Yes, science is based on logic and reasoning, but why say i.e.
atheists? Are all atheists logical in their reasoning? The answer
is NO. Do atheists believe in absurd things? YES.
You said that science cannot explain religion and religion goes
against the law of science, but which religions are you referring
to? Because it certainly does NOT apply to Christianity, which was
the worldview that gave rise to modern science. And you probably
don't seem to be well acquainted with scientific literature which
are littered with the word "believe".
Anyway, your last statement has already been proven wrong by
history as I earlier alluded to. It was precisely because Science
and Religion (i.e. Christianity) mix that we have modern
science.
Hi
everyone, hope you don't mind my joining in.
@BIC,
1.
Yes there are nontheists taht believe in the absurd just as much as
monotheists or polytheists. Belief of one form does not take away
ones freedom of choice to believe in another belief
(logical/ilogical/contradictory). Imagination affords us that
luxury of vacationing from reality.
2.
Lets look at a brief definition of the terms Science and
Religion.
Science - (from wikipedia) (from
Latin scientia,
meaning "knowledge") is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and
predictions about
the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is
that found
for example in
Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the
body of reliable knowledge itself, of the
type that can be logically and
rationally explained.
Religion - (from dictionary.reference.com) a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation
of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs.
Note
"testable explanations" is not included in the definition of
Religion. Of course Aristotle's more malleable "logically and
rationally explained" definition might be prefered by many of us to
explain the un-testable.
3.
The work of science is to explain how things work, figuring things
out. Scientific knowledge is never complete and ever expanding. New
discoveries or technological advances may promt re-writing of once
central scientific principles. Everything in scientific knowledge
is open for scrutiny and test. The seemingly endless knowledge
discovered through science gives hope to many that science can in
time solve the problems of humankind. However there is no moral
code, to determine how that knowledge gets used. And there is no
road map to salvation here or affirmation that it even
exists(yet).
For
religions, the purpose is to deliver salvation or point to it. For
most religions, all the information needed for that purpose is
contained in the sacred/revealed texts. The sacred word of religion
cannot be doubted.
For
most religions, I think true science is a threat. Recall the early
scientists who fear death by being labelled heretics of the popular
religion of the day. For true science never truly believes in a
final word. But I do believe there are brilliant scientists who are
also pious followers of a religion. In the simplest sense, to be a
scientist is just an occupation and you don't have to stake your
salvation over your job. A scientist also has this inside knowledge
"science doesn't know everything (yet)" and may never solve the
existential question of God in his lifetime. Fear is a great factor
to make one decisive.
So
do try to understand where we are coming from when those of us with
a little general knowledge doubt those scientific literature that
tires to marry science and whichever religion. For the true spirit
of science and the prevailing spirit of most religions diverge, and
will not converge untill humankind revalues the true worth of
empirical knowlege.