Cuddles
1st February 2007, 12:53 PM
It's fairly well established that one of the main differences between science and religion, and indeed most woo, is that science asks question while religion gives answers. Most of us agree that religion is fundamentally flawed because of this, since there is no actual evidence for their answers and they could be (and probably are) just made up on the spot. However, it occurred to me recently that this is not actually the main problem with religion, the problem actually lies in what questions they attempt to answer.
Religion and philosophy have been trying for millennia to answer questions such as "Why are we here?", while science generally avoids these areas. The reason for this is simple, but for some reason is very rarely acknowledged. The question simply does not make sense. According to all the evidence we have there is no meaning of life, it simply happened as a consequence of the laws of the universe, and there is therefore no point asking "Why?" because there is no answer. Religion does not fail simply because the evidence does not support it's answer, it fails because it answers a question that does not actually exist. The correct question to ask is "Is there a meaning?", to which the answer is currently "Probably not.".
A similar question is "What happened before the big bang?". Most scientists stay away from this question as well, because this is no different from asking "What is north of the North Pole?". Since time only exists after the big bang, it simply makes no sense to ask what was before it. I have actually had some success explaining this to people. It is hard to say what the correct question to ask here is, or even if it is possible to ask any meaningful ones. What is important is the difference in attitude between the religious and the scientific. Religion jumps straight in and gives an answer, when the correct approach is to ask what it actually means to ask the question and to ask if it actually makes sense to expect an answer.
I think this is the most important difference between science and religion. It is not the method of obtaining answers or the different standards of evidence, it is simply that science does not only questions the answers, it questions the questions themselves. Religion can argue about the answers until the cows come home, but until it questions the validity of the questions it is asking it will never know if the answers actually exist, let alone know if they are correct.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Religion and philosophy have been trying for millennia to answer questions such as "Why are we here?", while science generally avoids these areas. The reason for this is simple, but for some reason is very rarely acknowledged. The question simply does not make sense. According to all the evidence we have there is no meaning of life, it simply happened as a consequence of the laws of the universe, and there is therefore no point asking "Why?" because there is no answer. Religion does not fail simply because the evidence does not support it's answer, it fails because it answers a question that does not actually exist. The correct question to ask is "Is there a meaning?", to which the answer is currently "Probably not.".
A similar question is "What happened before the big bang?". Most scientists stay away from this question as well, because this is no different from asking "What is north of the North Pole?". Since time only exists after the big bang, it simply makes no sense to ask what was before it. I have actually had some success explaining this to people. It is hard to say what the correct question to ask here is, or even if it is possible to ask any meaningful ones. What is important is the difference in attitude between the religious and the scientific. Religion jumps straight in and gives an answer, when the correct approach is to ask what it actually means to ask the question and to ask if it actually makes sense to expect an answer.
I think this is the most important difference between science and religion. It is not the method of obtaining answers or the different standards of evidence, it is simply that science does not only questions the answers, it questions the questions themselves. Religion can argue about the answers until the cows come home, but until it questions the validity of the questions it is asking it will never know if the answers actually exist, let alone know if they are correct.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?