Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Religious/Scientific Theories
Message-ID: <41@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 15:29:21 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.41
Posted: Thu Apr  4 15:29:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 03:26:24 EST
References: <1433@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 55

[]
> 
> Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a 
> "Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"????
> 
> In my view ALL theories, indeed ALL knowledge is based upon presuppositions/
> axioms/assumptions that are basically 'religious/mystical' in nature.
> 
> Absolute knowledge, certainty, objectivity, concrete proof, etc. are constructs
> or 'models' of what we call 'reality'.
> 
> Ken Arndt

Padraig has posted a partial answer to this.  Let me try to elaborate.

Science does indeed rest on an assumption,  i.e. that a reality exists whose
nature can be learned by comparing our necessarily subjective experiences.

The scientific method involves a bit more than this, like Occam's razor.

The conclusions drawn in science are necessarily tentative and limited.

The primary justification for pursuing it is that it works.  That is that
using the scientific method not only provides a way to make sense of
previously made observations, but provides predictions for future
observations and a basis more increasing the sophistication of our 
understanding

I do *not* know how to define a "religious theory" except negatively or
through imprecise common usage (e.g. "theories involving the existence of
God or the afterlife").  Your quotes on the subject seem to indicate that
at least some people think that "religious" questions are those we have
no empirical basis for answering.

"Scientific creationism" is not science for a variety of reasons.  The
one that most impresses me is that while it provides an explanation for the
universe, it fails to explain *anything* in the universe.  The order of fossils
in the geologic record, the evidence concerning the age of the Earth and the
age of the universe etc.  all become meaningless coincidences.

If one takes creationism to mean just the idea that God is responsible for
the existence of the universe, and leaves out the parts involving a young
Earth and divine creation of "kinds" etc, then the hypothesis no longer
has the disadvantage of forcing us to regard most of modern science as
lucky guesses and meaningless coincidences.  However, it does not become
science from that.  The hypothesis of God does not allow
us to predict future observations better.  It is not an empirically
necessary hypothesis.  Of course, one cannot conclude from that the God
does not exist.


"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas