing.

 

There can be no doubt that many of our religious friends are convinced Creationism is the (true) explanation for life on Earth, not merely a potential explanation. Our more scientifically inclined friends, on the other hand, surely give short shrift to the possibility of Creationism being the true explanation.

 

I take it we can all agree, as a matter of common sense, that an "explanation" which is not true (i.e. a potential explanation) explains nothing. Global warming is -- presumably! -- not explained by occult rays emanating from Donald Trump's hair.

 

Moontanman tells us on the previous page (post #3), in no uncertain terms: "God explains nothing". I beg to differ. God explains nothing only if the God hypothesis is false, in which case we have only a potential explanation. I'm not a believer myself, but supposing against all odds that the old duffer really is up there doing all the things our religious friends attribute to him, then God does explain the existence of the universe, the diversity of life we see around us, and much more besides.

 

 

Next, with regard the following...

 

 

No. Absolutely no. Evolution, that it's happening right now, is a fact. The theory of evolution (which is different from the observable fact that species evolve), that which describes its mechanisms and models its behavior, supported with mountains of evidence from many fields of endeavor, is our best current explanation for the observable fact of evolution. It's not a proof, that's not what science looks for, it's a theory and represents the collaborative efforts of thousands of people who've actually studied these things, instead of people like you who've only been taught old ignorance from people who have religious reasons to confuse and lie to inquisitive people.

 

We don't discuss creationism here (because it's all the same old lies, repeated and refuted over and over ad nauseam), and that's not my intent at all. Evolution is a perfect example of science explaining reality is such a way that god(s) are squeezed completely out of the ignorance gaps in our knowledge. But there is little to be done for those who think their flawed bible is inerrant and can be used to calculate the age of the Earth. These are people who, for some reason, are willing to add orders of magnitude more layers of confusion and irrational arguments in order to claim inerrancy. I think one needs to see a reason why supernatural explanations aren't necessary before one can discern why trust might be better than faith.

 

... I'd like to ask Phi whether his view is that:

 

(a) The scientific theory of evolution offers only a potential explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. (This is presumably the position of most Creationists.) In this case it explains nothing and, for you Phi, would be on an explanatory par with Creationism, assuming you already deem the latter untrue, or

 

(b) We have good reasons for believing that the scientific theory of evolution offers, or at least approximates, a true explanation for the diversity of life on Earth

Edited October 22, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Endy0816]

What we might be able to develop a theory for, is one detailing what we won't be able to explain(barring change). Still don't see the unexplainable bits as necessitating a deity. We used to believe thunder was caused by assorted deities as well.

 

@SillyBilly: I don't think there is some monolithic correct way. Circumstances vary. Do what you can and trust the method to sort out the relative validity. Enough testing and observation will reasonably prove most things one way or the other. There will probably be posthumans someday working on disproving or refining the Theories we have now(and coming up with more of their own).

[Reg Prescott]

@SillyBilly: I don't think there is some monolithic correct way. Circumstances vary. Do what you can and trust the method to sort out the relative validity. Enough testing and observation will reasonably prove most things one way or the other. There will probably be posthumans someday working on disproving or refining the Theories we have now(and coming up with more of their own).

 

We seem to be at cross purposes. I said nothing of a way or method. Our theories, and those of Sherlock Holmes, are presumably made true or false in virtue of states of affairs in the world, not in virtue of the way we attempt to "validate" (whatever that means) them.

 

I've had this difficulty in another thread of my own (on scientific testing), much to my amazement, and I've now reached the stage where I'm unsure whether:

 

(i) There is massive confusion between epistemic issues (questions of what we can know) and ontological/metaphysical issues (what is the case in reality).

 

(ii) Other members are not confused, but actually do subscribe to the counterintuitive and (I'd say) highly unorthodox position, held by a small number of antirealists such as Michael Dummett, that there are no verification-transcendent truths.

 

 

I suspect the former (i), and in this I mean no disrespect; after all, these are the kinds of issues that generally occupy philosophers rather than scientists.

