Children should wear bicycle helmets.

David Martin wrote:
On 1/12/04 9:44 pm, in article , "Tony Raven"
wrote:


Religion is based on the belief that the Universe is governed by supreme
being(s). Science is based on the belief it is governed by mathematics.

Science is surely based on the belief that the functioning of the observable
world can be predicted by mathematics. Mathematics does not exist in a
physical sense but is none the less very real.


There is absolutely no reason other than experience and faith, to
beleive that mathematics, a man made construct, should describe how the
Universe works and predict its behaviour. We even send out "missionary"
spaceships with mathematical symbols on as "the one great truth" that
any extraterrestial intelligence finding it will understand. Faith and
experience of that faith is what many say justifies their religious beliefs

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:
David Martin wrote:


There is absolutely no reason other than experience and faith, to
beleive that mathematics, a man made construct, should describe how the
Universe works and predict its behaviour.

Mathematics isn't a man-made construct, though; it exists in the absence
of man. OK, so we use human-derived words for all its aspects.

R.

David Hansen opined the following...
Up to a point.

That point being? Please explain the difference between a religion and a
cult other than social acceptance / perception.

The fact that he called his war a crusade does not mean it is a
religious war.

Of three possible understandings of the word "crusade" one refers to the
Christian holy wars of the 11th - 13th centuries, one explicitly refers
to a "holy war" and one refers to a "vigorous movement for a cause". The
third definition having presumably derived from public use of the word
crusade to imply a headlong charge on the basis of belief.

It isn't a matter of counting hands.

So again... please explain what you understand as the difference between
a cult and a religion.

Jon

However, science can be, and is, tested by the layman while
religion fundamentally is not. Herein lieth the difference.

Erm, quantum physics?

Most religions can be tested and proven/disproven quite easily by followers
of that religion, whereas most of science seems beyond the layman (well,
I've never got my head around much of normal physics, let alone quantum).

Of course telling the world that you have proven that Buddism or whatever
is right might be dificult if you came back as a fruit fly or something.
Ho hum.

Mark Thompson opined the following...
Erm, quantum physics?

An area which, it must be noted, not all physicists believe! :-)

Besides, AFAIK, while much of it is mind-bending, a fair proportion of
the principles can be / have been tested.

Most religions can be tested and proven/disproven quite easily by followers
of that religion, whereas most of science seems beyond the layman (well,
I've never got my head around much of normal physics, let alone quantum).

Testing requires a procedure similar to the following.

Create model.
Use model to predict result.
Perform real-world experiments.
Compare.

The only attempt that I'm aware of like this in any religion was the
Bible Code. This failed to predict, choosing to retrospectively predict
(ie. after the event, you "find" the prediction in the code), and has
also been somewhat thoroughly trounced in the scientific community for
its lack of... er... science!

Of course telling the world that you have proven that Buddism or whatever
is right might be dificult if you came back as a fruit fly or something.
Ho hum.

As in, proof by death. Not really a good basis for analysis now is it?

Jon

Testing requires a procedure similar to the following.

Create model.
Use model to predict result.
Perform real-world experiments.
Compare.

I was in all seriousness suggesting that a Christian, say, could test
Christianity by dying and seeing what happened next.

As in, proof by death. Not really a good basis for analysis now is it?

I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it ;-)

Tony Raven wrote:


Religion is based on the belief that the Universe is governed by supreme
being(s). Science is based on the belief it is governed by mathematics.

A critical distinction being the falsifiability of the latter (and
conversely, its ability to make useful predictions).

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Mark Thompson opined the following...
I was in all seriousness suggesting that a Christian, say, could test
Christianity by dying and seeing what happened next.

Fantastic. I'll remember to suggest this approach next time someone
tries to convert me. ;-)

Jon

Richard wrote:

Mathematics isn't a man-made construct, though; it exists in the absence
of man.


That Sir, is a statement of faith

Tony

Jon Senior wrote:

Testing requires a procedure similar to the following.

Create model.
Use model to predict result.
Perform real-world experiments.
Compare.


All of which is the non-understood process of sensate cortical
interpretation of a set of electrical signals. Let alone all the
Descartian philosphy, conditions such as synesthesia and anosognosia
question what observing the real world really means.

Tony