Cogito Ergo Sum
on the way to work this morning, i was thinking more about what i posted yesterday. about how science is indistinguishable from religion.
the more i think about it, the more it seems right to me.
here's the final nail for me:
having an imaginary debate (uh. i'm not the only one who does this, right?), my mirror says to me, "i conceed to your brilliance so far. both religion and science are indeed the search for truth and an explanation of how life is. but science does not have a god. in religion, there is a figure or force which its adherents can rely on unquestioningly. a force in which they have faith. a faith it is dangerous to challenge and one it is frankly impossible to challenge. if you question god they say? 'god is god because he/she/it is god! how can you question the existence of god' and then they devolve into a gurgling pile of circular reasoning."
it isn't pretty when imaginary figures out debate you.
so i kept walking until i thought:
facts
in science, facts take the place of god. facts are facts because they're proven. because books say they're facts. because people we trust say they're facts. because experiments can verify them. because people who believe in science believe in facts and there are an awful lot of people who believe in science.
now try substituting the word 'god' for 'facts' in that run on sentence. sure, i hear you sputtering: but facts are VERIFIABLE!!! maybe some are. if you take the foundations of experiements to be facts. or said another way, 'if you believe (have faith) in the veracity of facts (god) in the first place.' oxygen is oxygen (where did it come from?). DNA passes down genetic structure (why?). time moves forward at a measurable pace (huh?). space is infinite (now hold on...). the world did not create itself (who or what did?).
we can only prove what we know and there's a lot we don't know. we can only say, "with the evidence currently at our disposal, it appears as if (insert fact here)." really all facts should be qualified in this way. facts are tools scientists use to explain the world. they are proved faulty all the time and yet we cling to the survivors as if we're the church and the challengers are gallileo.
i don't think facts are any more reliable than the existence of god, but i believe in the existence of god (if you call a oneness of the universe god). i think science is trying to find the way that everything fits together using facts. i think in religion everything fits together because : god.
if facts are the god of science, both statements are the same.
when i question facts in the presence of scientists (hi honey!), they get as knicker-twisted as the religious when you deny the word of god.
you can't question facts! they're facts.
whatever. i can question the existence of god and i can question the veracity of facts. facts change. the world is flat. earth is the center of the universe. red meat is good for you. i mean bad for you. i mean good for you. gravity is a universal force except maybe if that string theory stuff is right...
facts. bah. faith. bah.
there is no definitive truth. dig deep enough into the truth and you hit philosophy which is best left unprovable. in the end, what does it really mean? if we could collect all the facts science seeks, would some universal theory present itself as god? how would a grand unifying scientific theory be different from god?
so. to my internal debate partner i say.
in. your. face!
speaking of in your face, last night some suit in a beemer tore up market street. word is he was pushing 100 and drunk when he passed the cop. he lost it on the wet street and hit the light pole in the divider. the one with the nice thick decorative cement base.
i heard it.
the light pole flew up into the air, bounced off the hood of a parked Jeep (leaving a whip-dent that looked like a shark bite) and landed back in the middle of market street. cement chunks the size of canteloupes flew across both lanes of traffic. he spun out, clipped the back of a parked car and came to halt a few doors down from us. the entire front end of his car was compacted like a styrofoam cup.
he walked away without a scratch. the windshield wasn't even broken. outside of the airbags, there was no evidence in the passenger compartment of the car to show that there had even been an accident. all that evidence was on the street. both lanes of market shut. two other wrecked cars. cement and debris everywhere. all the neighbors out on the street looking and exchanging "holy fucks!"
calling it in on 911 from our window, i watched him get out of the car and walk around it, looking at the damage.
nobody was hurt. it's some kind of miracle, perhaps of german engineering, and that's a fact.
I like that you're writing about this. I have a couple of things to add to this:
Science doesn't cling to facts the way you described. In fact, clinging to "facts" or conclusions in science is generally seen as an impediment, and a weakness on the part of the scientist. As you point out, conclusions are, at best, tenuous. I think most good scientists would agree with that.
When a conclusion is challenged, the scientist will rely on data to support their argument. The nature of the data and how they are collected becomes a part of that argument, as well. Nothing is holy, and nothing is unchallengable.
The way science is usually taught in school -- as a series of facts and conclusions -- is contrary to the way science is actually conducted. It's a shorthand that's evolved from 1) the time it would take to review all of the studies/data, and 2) our desire as a society to be able to appeal to an authority. In doing so, though, it loses touch with the very essence of what science is.
