Science and religion are both philosophies. In philosophy “facts” (in this case, the universal laws of nature ) are philosophical premises (opinions) that have been accepted to be valid by a great many people - most importantly by those in positions of power and authority. While the methodologies are incompatible, in the end what is regarded as “truth” amounts to nothing fundamentally different than a “majority rules” consensus.

All other arguments aside, when we get to the question about the creation of the universe, both science and religion rely on at least one fundamental preexisting condition. In the case of religion, it is God, and with science it is the laws of nature as discovered through the various sciences and mathematics. The fundamental and very similar questions become “Where did the laws of nature that governed the “big bang” and the expansion of the universe come from, and why are they as they are?”, and “Where did God come from and why did he create things exactly as they are?”

If you define God and his ways as “the laws of nature”, then we have reached a sort of equivalency. One conclusion is that “God IS the laws of nature”. It doesn’t make very many people happy, but there it is for contemplation.

<a > Noni (Morinda citrifolia)  </a> Supplement by <a > Herbalorganics </a>

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Laws of nature don’t care what you eat, who you sleep with. Laws of nature are not ommnipotent nor ommniscient. They are however ommnipresent…
If you define something as something else, then you can reach any sort of equivalencies…even ones that have nothing to do with each other.
Pedro

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Noni’s comment is the intellectual equivalent of a streak left in the bottom of the bowl after flushing.  The crap is almost gone, but there are still traces of it left over.  It’s like the last bastion for a person smart enough to know that religious teachings, in the main part, should be flushed, but still just a little too insecure to let the god concept go completely.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Noni…its obvious you didn’t read the article. Please come back and comment after you do.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think Noni does miss the point, but in the way that perhaps the majority of people do. Science is a process by which assumptions about the world can be evaluated, and the methods of science are themselves subject to the same kind of evaluation. Religion, at least of the scriptural sort, does not really provide any process for evaluating its assumptions. Science properly regards all its theories as tentative and approximate, although for the sake of scientists’ sanity a high “entry cost” exists for membership in the “club” of those whose objections get taken seriously (i.e., one has to have proven that one understands the subject matter sufficiently).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m sorry, Noni, but seriously, this isn’t even like comparing apples to oranges.  They’re at least both fruit: produce seeds, grow on trees…they’re both round.  This is more like comparing apples to a toothbrush!  Now, I’m not as ardent as many athiests.  I’m not calling for the outright abolition of religion.  I’ve seen the cultural and especially artistic contributions religion has made, though far too often few and far between and even then often not without its fair share of tragedy.  But I am, nevertheless, completely unapologetic about the truth.  The fact is, pure and simple, every single thing in science is supported by observable, objective and reproducable facts of nature.  Even the big bang, as was so incorrectly cited, which is being supported ONLY as a theory, is supported by the fact that we can physically see, right here and now, that the universe expanding.  This is consistent with what we know of the basic properties of physics: that matter in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise effected.  Therefore, if an explosion were set off in the vacuum of space, the matter in the explosion would continue to expand in all directions forever.  Religion, however, has offered not even the slightest sense of proof or logic to support it, and I could cite examples but I’m trying to be as respectful as possible.  Suffice it to say, religion’s greatest and most credible supporting arguement, and believe me when I say I’ve heard quite a few, is that there are answers we don’t have yet, therefore god must’ve done it.  That’s quite a leap to make, but if its one for you, by all means leap away.  But don’t be surprised when I don’t follow, because to claim these are even similar concepts is worse than arrogant, it’s a bold faced lie.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

oh…and btw, calling the laws of nature god is like calling an apple a dufa…pointless and arbitrary

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Noni is indeed making the same sort of categorical mistake as many members of the public.

Science and religion are indeed both philosophies, although to be more precise religion is a daughter of philosophy, but by assuming a stance it distances itself from its parent subject as a whole - which is why it is a theology, and not taught in a philosophy class (surely that is a small clue Noni!)

However the mistake Noni is making is pretty simple. Just because they both have philosophical aspects a) does not mean their philosophical aspects are equal, and b) does not make them equal in their non-philosophical aspects.

Science is based on some assumptions, such as that we can determine anything, or that we are not dreaming a perfectly undetectable dream. Religion is also based on assumptions, such as that book A is a ‘perfect’ book and that revelation A did occur. In sciences assumption we have ono reason to believe that the assumptions are flawed. In religions assumptions there is very good reasons to think that they are flawed.

