|
|
Science and religion
Leo Thomas Walsh (ai653@KSU.KSU.EDU)
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 12:52:21 -0500
The only difference between science and religion is that science *must*
strive to correct itself. A true scientist should not only try to prove
his theory, but should also try to falisify it. A religion could never
withstand such attempts at falsifiabilty. I challenge anyone to name a
(surviving) religion that emphasises finding new religious truths through
exploration of other religions. Science, on the other hand, needs to
seek out other 'truths' in order to come up with an 'objective' truth.
James Lett discribes scientific falsifiablity in his _The Human
Enterptise_ much better than I can do here. According to the definition
of religion given by Geertz, it would seem that science *is* a
religion. When a scientist, states a theory with such conviction that
the scientist will not accept any other interpretations of the theory,
then the theory is faith. It is just as good as saying Allah wills it.
Why does my pencil fall when I drop it? Because of gravity or because
it is the will of Allah? Using the correlation bit in previous
messages, gravity doesn't necessarily cause objects to fall. A
scientist who *really* 'believes' in gravity should spend time
trying to prove that gravity isn't the cause. We don't understand
thouroughly the nature of gravity. We also don't understand the nature
of biology. When the human factor is involved, data can be pretty
screwy at times. What Rushton has given to us as more than just a
correlation may or may not be so. Until it is proven that the correlation
holds true for all people, or at least several million cross culturally, I
will not put my 'faith' in it. People have been dropping things since we
first had people, and as far as I know, none of those things has fallen up.
I can put my faith in that.
Leo T. Walsh (ai653@ksu.ksu.edu)
|