I suppose in science the data itself is the authority. And that authority is not just the numbers or figures that constitute the data, but, as I mentioned before, the conditions under which they are collected, as well. So data collected under sloppy conditions are, authoritatively, bad data. This reduces to a faith in things being as they are, and that our observations of things being as they are depend upon the conditions under which these observations are happening (note that this can include the observer, too, as highlighted in certain quantum mechanical effects).
Interestingly, I think this does, in fact, parallel religion, for deep religious understanding derives from experience. In this case, though, the experience is essentially ineffable. We can try to describe it, but it is, at heart, an entirely subject and experiential process.
Most mystical practices specifically discourage clinging to beliefs in much the same way science discourages clinging to beliefs. They demand the constant willingness to make one's beliefs transparent to direct experience in this moment.
But then, you said religion, not mysticism or spirituality. I guess I see religion as the garb of spirituality, maybe kind of like how science makes its way from the bench out into the world. And in doing so, sometimes it takes on the shape of ideas and beliefs that people hold, not because they experience them or have observed them for themselves, but because they are told they are true.
very interesting.
i think i need to read all that again. please hold.
okay. excellent. you say It's a shorthand that's evolved from 1) the time it would take to review all of the studies/data, and 2) our desire as a society to be able to appeal to an authority. In doing so, though, it loses touch with the very essence of what science is.
and i see a) where i've confused data and facts in re: science and b) that i've used the word religion in an overly inclusive way.
with the benefit of your input, i'll ammend my thesis to substitute data for facts. i believe (although i need to mull more, and debate more) that the issues i have regarding the solidity of facts translate to a lesser degree to the solidity of data. no matter how much you break up the atom, there are still smaller and smaller pieces -- or no matter how far you travel, the universe continues on. it's different, but i'm not sure it shifts my thinking substantially as i wasn't trying to denegrate science by assailing facts. or data. facts, or now, data, i think take the place of god in science.
when i said "religion" i meant the search for meaning/god, which is what religion should be (whether via prayer or community or introspection, etc.). like you point out, science is easily corrupted by impure scientists and the grand game of telephone that stretches into the public (of which i'm a part, i see). it's the same with religion. it's easy to cling to "facts" or "the bible" while forgetting why both those elements were created in the first place. you can reach back to data or mysticism/spirituality in either field.
so perhaps bad science and corrupt religion are as related as pure science and pure religion. the later is the true search for meaning and the former a shortcut to a comforting faith.
so science is actually like a crazy religious sect? einstein is like rev. moon until dis/proven? what does that make david koresh?
religion DNE cult
science DNE new age practice
Yes, I think that's pretty much what I was trying to say, as well, in my last paragraph. One difference, though, is that I would say they're both about the search for truth, not meaning, since meaning is still about the seeker, whereas truth transcends the self.
In fact, in its most careful form, science does not adhere to the authority of data as much as the conditions under which they're collected (including the data itself). It is the study of what is, just as for the religious. For one, though, the study is through measurable observations, and for the other it is through direct experience.
if study is either about measureable observations (things in time and place) or about direct experience then the only difference would be whether the experiment includes the self -- something you already said some experiments do.
even if an experiment is painstakingly set up to avoid self-inclusion, it is by nature of its creation done for the self. a creation of the ego. and even if the self is removed completely, how is this different from a meditation practice that seeks to remove the self from the equation?
but maybe that's not what you're saying. you contrast measurable observations with direct experience. so one is objective and the other subjective?
but obi bill, where does the self end? if one seeks a unified theory either via science or religion, one must accept that the limits to self are not definitive. that the idea of self may well just be a construct and a ruse. in which case science is religion that accepts there is a self and denies it importance and religion is a science that denies that there is a self and respects it anyway.
whew. now i need a drink.
I don't think the difference is whether what you're doing includes the self. Both good science methodology and a sincere spiritual practice must, in some way, include awareness of the self. This is because the self can't help but arise. The question, then, is how you relate to it, and first: are you aware of its arising?
I'd say, yes, I would contrast measurable observations with direct experience, that these are the elements that make scientific observation and spiritual practice distinct. Measurable observations are reproducable (or not), verifiable (or not). Direct experience is ineffable.
I would also say the nature of truth each approaches is different. Science operates on the level of measurement and language, in the world of distinction. Spirituality operates on a level ultimately beyond symbology (though symbols can be used point us in its direction, the "finger pointing at the moon").