Science is also a method of discovery whereas religion is a method of affirmation of a claim (such as through the use of faith, or academically using apologetics etc). These are so fundamentally different that Noni’s attempt to simplify them to an audience into the same argumentative form belies an extreme simplicity, to the point of intellectual mischief, on the part of Noni.

One philosophy can argue that the heart is a solid object of earth and fire, another that it is a vital pump transporting life force around the body. Then someone comes along and looks at it, studies it, learns it from investigation and experiment. After doing so all three are not still equal and only a fool cannot tell the difference - or would let any of the three operate on them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think of both science and religion as cognitive constructs; ideas sculpted into models of the world we experience through our senses. I’m guessing Noni would agree with me on this.

But he then goes on to say this automatically makes them equivalent. To me this is like saying 1 = 2 because they are both numbers. As a model of reality, science is of a much higher quality to me, because if quality is to mean anything, it is how well something connects with the real world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m sorry, Noni, but seriously, this isn’t even like comparing apples to oranges.  They’re at least both fruit: produce seeds, grow on trees…they’re both round.  This is more like comparing apples to a toothbrush!  Now, I’m not as ardent as many athiests.  I’m not calling for the outright abolition of religion.  I’ve seen the cultural and especially artistic contributions religion has made, though far too often few and far between and even then often not without its fair share of tragedy.  But I am, nevertheless, completely unapologetic about the truth.  The fact is, pure and simple, every single thing in science is supported by observable, objective and reproducable facts of nature.  Even the big bang, as was so incorrectly cited, which is being supported ONLY as a theory, is supported by the fact that we can physically see, right here and now, that the universe expanding.  This is consistent with what we know of the basic properties of physics: that matter in motion will stay in motion unless otherwise effected.  Therefore, if an explosion were set off in the vacuum of space, the matter in the explosion would continue to expand in all directions forever.  Religion, however, has offered not even the slightest sense of proof or logic to support it, and I could cite examples but I’m trying to be as respectful as possible.  Suffice it to say, religion’s greatest and most credible supporting arguement, and believe me when I say I’ve heard quite a few, is that there are answers we don’t have yet, therefore god must’ve done it.  That’s quite a leap to make, but if its one for you, by all means leap away. Hermes Kelly  But don’t be surprised when I don’t follow, because to claim these are even similar concepts is worse than arrogant, it’s a bold faced lie 2945abc45 1013

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Noni asks the question of where did the laws of physics come from, as if structured rules first needed to be established for anything to behave in any way. There is no reason to view physics in this way. If anything is to exist it will behave is some way and needn’t be directed to do so. The forces of nature are simply inherent to existence. It could be quite possible they could be no other way than they are, that no entity or anything that could be construed as God could have any effect on them to make them behave any different. This seems in fact to be the only answer that is sensible.

Noni further questions where does God come from, which is a much easier question to answer. An honest study of history suggests the concept of an almighty god is fabricated, drawing upon millenia of stories and superstitions, finally settling upon the idea of God we know today. The odd aspect however is how a religious mind must strive to credit God with needing to create a force like the gravitational attraction between two celestial bodies. Such a force couldn’t just exist once said celestial bodies formed, rather it needed to be created. However there is a disconnect between this idea and their belief that God required no creation, that he always existed. It is as if the religious have the correct answer but refuse to accept it, buffering reality with a comfort zone that imposes magic upon their lives. Carl Sagan implored us to be brave and to simply remove a step, that if God has always existed then if he does not then the Universe by default has always existed. It is just as easy to imagine as the alternative.

Existence is just that. Perhaps it is only the human mind that requires a beginning, a creation point, a grand conductor leading a cosmic symphony. Certainly he has us in mind as we zoom through space on a spec of dust. The alternative is somewhat frightening, that we always have been, we always will be, and we will forever remain none the wiser.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think there is a great deal of long-winded rationalization going on in this thread, due to Noni’s initial post.  Let’s keep it simple, though…

The difference between science and religion is very very simple.  If a nonreligious man looks at an oak tree and asks himself “how does it grow, and eat, and reproduce,” and proceeds to study the tree, he will learn the answers.  This isn’t some sort of philosophical sophistry or assumptions, it is reality, pure and simple.