 

The entire brouhaha might be encapsulated by posing a simple question. Consider: "What did Isaac Newton eat for breakfast on the morning of (say) 22 October 1680?"

 

An antirealist such as Dummett claims truth goes only so far as our means of verification. Thus, insofar as the question of Mr Newton's breakfast defies verification -- presumably there is no way for us to ever know this -- it has no truth value.

 

Is this also your position, Endy?

 

If not, then like most of the rest of us, you hold that there is one and only one correct (true) answer to the question -- made true by states of affairs in the world, that is, what Mr Newton did or did not eat -- and wholly unconnected with the (epistemic) question of whether or not we can ever come to know this.

 

And similar considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, to scientific theories of evolution, cosmic beginnings, or anything else.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Reg Prescott]

I believe the traditional response is to suggest that you step off a 20 storey building- after all, gravity is just a theory.

 

Then the traditional response would appear to be woefully inadequate. Unless you're suggesting that it's only thanks to theories of gravity that we know falling from a 20-storey building is insalubrious?

 

Doubtless we have many things to thank science for, but the knowledge that stepping off 20-storey buildings is bad for health is surely not one of them. I'm fairly sure highland tribesmen in darkest New Guinea, without the benefit of scientific theories, are also aware that stepping off the treehouse, rather than using the rope ladder, is a recipe for a very bad hair day indeed.

 

Theories of gravity may come and theories of gravity may go. People stepping off 20-storey buildings, I daresay, will continue to plummet regardless. This is the kind of pre-theoretical observation theories are designed to accommodate; not a revelation brought about by the theory.

 

The analogy is entirely inappropriate. Compare: "If you doubt the theory of evolution you might as well doubt the sky is blue - after all, [insert theory that purports to explain the blueness of the sky] is just a theory."

 

Aren't we stealing just a wee bit too much credit here, boys and girls?

 

It's clear that it should - just based on logic- things that are better at survival survive better.

 

 

All I can to this is that you'd better pray there's more to the theory than this (-- and there is!).

 

If there was nothing more to the theory of evolution than things that are better at survival survive better, biology would be in dire straits indeed, for what we would have is not a testable empirical theory, but rather a vacuous logical tautology, bereft of any substantive content, requiring no verification and fearing no falsification; a close cousin of Women who make the best dresses make the best dresses and Elephants that are better at swimming swim better.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

 

I've had this difficulty in another thread of my own (on scientific testing),

 

!

Moderator Note

And you have that thread for such discussion. Do not replicate it here.

[TJ McCaustland]

You'd be incorrect in assuming that Science can explain EVERYTHING, To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A smart man realizes that he cannot learn everything because his brain is like an attic, there is only so much space, a foolish one assumes his brain-attic's walls are elastic and therefore of infinite capacity, he hoards useless knowledge and buries what knowledge is useful in heaps of rubbish." In the same way science can explain A LOT, but it's ones own personal beliefs of whatever religion that explains the rest of the universe, because we are finite beings in an infinite universe and could never learn everything, due to a plethora of reasons, Forgetfulness that comes with age, sudden death that destroys knowledge and research not yet published, and finally misleading thoughts, ideals, and theories that generally upturn the entire knowledge base at one point or another,. Now I am NOT saying that ALL religion is correct or incorrect, but in order to further one's own understanding of the universe one must keep an open mind, a neutral stance, and most importantly a capacity and will to learn. To finish this post, I will quote Imafaal's favored Alexander Pope quote "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Edited October 22, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[John Cuthber]

You'd be incorrect in assuming that Science can explain EVERYTHING, To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A smart man realizes that he cannot learn everything because his brain is like an attic, there is only so much space, a foolish one assumes his brain-attic's walls are elastic and therefore of infinite capacity, he hoards useless knowledge and buries what knowledge is useful in heaps of rubbish." In the same way science can explain A LOT, but it's ones own personal beliefs of whatever religion that explains the rest of the universe, because we are finite beings in an infinite universe and could never learn everything, due to a plethora of reasons, Forgetfulness that comes with age, sudden death that destroys knowledge and research not yet published, and finally misleading thoughts, ideals, and theories that generally upturn the entire knowledge base at one point or another,. Now I am NOT saying that ALL religion is correct or incorrect, but in order to further one's own understanding of the universe one must keep an open mind, a neutral stance, and most importantly a capacity and will to learn. To finish this post, I will quote Imafaal's favored Alexander Pope quote "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

You seem to have overlooked the fact that an awful lot of stuff can be explained with a very few facts and laws.

There's also the fact that, even now, no individual knows more than a tiny fraction of all science.

There is a finite capacity to any one brain, but a much larger capacity to an array of brains and there's no reason to suppose you need an infinite amount of "science" to explain everything.

[Phi for All]

You'd be incorrect in assuming that Science can explain EVERYTHING, To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A smart man realizes that he cannot learn everything because his brain is like an attic, there is only so much space, a foolish one assumes his brain-attic's walls are elastic and therefore of infinite capacity, he hoards useless knowledge and buries what knowledge is useful in heaps of rubbish." In the same way science can explain A LOT, but it's ones own personal beliefs of whatever religion that explains the rest of the universe, because we are finite beings in an infinite universe and could never learn everything, due to a plethora of reasons,

 

I think you're mixing concepts here. No one is saying science currently has an explanation for everything. And nobody is saying anything about a single person filling up the attic of their brain (or mouth*); we're talking about knowledge we've accumulated as a species.

 

What I'm saying is that, historically, science has been able to overturn many claims made by religion (at least those of the goddidit variety), supporting the idea that we don't need religion to explain the natural universe. Science either has an explanation, or it says, "We don't know yet". When enough evidence supports the explanation, then we change that to, "We have a natural explanation now". The supernatural needn't be considered if it causes more questions than it answers, and lacks a method of trustworthy information generation.

 

Also, I don't see how you can say that "science can explain A LOT", then imply it fails at explaining the rest, and furthermore that we are all able to successfully and subjectively pick a religion to make up for that ignorance. Does this really seem reasonable to you, or did I misread you?

 

And truly, there aren't a plethora of reasons why we can't know everything, there's just one. We can't be everywhere in the universe, doing everything possible to be done. We can't be omniscient without being omnipresent and omnipotent as well. So this is why science doesn't work with proof. It works with theory, because we can't run every experiment possible, in every place in the universe. We can only start with an hypothesis, test it against reality, make some predictions to test against the model and give us more evidence to support or refute, and if it continues to pass the trustworthiness tests, we can give it science's highest award and start calling it a theory.

 

 

 

* Reminded me of Dimitri Martin's joke: I burned the roof of my mouth the other day, and I thought, "Wait a minute, that's not the roof of my mouth, that's the ceiling of my mouth. The top of my head is the roof of my mouth. Someone wasn't using the attic of their mouth when they named it the roof."

[TJ McCaustland]

 

I think you're mixing concepts here. No one is saying science currently has an explanation for everything. And nobody is saying anything about a single person filling up the attic of their brain (or mouth*); we're talking about knowledge we've accumulated as a species.

 

What I'm saying is that, historically, science has been able to overturn many claims made by religion (at least those of the goddidit variety), supporting the idea that we don't need religion to explain the natural universe. Science either has an explanation, or it says, "We don't know yet". When enough evidence supports the explanation, then we change that to, "We have a natural explanation now". The supernatural needn't be considered if it causes more questions than it answers, and lacks a method of trustworthy information generation.

 

Also, I don't see how you can say that "science can explain A LOT", then imply it fails at explaining the rest, and furthermore that we are all able to successfully and subjectively pick a religion to make up for that ignorance. Does this really seem reasonable to you, or did I misread you?

 

And truly, there aren't a plethora of reasons why we can't know everything, there's just one. We can't be everywhere in the universe, doing everything possible to be done. We can't be omniscient without being omnipresent and omnipotent as well. So this is why science doesn't work with proof. It works with theory, because we can't run every experiment possible, in every place in the universe. We can only start with an hypothesis, test it against reality, make some predictions to test against the model and give us more evidence to support or refute, and if it continues to pass the trustworthiness tests, we can give it science's highest award and start calling it a theory.