If I could jump in here...
I agree that, for many, there is little to distinguish science and religion from each other. For the layman, faith in science is complete analogous to faith in God.
However, scientific practitioners relate to science in a very different manner than religious practitioners relate to religion. Ultimately, religion is an expression of faith. Science, on the other hand, is about process. You don't have to believe in the phenomenon that you are testing to get consistent results. You simply have to apply scientific methods.
Also, nothing is ever proved in science. Instead, you have theories. If these theories explain observed phenomenon, they are provisionally accepted. When new data is collected that can no longer be explained by the controlling theory, new theories are proposed. And thus, science moves closer to some theoretical, yet unachievable, objective truth.
Another difference that strikes me is that religion attempts to answer questions of meaning, whereas science does not. I guess I disagree with Bill on this point. Science is an attempt to explain how things are the way they are -- not why, that is the domain of religion and philosophy. This is one of the reasons that I think the debate of science versus religion is a little silly. The two are complementary methods for attempting to understand the universe. When either attempts to deviate from their strengths, they fall flat.
That's all the spaghetti I have to throw at the wall at this moment. But, I figured that I had to get my feet wet somehow.
no, honestly, what's the difference between some sect like the mormons and someone whose scientific theories are partially accpted but not widely held to be true? buddha starting out is analgous to colombus starting out. how is belief in wormholes substantially different from belief in raelians?
sorry ttn, i disagree with your core argument. religion is at its core no more an expression of faith than science is about proving things.
i like what and how you explain about science, but i think that religion is the same way. nothing is ever proved. you have theories which explain observed phenomenon. the goal is not to pass down the word, but to open the practictioner to deeper understanding. don't compare the deeply religious with the astrologer or the rev. moons with marie curie.
so your second point: the why vs. the way. this is a nice way to distinguish the two. and i buy this. to apply your own arguments though (from your blog): so what?
if the end goal is the same, and the path is the same (purists always questioning, the masses accepting w/out understanding), and all that distinguishes them is the angle of investigation... are they really different?
it's challenging to really look at it because the terminology is designed to make them seem different and the adherents so easily square off, but again i ask: aren't science and religion really just frameworks within which we seek to connect with our existence? to understand it?
god or the law of nature? what's the difference?
whew. lots of facinating things to respond to here!
i should make bold, semi-defensible statements more often!
bill: measurable observation vs. direct experience and the level of truth. to the first, yes. i can agee with that. to the second, i can't say. is the level of truth a scientist achieves when she proves string theory any higher or lower than a buddhist achieving nirvana? in fact, if anything, the first is higher as it elevates us ALL because its measurable observation can be passed along whereas the nirvana remains something the rest of us must work at obtaining. in terms of the more mundane achievements in science and religion -- the level at which they rest is personally judged. i think connecting with the world has the same potency whether via science or religion.
e: i hear you. i agree.
E -
how is belief in wormholes substantially different from belief in raelians?
Well, assuming that we are talking about true scientists and true believers, the first difference is what it means to believe. The astrophysicist believes in wormholes only in the sense that that particular theory explains a certain set of data. But since the dataset for that theory is pretty thin, astrophysicists don't hold to it very strongly. Should contradictory data emerge, they will abandon the theory in its entirety. Raelians and other cults hold to their belief structure strongly despite evidence that argues against it. In fact, one of the very interesting phenomena that has been observed with doomsday cults is that faith is strengthened after the doomsday deadline has passed. Even though one of the central tenets of the faith has been demonstrably shown to be false, believers hold to their faith even more. That is a huge difference between the two.
xz -
religion is at its core no more an expression of faith than science is about proving things.
I don't quite understand what you are saying here. But, I will repeat what I said above -- which is that science isn't about proving things. It is about developing theories to explain the currently observed phenomena. This might appear to be a narrow distinction, but in practice it is a completely different process.
but i think that religion is the same way. nothing is ever proved. you have theories which explain observed phenomenon. the goal is not to pass down the word, but to open the practictioner to deeper understanding.
The difference is the process by which this occurs. Religious adherents don't develop and test falsifiable theories. In fact, the bread and butter of religious belief are theories that can't be demonstrated as false. Moreover, the evidence that informs their belief structures isn't universal, it's personal. You can provide me with whatever it is that informs your belief in God, but unless I share your culture and personal history it's very unlikely that your argument will be convincing to me. Science, on the other hand, is based on data that has no personal or cultural connection. An experiment conducted by a Christian, a Muslim, or a bushman will all produce the same result.
if the end goal is the same, and the path is the same (purists always questioning, the masses accepting w/out understanding), and all that distinguishes them is the angle of investigation... are they really different?
