How science is different from religion

[beso]

http://www.newscienti...smic-ray-mystery.html

Here is an article that demonstrates how science simply moves on from its cherished best known solutions when the observations conflict with theory.

The last paragraph simply indicates "Attention will now shift to active galactic nuclei (AGN), which are powered by supermassive black holes."

No inquisition for previously accepting or ever having considered the old theory. Everyone just goes, "great that is one less possibilty ruled out. We have advanced'. Now let's test the new best idea.

Compare this with the way religions embrace (not) new information and observation.

[jomifl]

Is there evidence that neutrinos travel at light speed, given that they are so dufficult to detect, ie, have they been related to any other cosmic processes that would enable a speed measurement?

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unsure one needs to know how they differ since that's fairly obvious. How they are the same might be more intriguing.

Aye read much the same story at the BBC newsite earlier. Interesting.

[Davethedog]

Isn't the neutrinos speed, part of the Large Hadron Collidiers mandate.

[Matheous-2]

Speaking,perhaps out of turn, but certainly as a complete novice -I find this subject (quantum mechanics) absolutely fascinating. It appears to me that the universe is far,far stranger than science fiction or anything we can attempt to imagine! -Just an observation-which no doubt changes what I'm looking at!

[rojash]

That's the whole point about science: it formulates theories and tests them. If later observations don't fit, unlike religion, it doesn't deny the observations, it moves on.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I love the Arther Eddington quote, Matheous:
Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
The universe is wonderful and awesome (at least to me) in a way far exceeding the Middle Easter myth nonsense.
Another quote I love (from the delightful Karl Sagan - RIP): we are made of star dust.
How mentally and emotionally impoverished is the stuff in Genesis and the Koran compared with that!

[naomi24]

I read through this thread thinking 'I'll add a bit in a minute', but when I finished I found myself at a loss to know what to add. You guys have said it all.... and VE's final offering just about sums it up.

//We are made of star dust. How mentally and emotionally impoverished is the stuff in Genesis and the Koran compared with that! //

Love it! :o)

[Matheous-2]

I am at a loss to find anymore expletives greater than awesome!!- All the way to infinity!!

[mibn2cweus]

Knowing what we don't know can be equally as enlightening in that it sets our sights on the path to truth.

[jomifl]

One of the main differences between science and religion as a result of the fundamental philosophical difference between them is that science looks forward for new information whilst religion looks backwards and avoids dealing with new information that does not fit it's dogma.

[Old_Geezer]

Well, it's not nice to have to admit to being wrong; especially when your knowledge was divinely inspired, so it implies that the Good Lord was lying to you (probably because you couldn't take the truth (yet)). No, the understanding you were given has to be true, and any apparent discrepancies are simply misunderstanding of how your new results came about, and how they fit in to what you already know.

[goodlife]

Well science does much to help us understand the natural world, revealing a level of order, precision, and sophistication that points, in the eyes of many, to a God of infinite intelligence and power. In their view, science reveals not just details of the natural world but also facets of the mind of God.
That point of view finds abundant support in the Bible. Says Romans 1:20: [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship. Despite all its wonders, however, man’s reveals only some aspects of our Creator.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Does the natural world reveal the goodness of God, as well as his eternal power and Godship, Goodlife?

[jomifl]

Goodlife, I have to admire your bravery for jumping into the lion's den with youf feet shackled, your hands manacled and blindfolded too. I see you have begun by looking backwards (as ever), blindfold notwithstanding. Do you not find it curious that it takes science to understand 'god's creation' whereas god's religion has failed utterly despite a 'hotline' to god. :-)

[FredPuli43]

Yes, it was rather remiss of the Almighty not to reveal and explain what he had done.As I have noted here before, he didn't help us much with medicine either. He had the chance of letting us know how to cure leprosy or make the halt and lame better, or 'drive out devils' and so forth. After all, his son was doing it, ostensibly to prove who his father really was. If only, instead of that few years of healing, he'd sent us Pasteur and all the rest some 2,000 years earlier, his Christians would not have suffered so much and died so young in the intervening period.

Mind, not all scientists are so open- minded when it comes to their own theories being challenged. But at least they don't cling to disproved beliefs for as long as the church has. None of the scientists could live for centuries!

[mibn2cweus]

//Mind, not all scientists are so open- minded when it comes to their own theories being challenged. But at least they don't cling to disproved beliefs for as long as the church has. None of the scientists could live for centuries!//

Some 'scientists' are scientists in word only, you know, the ones who when presented with a refutation of their argument point to a scrap of paper decorating their wall. Being able to obtain a degree by repeating the prescribed formula is not proof of the presence of a rational mind.

[goodlife]

Yes, simple truths about God are beyond the scope of science. To illustrate, a scientist may be able to describe every molecule in a chocolate cake, but will his analysis reveal why the cake was made or for whom? For answers to questions like that—which most people would regard as the more important ones—he needs to consult the person who baked the cake.

[mibn2cweus]

I think I'm beginning to understand why ^ they ^ don't celebrate birthdays . . .

[jomifl]

Goodlife, why would a scientist examine the molecules of a cake to find out why it was baked. You could (in theory) have two cakes identical to the last molecule but baked for entirely differnt reasons. You have to ask the right question to have much hope of getting the appropriate answer. Best to ask the baker and hope he is in a mood to give a truthful reply.