 

 

 

* Reminded me of Dimitri Martin's joke: I burned the roof of my mouth the other day, and I thought, "Wait a minute, that's not the roof of my mouth, that's the ceiling of my mouth. The top of my head is the roof of my mouth. Someone wasn't using the attic of their mouth when they named it the roof."

You did indeed misread me, The reason why science can explain 'A LOT" to quote myself is because you can always compare A LOT to everything and it becomes nothing. The brain attic Idea representing what knowledge a species can accumulate before it is forgotten through ignorance, lack of care, or other reasons. You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality. Also note my mentioning of personal beliefs, meaning you do not necessarily have to believe in religion, it's a choice.

Edited October 22, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Phi for All]

You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality.

 

Science understands this concept that you can't truly prove a theory, only support it with evidence. How does a religion I decide to pick up prove reality? Is it just magic?

[John Cuthber]

You did indeed misread me, The reason why science can explain 'A LOT" to quote myself is because you can always compare A LOT to everything and it becomes nothing. The brain attic Idea representing what knowledge a species can accumulate before it is forgotten through ignorance, lack of care, or other reasons. You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality. Also note my mentioning of personal beliefs, meaning you do not necessarily have to believe in religion, it's a choice.

It has been shown that there are an infinite number of primes.

You don't need an infinite set of rules to know how many primes there are.

In a vaguely similar way, we can explain an essentially infinite set of observations with a small set of rules.

Practically the whole of everyday engineering with Newton's laws and a bit of help from the likes of Clausius and Hooke.

A good physics text book will giver you a pretty good explanation of most things in the universe.

There is no reason not to suppose that, if we could do the maths, we could explain love.

It's a set of chemicals in the brain. the purpose its pretty obvious and the details are fiddly, but there's no reason why we won't come to understand them.

 

So, you are comparing two infinite sets- the things we can explain and the things we seek to explain.

They are not yet the same set, but perhaps another half a dozen [absolute guess there] rules would do it.

 

Also re

"You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality."

If you are seeking to prove (in either sense of the word) reality, you should put religion back down again.

It never proved anything.

Anyway, what religion might be able to prove is not on topic.

[PeterJ]

Phi - "Science understands this concept that you can't truly prove a theory, only support it with evidence. How does a religion I decide to pick up prove reality? Is it just magic? "

 

It's a question that deserves an answer, but really all it takes is to read a book or two. It's not as if it's a secret. Let's ignore dogmatic religion because, well, it's dogmatic.

 

Everybody uses the method you describe at times. But esoteric religion is also the pursuit of the sort of knowledge that only comes with identity and with apperception, the study of ones own mind. Religion also uses metaphysics, which is the use of logic to work stuff out or demonstrate it. No magic necessary.

 

Of course, religion can be different things to different people. But this brief answer would apply wherever religion is more than dogmatic theism. The religious ideas of the 'people of the book' are often rejected or considerably modified by those who bypass the book for a direct exploration of reality. Anybody can undertake such research, but it cannot be done for someone else.

 

A decent answer would take too long and really one needs to do ones own delving into these things for any hope of a decent understanding of them. The literature is vast.

 

As for consciousness being an illusion, moth, this idea more or less went away with Behaviourism. It's the scientific equivalent of hiding under the bedclothes. And yet, mysticism does say that consciousness is largely a deception, and that even Mind has to be transcended for Reality.

Edited October 23, 2015 by PeterJ

[TJ McCaustland]

It has been shown that there are an infinite number of primes.

You don't need an infinite set of rules to know how many primes there are.

In a vaguely similar way, we can explain an essentially infinite set of observations with a small set of rules.

Practically the whole of everyday engineering with Newton's laws and a bit of help from the likes of Clausius and Hooke.

A good physics text book will giver you a pretty good explanation of most things in the universe.

There is no reason not to suppose that, if we could do the maths, we could explain love.

It's a set of chemicals in the brain. the purpose its pretty obvious and the details are fiddly, but there's no reason why we won't come to understand them.