But, that's what I'm saying. The goal isn't the same. The two fields are attempting to answer completely different questions about existence. The process for answering the questions is different. And, they provide different benefits to society. Complementary, but different.
aren't science and religion really just frameworks within which we seek to connect with our existence?
Yes. But, they are attempting to connect with existence on different planes. That distinguishes them from each other.
Is your view that science is just another faith-based belief structure, completely parallel to religion? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, science? If so, consider the following. Can someone be a Muslim and Christian at the same time? (I would say no). Yet, it is possible to be a scientist and to follow any of these faiths.
None of my points argues that science is better or more valuable than religion. Just that it operates in a manner that distinguishes it from religion.
PS. The preview comment feature makes this post look like a mess. I hope that it won't look like that once its public.
ttn,
when i say that religion is no more an expression of faith what i mean is this: religion is no more about blindly accepting dogma than science is about accepting unproven theories. while i see that MOST commonly seen expressions of religion would make this hard to believe, i think you'd agree the same could be said of more commonly seen expressions of science.
let's take christianity, of which i know some things, but not a ton: in the beginning there was a theory, proposed by christ. "if we behave towards each other as brothers, then we will have heaven on earth." (sic)(bible quoting is NOT a specialty i desire) from that you get interpretation and extrapolations (gospel) and power structures (the churches) and competing interpretations (martin luther, etc) and bastardizations (name your crackpot). if you were to be able to talk to jesus, or mohammad, or if you were to find any of the many geniune religious thinkers alive today -- they would say, "faith? faith is not the point. i believe in god in the same way you believe there is a universe. can it be proven? no. existence is the proof of its own existence." the universe is because it is. you are because you are. cogito ergo sum.
you say: "You can provide me with whatever it is that informs your belief in God, but unless I share your culture and personal history it's very unlikely that your argument will be convincing to me." i see what you're saying, but i think you are expecting me (or someone religious) to convince you that god looks like odin or asks for jihad or demands you meditate. it sounds like you are unwilling to accept that there is a deeper level to religion. that you are comparing rev. moon w/ marie curie.
and maybe my understanding of god is not the normal one. when i discuss god with my scientist fiancee, she says she believes in the same things i do, but does not call them god. she calls them science. when i say i believe in god, part of what i'm saying is that i believe i exist and that you exist and that the world exists and that we all exist together. as one.
you say science has no personal connection but i think you are incorrect. in order to "believe" in science, you must believe in the power of data and logic. i believe in those things the same way i believe in god. there is nothing you can do as scientist to prove that logic will eternally flow in the same way and that data proved a million times won't be proved differently the million and first. because you have FAITH in data and logic. it's hard for you to question that because it is at the core of your belief structure. you see the world as a place in which data and logic are king. but "unless they share your culture or personal history, it is very unlikely that your arguments will be convincing to (insert religious believer here)." because not everyone shares your belief that data and logic are king. but i think that's misleading to say, because the truly religious will have no problem with science and the pure scientists should have no issue with religion. i use the frameworks of both because they are not mutually exclusive. my faith (as it is) is logical. i can question my own existence, but that gets me nowhere. if i accept that i exist, i think it logical to also accept that however i am, others are. is that god or nature? no difference to me. does god imply there is meaning to existence? not necessarily. does science deny meaning to existence? not necessarily. you take from it what you will.
you say science and religion operate on completely different planes. my father talks about religious seekers as ascendents to a grand mountain. christians, muslims, jews, buddhists, and i'll add scientists. all seeking truth. the more they persevere, the closer they get to the top of the mountain. the higher they get, the more they have in common. yes. you can be christian and muslim -- the differences they hold are all superficial. in the end, it's all about drawing closer to the universe, or as some would call it, god.
I think that the problem here is that you are seeing both science and religion as being about belief. That might be true of religion, but it isn't true of science. Science isn't something that you believe in, it's something that you do. Without the activity that is inherent in the process, it isn't science. Believing in science might very well be akin to religion, but then you're talking about faith and not about science.
Your Christianity example does not parallel scientific process. The theory proposed by Jesus is not falsifiable. There is no test that can be done to disprove it. Acceptance of this theory is a completely subjective endeavor.
