Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Religion vs. Science
The point that was brought up in class yesterday that "science is not facts" threw a lot of us for a loop. I think that was the first time in my life that I have ever considered science as a theory rather than hard facts, and it was hard for me to comprehend the idea but after embracing the idea it made a lot of sense. In the seventeenth century, people were positive that the world was flat. It was a concrete fact. Today, we know that that "fact" is not true and we are positive that the world is round. In 300 years there will probably be some new kind of information that is positive that the world is . Whatever that new fact may be doesn't matter. What matters is that these facts, although they are facts, can turn out to be false. And just because a fact is published in a science magazine or the Smithsonian doesn't necessarily mean it is and forever will be 100% true.
Religion, in my opinion, is kind of the same. Although there are not hard facts, no concrete evidence of events or ideas, people still believe in it. Like science, religion changes day to day. People reinterpret ideas from the Bible or other Holy books, just like facts continue to change in textbooks. Either way, the two "theories" are upheld because people believe in them. Religion is upheld because people believe in some higher power. Science is upheld because people believe in scientists. I believe the two opposites are much closer together than we think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you in thinking that religion and science make a good comparison, and I had never thought of it in this sense. I always thought of science and religion as complete opposites that never come together and never agree. Science has always been called "factual" because like you said "we believe in scientists." That really is an interesting concept. In Cat's Cradle though, they say that religion is "based on lies." I personally think that religion cant technically be a 'lie' because it is something you believe in. In society, we have been taught that each person's religion is meant to be respected and its not 'wrong' just because you dont believe in it. However, I feel like science is way more structured and factual in that everyone can have a theory, but what we study is the proven facts -the things that can be tested, seen, observed and recorded. Its more acceptable to challenge someones science than it is to challenge someones religion. But you make a great point in saying that we only accept this science as 'true' because someone (scientist) told us that it is the truth. Can science actually be considered same as religion? Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAfter our discussion in class I too found myself struggling with the concept of science not being fact. We all grow up seeing science as the concrete, learning that it explains why and how things happen the way they do. However, now that I am considering the validity of scientific “fact” it is clear that the faith we put in it could be entirely wrong. As we are constantly reminded while doing lab reports, you can never prove a hypothesis correct, you can only compile evidence that supports it. As soon as you find one thing that makes your hypothesis incorrect, then you are done. When I compare this to religion, I find it very interesting that people view them as polar opposites, when in fact, that is very far from the truth. People have faith that their religion is right, just like they do with scientific “fact”, but in reality there is no way to prove that either of them is accurate or true.
ReplyDelete