A religious man, however, may look at that same tree and notes to himself “what a wonderful tree god has made for us sinful humans,” and carry on his merry way.  Nothing is learned, and there are certainly assumptions without facts being made here.  Or he may study the tree as the nonreligious man did, arrive at the same answers, but still insist that his god has done this, again, assumptions without a basis in fact.

Creating myths, legends, and stories to explain natural phenomenon is in no way a comparable manner of “thinking” to scientific study.  It just isn’t, no matter how we try to fit the square peg in the round hole.

I can write a fanciful story of a vast War God walking through the American Southwest, trailing his battle axe behind him in the ground, thus creating the Grand Canyon…but that certainly isn’t on the same level as the actual scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon’s formation.  It’s just a story, no matter how many believe it to be true.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Actually, the first historical articulation of the scientific method in around the 12th century as I recall was from Fr.Roger Grossteste. Most of the seminal thinkers in all sciences were religious and there is no present conflict outside fundamentalists of both sides. If one wishes to study an oak tree, one can do so from the perspective of many sciences and also from the broader philosophical and theological perspective. Is life a meaningless accident of physical stuff only? Is there any sign of intelligence in the universe suggesting an intelligent ultimate cause. Of course there is. You are offering an utterly false dichotomy and a very boring one.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Is there any sign of intelligence in the universe suggesting an intelligent ultimate cause. Of course there is. You are offering an utterly false dichotomy and a very boring one.”

Opinion offered as fact, with just a splash of belittlement for good measure. Nice job.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Most of the seminal thinkers in all sciences were religious and there is no present conflict outside fundamentalists of both sides.”

They were religious because they had to be.  Try to remember the historical time frame and cultural “norms” in existence at that time before you make this argument. 

And I wasn’t claiming a conflict between science and religion (although conflicts do arise regularly, and not just between “fundamentalists on both sides” as you claim), I was simply illustrating the difference between the two.  Some posters were insisting that they are comparable, just different methodologies.  I am pointing out that they are not comparable at all; it’s comparing apples with elves.

“Is there any sign of intelligence in the universe suggesting an intelligent ultimate cause. Of course there is.”

I’d be willing to accept this if you had any way of demonstrating this…which, of course, you haven’t.  Otherwise you would be a Nobel Prize recipient.

Oh, and I was specific about “studying” the oak tree, mate.  “How does it grow, eat, and reproduce” was the search criteria in my example.  Faith and philosophy are fun mental exercises, but insufficient to answer these fundamental questions for this example, unless they go hand in hand with a scientific approach.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

‘Most of the seminal thinkers in all sciences were religious and there is no present conflict outside fundamentalists of both sides.’

Many scientists are religious today. The most important thing with this is to listen to them. You see a sudden change - they are religious as human beings, not scientists. The people being religious as scientists are the likes of the Discovery Institute. I think this difference is profound. It means that when a scientist is being religious it has little to do with science informing his/her opinion and everything to do with the same reasons as every other religious person. You can tell this most if you listen to a Nobel prize winner talk about their subject, be it chemistry or physics etc. They are mindblowingly knowledgeable. Have the same scientist talk about their religion and they default to the same blather as the uneducated. Religious scientists are no evidence of the validity their religion -  no matter how seminal.

As for ‘there is no present conflict outside fundamentalists of both sides’ - I am flabbergasted every time I read someone say this.

I think what they really mean is that most people don’t care about the differences in methodology or quality of evidences used. Apathy is not the same as there being no issue though.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

That religion and science are philosophies is true in a broad sense, but conflating them in this way while trying to identify their distinctions is not helpful. At best religion is a fossilised dogmatic philosophy (and so by its nature opts out of modern philosophy). Science is methodological naturalism, it is an operationalised philosophy about what nature is.

The statement that a premise is an opinion is false. Noni’s opening statements are claptrap, and so there is no foundation for the subsequent musings.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

i find this strikingly hilarious.

science isn’t about gods, and those who either are of religious bent or refer to this false equivalency insert this falsehood all the time. 

science deals only with the observable.  while it did disprove many parts of the religious texts and dogmas it didn’t set out to accomplish this.

science isn’t the basis of me not believing in a god, it’s the way i communicate over large distances, the way i cook my food, the various entertainments i indulge in.

to this day the argument that there is no god doesn’t rely of fact, simply because that’s an assbackward way to view the idea and science simply is a method of asking and answering questions in an orderly fashion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.