evolution.... - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 08-18-2005, 05:51 PM

much from the religious method of faith.

Both require trial and error and both require deferment of deciding issues to the better judgment of those more studied in the discipline.

The main distinction is the reproducibility for third party examination.

In science, at least the physical sciences, it is possible to isolate causes and affects to observe physical consequences for others.

In faith, the observations only result in the experimenter being able to make the observations. No third party observer can determine the reproducibility of the event.

Both involve methods, with only the slightest deviation from each other.

Isn't science more than the scientific method?

Is religion more than its methodology?

We have the religious discovery method which is coupled by the religious maintainance method, daily worship.

I don't find the two all that different.

Nobody retries all the principles and proofs of science; after a while we just accept them on faith because something works.

Does every scientist reread and challenge the proofs of Theoretica Matematica?

MikeWaters · 08-18-2005, 06:27 PM

What you are missing Cat, is the difference between "religion" and "true religion" and also "science" and "true science."

SeattleUte · 08-18-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What you are missing Cat, is the difference between "religion" and "true religion" and also "science" and "true science."

Only because you say so. I mean no disrespect to your faith, but your assertion is founded on faith, no more.

08-18-2005, 05:51 PM	#21
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I would greatly disagree that the scientific method differs much from the religious method of faith. Both require trial and error and both require deferment of deciding issues to the better judgment of those more studied in the discipline. The main distinction is the reproducibility for third party examination. In science, at least the physical sciences, it is possible to isolate causes and affects to observe physical consequences for others. In faith, the observations only result in the experimenter being able to make the observations. No third party observer can determine the reproducibility of the event. Both involve methods, with only the slightest deviation from each other. Isn't science more than the scientific method? Is religion more than its methodology? We have the religious discovery method which is coupled by the religious maintainance method, daily worship. I don't find the two all that different. Nobody retries all the principles and proofs of science; after a while we just accept them on faith because something works. Does every scientist reread and challenge the proofs of Theoretica Matematica?

08-18-2005, 06:27 PM	#22
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	What you are missing Cat, is the difference between "religion" and "true religion" and also "science" and "true science."