Find solution
How to modify a schema.xml of an existing list?

Are not Religion and Science identical expressions of human logic?

  • I long while ago I was reading a “Brief History of Time" by Steven W. Hawking, and his "A Large Scale Structure of Spacetime" exploring physics. He talked of exotic realms of deep space, distant galaxies, black holes, quarks, guts, particles with flavor and spin, antimatter and arrows of time. He intrigued me with unexpected implications. I thought at the time that he might be perhaps the most brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein.    I found an exciting discovery. He was writing of  “scientific theory” and said, “It is a model of something – the universe for example, or some part of it.  A set of rules that relate the results of the model that we can observe. It exists only in our minds. To be a good theory it must satisfy two requirements. It must accurately describe a large group of things we can see. It must make definite predictions about what we will see in the future. Newton’s theory of gravity is an example. It must be provisional. It is only a hypothesis. You can never prove it. You can never be sure that the next time something won't happen to disprove it. Each time we observe something to agree with the theory, we gain confidence in it. If anything is found to disagree we must abandon the theory, or modify the theory - or we can question the competence of the person who found something that did not agree.”   I had been preparing a talk on faith. In what was for me a brilliant flash of insight, it occurred to me that the process of faith, a faith in God – a supposedly purely religious activity – is identical to the process of scientific work – the scientific theory.   As an engineer I had dealt with scientific theory often. But to realize, for the first time, that the exercise of faith and the exercise of scientific theory are identical, was startling. Truth of course must be consistent.  We cannot know for sure of the existence of our God. Usually we must act on faith. The abundant evidence of a superior being that we see, strengthens our understanding and belief.   The next time someone talks of science and the reality of the results of science - that science deals in facts, and religion on faith - ask them,  "Is the process not the same – yes even identical"?   I am indeed fascinated by the various attacks on the idea that developing a scientific theory and a belief in God are the same kind of process. Those who shout that science deals with facts and religion deals with imagination, are obviously not scientists.   Scientific theories are developed in this way. We take a wide variety of observable things. From those we put together a theory of why those things are the way they are and what that means. If we cannot find anything to disprove our theory we gain confidence in it as a useful tool to help us in the future. One curious matter however hangs over our theory. We can never prove that something will not come along to disprove our theory. This simple concept is widely not understood by the layman.   Our understanding of gravity could be an example to help us. Everything we see seems to prove that there is some kind of force that attracts all items on this earth to the earth such that if we do not prevent it, the objects will fall, or to say it more precisely will be attracted to the earth. Newton's apple is a classic example. We say that attraction is the force of gravity. If we drop it, obviously it falls.  Even if we throw it up in the air it eventually comes down. Now we do not know exactly what causes that force, though we can infer that bodies with a large mass have large attractive forces. Hmm - but we now know that within some places such as our space station there appears to be no force attracting the bodies of the astronauts. They just float around. If someone were to live their entire life on a space station they would have a hard time understanding gravity as we know it. Now of course the scientist knows that gravitational attraction is a very important part of keeping the station in orbit. But, an observer on a space station or in a somehow similar situation elsewhere in the universe, might never come to such a belief. Even more disturbing, we can never be absolutely sure that something will not come along and change things such that gravity as we experience it here on earth is weakened or disappears. For those of us schooled to believe that scientific facts are ever-existing truth, it is hard to accept this fundamental part of any scientific theory. If you want to play mental games, another idea to explore is magnetism. We know some things are magnetic and attract but we do not know why. Still, without knowing exactly why we can use the force, or theory.   There are so many observable matters to support a theory that there is a God, that they would be too numerable to list. The incredible complexity of such simple things as an eye or a brain would to our finite comprehension appear to require a superior intelligence to organize. Any honest thinking individual must conclude there are many things we cannot, and are unlikely to ever, understand. Some people say it is a clear evidence of a God. That could be a path, with further evidence, to such a belief. Why do we have the exact  concentration of oxygen in our atmosphere to sustain all forms of life. Is it just a coincidence?  One theory that has been proposed is that we are products of an evolutionary process. Some elements of such a theory are easy to accept but others nearly impossible to imagine.   Why is it that sometimes I seem to get some information come into my mind that did not arise from a conscious thought process, and even seems to appear at the very moment I need it? Various ideas are floated to explain such events. Are they simply chance happenings? But how come I have them fairly often? Perhaps they point to a heavenly being who has interest in us as individuals and who is eager to help through a form of communication that is quite different than those with which we are familiar – sight, touch, hearing, feeling etc. Why is it that so many of us, without any other evidence, are led to believe that there is life after death. Is it mere hope sustained by fear.  Or could there be some information left with us as we are born, to help us understand that working on improving ourselves is a worthwhile endeavor because we will continue to exist when we leave this mortal body. Would a God do such a thing? How is it that virtually all societies, often never having been in contact, have similar basic understandings of proper human interaction, similar to what we call the ten commandments. Is it possible that a God  helped us somehow to understand things that we might better get along on the earth.   I could add many similar thoughts. However it seems to me that the evidences of a theory that there is indeed a superior intelligence we can call God, are overwhelming. Interestingly for me is the fact that having so concluded, and then using the ideas that such a theory supports, I find genuine help in several ways that would appear to the unbeliever as impossible. Some of these seemingly outlandish happenings strengthen my belief in my theory and add further credence to it. At this 86th year of my life I could no more deny the existence of God than anything I can see with my eyes. I do often feel sad for what seems to me as blindness by some others to perfectly clear matters of proof.

