[FoRK] Faith and/or Science - Newton et al

[Jeff Bone]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> but the idea that religion is *necessarily* inimical to science  
> seems an unsubstantiated myth.

The idea that "the idea that religion is *necessary inimical to  
science seems an unsubstantiated myth" is an unsubstantiated myth.

Let's demonstrate.  Definitions first:

Science:  a method or process for gaining understanding of the  
physical or material world (i.e. the universe, including but not  
limited to its cause, "nature," and purpose) based on observation,  
experimentation, and independently verifiable, repeatable experience  
(collectively, "proof.")

Religion:  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose  
of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman  
agency or agencies.  Such beliefs necessarily ground out in *faith.*   
(If you disagree with that assertion, produce some material proof of  
the reality your pet diety.)

Faith:  belief (knowledge or understanding) that is not based on proof.

It therefore follows trivially from the definitions that if science  
insists on knowledge based on proof, and religion requires belief in  
the unprovable, then science and religion are by definition  
incompatible.  Further, the rigorous defense of either would be  
actively inimical (i.e., hostile) toward the other.  QED


jb