With respect to my comment regarding sharing culture and history -- I didn't mean to box your religious experience in any way. Insert whatever religious notions that you might have -- my acceptance of its validity will largely be determined by the similarity of our experience.
I don't know how your fiancé is describing science, so I can't exactly comment on her arguments. But, if she's talking about belief, I would side with you. Of course, I would also say that in that instance her belief in science isn't science.
With respect to the need for personal connection in science, your argument once again revolves around belief. However, conducting a scientific experiment requires no belief at all. Regardless of what you believe, the result of that experiment, properly conducted, will be the same. Either the hypothesis was disproved or it wasn't (but note, the opposite of disproved is not proved -- nothing is ever proved in science. It just hasn't been disapproved yet).
Yes, the truly religious have no problem with science and the pure scientists have no issue with religion -- and that is because they are completely distinct fields of inquiry. The differences are superficial only if you are observing them from a macroscopic level. But that perspective blurs all cognition together, and that isn't terribly enlightening. Once you zoom in, the differences stand out.
You yourself might be able to say that one can be Christian and Muslim at the same time. But you wouldn't get far with that line of argument down at your local church or mosque. They might seem the same to you, but you have the freedom to say that the differences don't matter. True believers would disagree (hence all this war stuff).
I will stipulate that in some way everyone is attempting to discover truth. But the scientific process is a substantially different path. It also seeks a different truth (looking for the how and not the why). And that is the difference.
wow. this debate in my head has kinda spilled over.
after reading all of this and thinking about it quite a bit, i've decided that we're arguing about science A not matching religion B or about science A matching religion B or about science B not matching religion A.
we all seem to agree on what is what, but not on what what is called.
TTN says science is not about belief. what's it about then?
why science, TTN? if it's not about what you believe, or supporting what you believe, or investigating what you believe ~ why bother?
religion isn't falsifiable? i think that's being a bit condescending. is Thor the God of Thunder? no. i think what you mean is: one cannot argue with faith. that's true.
but i'm having trouble arguing with you about the things you have faith in, because you can't even see that they're questionable.
you say True Believers would disagree but you are wrong. you're once again equating rev. moon with marie curie. Jerry Fallwell isn't a true believer. perhaps you don't know any true believers.
perhaps there aren't many true religious believers or pure scientists.
perhaps all i'm saying is that we all seek the truth in our own way. the both science and religion are means through which we can understand our existence.
you say science seeks a different truth. there are not different truths. if there were different truths, they would not be true.
how and why. the deepest part of how is why. the wrapping of why is how.
as lao tzu says:
whether a man dispassionately sees to the core of life
or passionately sees the surface,
the core and the surface are the same.
thinking about this more, i realize that to me, the oneness of the world is something i can't move away from. i apply this oneness to everything, ergo science and religion are the same.
for my debate partners here, that oneness is not paramount, ergo they divide the world into categories.
science is not religion. religion is not a science.
and they are the same, too.
thanks to everyone for bothering to respond and to make me defend my ideas.
xz: TTN says science is not about belief. what's it about then?
Process. That's what defines science. If you aren't engaged in process, it isn't science.
xz: why science, TTN? if it's not about what you believe, or supporting what you believe, or investigating what you believe ~ why bother?
Because with the universal process, a process that doesn't require any sort of shared cultural history, you have a universal language with which you can discuss an important, yet limited, subset of phenomenon. And, as we can see from the technology that surrounds us, that has concrete value in our lives.
xz: religion isn't falsifiable? i think that's being a bit condescending. is Thor the God of Thunder? no. i think what you mean is: one cannot argue with faith. that's true.
Actually, that's not what I mean. Scientific hypotheses take a very specific form. They must be disprovable through experimentation. If a hypothesis, such as the one you suggested up thread ("if we behave towards each other as brothers, then we will have heaven on earth."), isn't testable than you are dealing with something that is distinctly different from science.
xz: but i'm having trouble arguing with you about the things you have faith in, because you can't even see that they're questionable.
Now who's being condescending. This isn't about faith. This is about the distinctly different methods employed by religion and science. They both have value, but they are very, very different.
xz: you say True Believers would disagree but you are wrong. you're once again equating rev. moon with marie curie. Jerry Fallwell isn't a true believer. perhaps you don't know any true believers.