 

So, you are comparing two infinite sets- the things we can explain and the things we seek to explain.

They are not yet the same set, but perhaps another half a dozen [absolute guess there] rules would do it.

 

Also re

"You do not necessarily pick up a religion to explain ignorance, you pick it up to prove reality."

If you are seeking to prove (in either sense of the word) reality, you should put religion back down again.

It never proved anything.

Anyway, what religion might be able to prove is not on topic.

No, you are wrong, What came before modern science? Religion. What inspired learning and preserved civilization through monasteries? Religion. Religion is the inspiration for science, it is what makes us want to know more about the stars, about psychology, about chemistry. Why does it do this? Well let's face the fact that religion is what you make of it as it is your own personal belief, and sometimes in that regard is as confusing as !@&%. But you must ask yourself the question, if you were without any knowledge or speculation on WHAT exactly everything is, would you be able to stick your hand in a pool of water and just immediately exclaim "This is Two parts hydrogen and two parts oxygen!" No, you'd probably come up with some fanatical idea about a water god like so many ancient civilizations long past and then find out it was a figment of your mind, so in this regard Religion creates a desire of knowledge through ignorance, at least some parts of it, however other parts remain canon, as with many of the Catholic doctrines and beliefs, as they are so closely interrelated with many of the proofs of science that it has stood fast, because some events that occurred in the original Roman Catholic bible have been explained scientifically, and the sites of some events even observed.

 

Science understands this concept that you can't truly prove a theory, only support it with evidence. How does a religion I decide to pick up prove reality? Is it just magic?

No Phi, Religion is the key belief that allows us to contemplate such vast things as space, because how exactly would you divine that space is infinite and not just a tiny box if you just stared up at the sky one night without any knowledge of infinity as a possibility, thinking that space is limited.

[John Cuthber]

No, you are wrong, What came before modern science? Religion. What inspired learning and preserved civilization through monasteries? Religion. Religion is the inspiration for science, it is what makes us want to know more about the stars, about psychology, about chemistry. W

Guess again.

In all of us science precedes religion.

Science is the embodiment of the natural curiosity that all humans (and most animals) have.

You don't need to learn science; you are born with it.

Every child playing with blocks is doing science- they are doing things, observing the outcome,and modifying their experiments, based on those outcomes.

In the same way, humanity was doing science before it invented religion.

You don't experiment on the best type of cave to live in on the basis of your guesswork about an afterlife or the existence of a creator.

We had science and technology first.

Edited October 24, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Asimov]

Henry: I too have little regard for religion per se. Not exactly against it. Some get a lot of good out of it, gets them through the night.. Others? An excuse for killing or as a means of making money or acquiring power.Gives religion a bad name,justifiably.

 

Can Science explain everything in the universe without a God? It certainly cant explain everything. Not at this time.Possibly hidden distance variables in QM for example.Have those been discovered or confirmed or denied or explained.Not by Bell last I heard.He doesn't rule them out.Woopie! Must be other things science cant explain yet.. Can you think of anything? Could science ever explain it all?,Seems solutions present more problems that need answers. I'll wait and see. Wont hold my breath. Would explaining everything in the universe by science prove no God? Hardly.Maybe God uses what we might call science to do or get things done. Want proof?.Sorry,none I know of.

[TJ McCaustland]

Guess again.

In all of us science precedes religion.

Science is the embodiment of the natural curiosity that all humans (and most animals) have.

You don't need to learn science; you are born with it.

Every child playing with blocks is doing science- they are doing things, observing the outcome,and modifying their experiments, based on those outcomes.

In the same way, humanity was doing science before it invented religion.

You don't experiment on the best type of cave to live in on the basis of your guesswork about an afterlife or the existence of a creator.

We had science and technology first.

No, not wrong at all, Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, it is that thing that gives religion a purpose, Science is the fruit of curiosity yes, but the most out-of-the-box ideas that have been conceived stem partially from religion, because it acts similarly to philosophy, I was wrong in how I explained it, not wrong entirely though.