Many people believe that physics and religion are entirely separate. They claim that physics is only concerned with discovering what is true or false, while religion is concerned with what is good or evil. Scientists appear to agree that “physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of reality.” Religious followers, on the other hand, agree that “religion is the way we express the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we live.” Although these definitions seem to be contrasting, an important element remains absent, an element that must first be considered before religion and physics can be compared. Those who think that religion has no basis in reality also believe that there is an “obvious” separation between the two fields. They think that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
Wilson sees scientific humanism as “the only worldview” compatible with the real world, and refuses rapprochement, which is “neither possible nor desirable” (556). However, I believe that rapprochement can be achieved when science and religion understand their
Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science. One of a few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers statement is contained in the phrase, “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by the observation and experiment.’’ Theories are never produced strictly, Popper would say, but firstly crafted through the thought and feeling of a scientist in their given field. This then discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and it then forwards the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are no more than a personal concept with reason.
He claims that science is much more focused on the “truth about the universe.” As a scientist himself, he has experienced first hand as to how science is nowhere compatible with religion and that science and religion have different goals, which can never intertwine. Coyne exemplifies that with science,
Whereas atheists are... ... middle of paper ... ...nce. A believer has faith that a god exists or that their scriptures are true. In the scientific sense, faith is based on evidence. The existence of God cannot be proven through a method, as science uses. Science is the search for the truth, but it can never uncover God.
Supervenience says all that is true in the world are from the truths of nature and ultimately about physics. Supernaturalism worldview believes in the divine revelations and denies materialism, The Causal Closure of the Physical and Supervenience. Reality is not just the physical universe, because everything that happens isn’t based only on physics and the ultimate truth goes beyond nature and physics. Materialism is denied because of the idea that there are supernatural beings such as God (or many gods and souls). These divine beings and their truths are not administered by the laws of physics.
The verbal confrontation between science and religion is never out of the news. In this article, we will examine the similarities and conflicts between Science and Religion. Then we will observe the effects of separating religion and science and effects of irrational factors on both. At the end we will conclude with defining science as a form of religion. Science and religion on the same path It is generally perceived that science and religion are two opposite forces which can never fuse together.
I agree with this because we as humans have beliefs of our own that not based on any logical or scientific evidences. We all have our own. But they are not scientific statement. The most common argument against belief in God uses scientific statements. Phillips explains why you can use that argument.
Scientific methods prove facts about science but can they prove facts about religion? Or are science and religion from totally different realms in which the realities of one have nothing to do with the realities of the other. Galileo would lead a person to believe they have nothing to do with each other while Hume would say that they are both formed from the same basic cloth. Galileo would like people to believe that science is about nature and the world in which we live, while religion is so vast that it cannot be understood by scientists and mere mortals. Religion and science are two separate entities that have nothing in common whatsoever.
This does not mean that anti-realists do not take all scientific theories to be false, but that they should only be considered empirically adequate. A theory is believed to be empirically adequate when observable entities and events are found to be true. The scientific realist believes that there is no difference between unobservable and observable; therefore no line should be drawn between the two. Many people who are not very familiar with science usually take the naïve realist position. This is the position in which they do not attempt to distinguish observable from unobservable.