Really? I wouldn't presume to suggest who is or is not a true believer. I tend to just take people at their word. If someone says they believe, that's good enough for me. Who am I to say that Jerry Falwell isn't a true believer? Who are you, for that matter? At any rate, I again assert that the various religions are largely incompatible with one another. The fact that I have never met a practicing Christian/Muslim (while I have met many practicing Christians/scientists) convinces me that this assertion is correct.
xz: perhaps all i'm saying is that we all seek the truth in our own way. the both science and religion are means through which we can understand our existence.
This I completely agree with. Science and religion are complementary, yet different, paths toward understanding the universe.
xz: you say science seeks a different truth. there are not different truths. if there were different truths, they would not be true.
Perhaps I was taking a bit of a shortcut here. Let me rephrase. There is one truth. Yet, that truth is unknowable simply because it is larger than our ability to comprehend it. So, we approach it in different ways. Certain pieces of this truth emerge through religious pursuit. Others through science. Both methods approximate the actual truth, yet what is revealed by each is distinct. That's what I mean.
xz: how and why. the deepest part of how is why. the wrapping of why is how.
This may be true. But religion never reveals how and science never reveals why. They are related because, as I said above, they are approximations of the larger truth. But the approximations do not overlap.
xz: the oneness of the world is something i can't move away from
I appreciate this position. We are all part of this thing we call the universe. Inasmuch as this is true, the commonalities inherent in existence are legion. From a certain perspective, the similarities between the being xz and the being ttn overwhelm the differences. We are both human. We are both comprised of atoms. If you believe in such things, we both have souls. Yet, the differences between us matter. I'm sure that anyone who knows the both of us would confirm this assertion. Likewise, science and religion serve a related function to the human that employs them. But, there are differences and those differences matter.
last night i realized that a big part of this discussion was my attempt to allow scientists and the religious to respect each other by showing how they are similar.
i attempt this for political reasons. on a small scale, here in my house, the questioning of darwinism (in the newspaper) is something that causes consternation. and on a large scale, as democrats seem to have an inability to speak to the religious without sounding condescending and alienating.
it's hard to not sound condescending when someone believes in something for which you have little respect.
i don't have Faith. never wanted or needed it. i have little respect for it. i'm trying to be otherwise. i concede i may be overdoing it.
i am attempting to have respect for faith by connecting faith with things i do respect, such as science.
although it's tempting, i'm not going to respond to your post point-for-point as we've been doing. although the arguing is fun, i don't think you'll convince me that science has nothing to do with belief or i'll convince you that it must. because i'm trying to connect the two for the reasons above and i see where my points are sometimes scientific and sometimes otherwise. that's tricky, i guess, but there is more to life than science, so it's also fair.
i think that the distinctions between science and religion that we draw here are parallel to the distinctions our hypothetical christian and our hypothetical muslim draw between themselves. i was trying to talk about people who are above irrelevant distinctions (one eats pork. one takes sacrament. etc.) as those distinctions are extrapolations from belief, not inherent to them.
i think that's true. perhaps i'm wrong or optomistic. what makes a man a muslim is not his avoidance of pork and what makes a jew a jew is not his resting on the sabbath. it's their attempt (or success) in connecting with god/universe. current organized religion has wandered considerably from the starting point. that is terrible. but it would be easier to push back to that respectable starting point then to do away with religion entirely, as religion (or something like it) is required to answer the why that science can't attempt. 'how' is irrelevent without 'why'. science can make a car go, but where should it go? and writing that i think, maybe ttn is right! maybe science is just about process and not belief and my mistake is assuming that scientists don't stop thinking when the experiment ends or fail to think before it begins. that science fits into a life and life is about why. in which case science would be more akin to meditation: a tool by which we are better able to ask why.
if that's right, since a scientist is only another man/woman who attempts to connect with god/universe by finding out what so they can then ask why, is the difference between that and religion important? maybe so. so phrased better; are there points at which scientists can relate to the religious? there should be. because if science is a process only, then it is an orphan. maybe that's it. maybe science is an orphaned religion. one whose faith has died. and religion is a barren science, one with no growth or children, old and forgetful.
the two are connected. not the same. but i see the family resemblance no matter how much the father disowns the son or the son rejects the father.
i just want the religious to understand why scientists are so offended by creationism taught in science class and to allow scientists to understand why teaching darwinism is so threatening to the religious.
this era, teaching science in schools is important. last era, teaching religion in schools was important.
perhaps next era we'll figure out a way to show respect to both paths. how and why. in order for that to happen, both groups need to look deeper into their frameworks to see the point, the goal.
again, thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.