posted 03-25-99 06:52 PM ET     

This all seems to have started when DHE_X2 posted the idea that science and religion are both the pursuit of truth, with science focusing on the details while religion looks at the grand scheme.

absimiliard responded that science sees only the provable as true, while religion sees the unprovable as true.

Rong countered that both are the search for truth, but that they differ in method. He sees science as superior due to religion due to its reliance on logical reasoning and empirical evidence.

Shining1 (the angry athiest), stated that the two are logically incompatible because their conclusions are contradictory.

EnBee then took a slightly different approach by saying that science IS a religion, with the empirical as God. He faulted the concepts of objectivity and empiricism because he feels that "we do not know that sensical data exists a priori outside of ourselves."

There are a few back and forth comments. Achilles added in that because he is both scientific and Christian, then the two CANNOT be incompatible.

ViVicdi pointed out the parallel between Christianity and science in that they both take into account human falibility. He then proceded to take issue with what he sees as the confrontational attitudes of "new athiests," arguing for a respect for others beliefs.

Shining1 closed with an adament "GOD DOES NOT EXIST," obviously being a "new athiest." With that, the "any women?" thread pretty much ends.

Continuing on to the "same coin?" thread, absimiliard responds to EnBee's assertions about science as religion. He agrees that science can be like religion in that it involves faith, at least from laymen, in scientific theories. He reiterates and slightly redefines his proof vs. non-proof argument by stating that EVERYTHING can be proven by science, whereas religion requires that some things cannot be proved.

Nylan chimes in for the first time with his belief that science is very much like religion, and that "everyone needs to believe in something greater than themselves." He disagrees with absimiliard's belief that the two are opposites because he has no faith in logic, for humanity is an illogical creature. He concludes by saying that he thinks that science deceives itself, because it is unable to prove anything with 100% certainty.

At this point, your narrator, DerekM, jumped in with a response to EnBee's comments that I thought absimiliard missed. I argue for a variety of reasons that, while it is possible that our senses deceive us, we are better off if we assume that at a basic level they do not. I also make a point that one shouldn't confuse the human failures of individual scientists with any weakness in the methodology of science.

Aillas makes his first points in the discussion immediately after my disertation. Basically, he echoes Nylan's point that science cannot PROVE anything, and EnBee's point that science is in many ways like religion in terms of how it is practiced. He uses a quote from G.K. Chesterton to support this.

I respond in turn that the quote is logically flawed in its interpretations, because it treats witness perspectives as supportable facts that are denied only by scientists intent upon their "dogma."

tOfGI joins the fray, saying that science and religion are both the same in terms of people's faith in each, and different if you believe in logic. He posits that both religion and doctrinal science may be attempts to compensate for a failure to deal with purely human problems at a simpler level.

Spoe enters the discussion, responding to both Nylan and Aillas. He states that science is more flexible and more reasonable then the two give it credit for. He also suggests that I am correct in my example using Occam's razor in an attempt to discredit Aillas's quote from Chesterton.

DHE_X2 returns to the fray he initiated ( ), again stating that the two are the same, and suggesting that anybody who chooses only one viewpoint is narrow-minded.

Nylan responds to tOffGI, saying that one reason science and religion are seen in opposition is that they are trying to answer the same question: why? He iterates his belief that we all seek something greater than ourselves.

absimiliard briefly responds that while religion tries to answer the question "why?", science looks at the "how."

Nylan responds to Spoe, saying that he was slightly misunderstood. Science is deceived because scientists deceive themselves, not necessarily because of an inherent flaw in the methodology. He also questions absimiliard's logic. If science answers "how" and religion answers "why", then why are they incompatible?

Spoe supports absimiliard's viewpoint on how vs. why.

I echo back absimiliard's original arguments, indicating that science deals with proofs and disproofs, whereas religion is actively hostile to attempts at such. I reject the how vs. why argument, and suggest that the answers you get from science are less pleasant, but more practical and realistic than those you get from religion.

Spoe quotes Einstein's beliefs that religion and science are inseperable.