  • Answer:

    If religions are logi...

Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

This question is so irrational that's making my eyes bleed. No, religion has nothing to do with science. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. Do you know what a dogma is? In case you don't know, here it is: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. It generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence. God can't pass more than the stage of hypothesis, it can't be submitted to empirical proof. Therefore its existence can't be proven. I'm afraid I can't say you had a brilliant flash of insight.

Maria Suyay Videla

Perhaps, but the differences between science and religion are more glaringly obvious than the similarities.  Science exists on methodical evaluation of facts whereas religion thrives on often overlooking facts. Science encourages questioning while most religion discourages it.  Science is impassionate, while religion is extremely passionate.  Science does not attempt to influence laws that govern human behaviour while that is the primary aim of religion. THe list of differences goes on.... So while both involve a certain element of human logic and comprehension, the two in my opinion are like oil and ater.  They don't mix well.

Rajeev Sharma

No. They both have the same aim as it were: to describe and understand what we cannot explain or do not know. But while religion makes wild guesses and sticks to them doggedly, science progresses slowly seeking out truth step by step.

Matthew Rowe

The Christian faith is most decidedly NOT logical, at least not by scientific standards. We rely on revealed information that sometimes cannot be proven, either by logic or by experimentation, although our experiences may at least seem to support or refute it. We believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine, and that he died and rose again to life, and that these things mean something to us as sinful humans who lack, but crave, a fulfilled relationship with God. I wouldn't call any of that "human logic." It is the wisdom of a loving divine Father - substitutionary atonement, sacrificial healing, and forgiveness, which seem like foolishness to us.

Doulos Theou

Religion and science are both quests for the unknown with completely different processes. Religion: Philosophy, then morals, myths, then dogma codified in a text, then ritual, then proselytization Science: Observation, inference of theory, experimentation, proof published in a text, peer review, refutation, new theory Expression of logic - dubious claim, but perhaps it can stand. Identical? - no way. But from your eloquent description of the need to acknowledge the existence of God, a scientific process is irrelevant IMHO. All it takes is personal faith and belief. No reason for science and religion to clash if the debate is not based on texts, but rather the underlying intent of these texts.

Raghu Venkataraman

Imre Lakatos posited that, of a set of theories, that which had the highest heuristic value -- e.g., made the most number of correct predictions -- is most likely to be "true".  I believe there is some meaningful statement of the innate nature of human reasoning here.   Suppose it is 10,000 years ago, well before anything to do with any present notions of "science" existed, and the most "rational" statement to make during a lightning storm was that Thor was angry at something, as it had a higher heuristic value (flash of light and resulting violence explained, plus it will pass) than positing that an infinite number of lightning bugs had just simultaneously flashed in formation across the entire sky for no particular reason.   So perhaps science and religion spring from the same extended root, but they bifurcated during the Scientific Revolution, with (to deliberately put it simplistically) one branch only being satisfied with proof and the other only with faith.

Eric Griffiths

Where does religion as a whole rely "first on an observation of a(nd) collection of data"?  If the "prophets" of old were to see, perhaps, a burning bush that speaks today, they would be written off as insane in most, if not all, regards.  If a winged being were to come from the sky to teach a "prophet", he would be called a case of first contact between  humans and an extraterrestrial species; for that is exactly what angels  and even god simply are when one reads Genesis, unless one is a believer of the maligned pre-Adamite race idea.  The processes themselves bear no resemblance at all.  Religion, in all cultures, uses fear and dominance in order to compose rule over those who follow the religion, using violence and manipulation in almost every  single case of religion in human history.  The only processes that are recurring in religion, in fact, are violence and manipulation, at least where the "Children of the Book" are concerned.  For those who say compassion is part of religion as well, I have todisagree.  Compassion towards fellow believers, possibly, and false compassion to win over converts, definitely, however the VAST bulk of actions taken in the name of religion are abbhorrently violent.  No amount of compassion can make up for a single death in Salem or at the hands of the Inquisition.  What about those kids killed in Isreal when a roadside bomb turns their school bus into swiss cheese? To insinuate that science and religion are similar expressions of human logic exposes an intense blindness to the history of religion itself.  Religion creates a NEED for violence, as every religion in the world senses a need to dominate.  Answer me this:  When an astronomer and a meteorologist look at the stars and say "When that constellation is in the same location relative to our hemisphere next year, it will be winter, so we better stock up," and when an astrologer and a prophet look at the same constellation and say," When the crab and the unicorn are in this same alignment next year, a great catastrophe willl be on the land, annd there will be death and hunger, and one third will die of starvation!  Pray, pray and sacrifice to the gods that we may be delivered from this danger!" it is true that they are both observing the constellation, and the methods they use, mainly looking, are the same, but their actions and the way they use their information differ so wildly that to even imply that they are similar is astounding.  They say very similar things to be sure, since in winter, the majority of annual plant life dies(death), winter is here and that means heavy snowfall and frigid temperatures(catastrophe?), but how, in any rational or logical sense, are these statements similar? In the end, the question seems to outline the querent's apparrent lack of knowledge concerning religious history, dogma, and methodology.  It appears to come from the direction of a scientific mind who wishes to believe in the blatant falsehoods of religion by attempting to reconcile the two.  When one looks at the question from the perspective of a religious person who wishes to believe, but is forced to look for answers when all the pastor gives them is, "Because God made it that way, so have faith and don't worry about it", the question and even the explanation given for the question are absurd and blind.                             ..... The following was my original answer...... YES!  They most certainly are.  The scientific method isn't framed more perfectly anywhere then when god orders the systematic obliteration of entire cultures in order to prove that he loves everyone. Or, since he knows everything, allows the sacrifice of his only begotten son in order to create a religion that accepts everyone as long as they follow his son peacefully, fully advocating almost two-thousand years of bloodshed in order to ensure worldly peace. Full of logic.  Can't you see?  Science has a method: Come up with an Idea. Develop it into a testable hypothesis, and perform experiments.  Reveal your discovery, and allow peers to perform testing; if favorable results are seen, the former hypothesis becomes a theory.  This theory is subjected to further, widespread scrutiny until it is either proven, so it becomes fact, or dis-proven, and becomes subject material for further scientific study. Religion has a method: Come up with a super-powered, unapproachable being that will save you from the world's ills as long as you do as HE says.  Spread his word to your peers, who are empty enough to believe The Word, creating a Belief.  Spread the Word, blaming misfortune upon the "unbelievers."  Those who believe the word then kill everyone in their particular area that doesn't believe or who can not be forced to believe; this creates a religion.  Next, spend from 1500 to 2000 years slaughtering detractors, unfaithful, and Non-believers in the name of the unapproachable deity and you have truth. Now, seriously, what was the question again?

J.W. Saint

Viewed as parallel manifestations of a human yearning to understand the universe and place order and meaning on our existence, religion and science have common elements. Applying the scientific method to faith is by definition a a pointless exercise.  Science makes predictions about our world that can be tested, yielding results that can be replicated and agreed upon. I can calculate the orbit of the moon using physical laws with astonishing precision. Religion does no such thing. Science answers the questions of how, and religion is best at answering the questions of why. They both have their role.

Taylor Griffin

Great post :) I disagree with the premise, though. Science gives us hypotheses that can be tested again and again. Science doesn't base itself on hearsay. Aren't sure if special relativity is correct? Test it. Do the Michaelson-Morley experiment and look at cosmic rays. Spin particles at high speeds in synchrotrons. Sure, it will cost a lot, but it's doable. For higher, unproven scientific theories: Scientists know that these are unproven and they don't forget that. Instead, they keep working on them in the hope that some day, we'll have the technology to test these. On the other hand, Religion doesn't let us test things. Most religions give out a certain amount of "truth" that you just have to believe in -- there's no way to test this for yourself. Science shies away from "absolute truth", and tries to make all of its predictions testable. ----------------------------- Regarding Are not Religion and Science identical expressions of human logic? I actually sort of agree with this. With a small modification: Are not Religion and Science identical expressions of different human logic? Those who uphold a religion use a different form of logic than those who uphold science. A person's notion of "logical" is not uniform -- if it was, religious arguments would evaporate rather quickly in favor of one side. This is much clearer to me, as I believe in Hinduism, yet I strongly support science (which means that I must keep a duality of logic at hand).

Manish Goregaokar

Load more

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.