I really want to understand where you guys are coming from, because I too, have quite an interest in these things.

I'm sure I'm missing something, seeing as you guys are so insistent. But what I'm getting so far is:

Science boils down to axioms.
Religion boils down to axioms.

Therefore, believing or not believing in one, can have the same argument used against the other.

I actually, really hope I am missing something. Because if you guys are comparing these assumptions... And okay, an assumption is an assumption... but.. really?

Science = Falling object = Gravity (assumed laws of motion)
Religion = Supernatural powers = Stories (assumed)

The theory of the big bang is a story that we believe is true, we have no solid evidence to prove that it ever happened, all we know is that the observable universe is expanding. The reason we believe in the big bang, is because it fits with our logic (or lack of supreme understanding), that something cannot come from nothing, and that everything has to have started somewhere.

We are so insistent that it's true, and yet we still do not really know.

Is that not as insane as religion? I have faith in something that is not 100% proven to be true.

as i was saying, ying and yang. same coin different sides. circular reasoning is inescapable. we are in some sort of purgatory/hell LOL!!! a broken record, on repeat indefinitely. IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE DUDEEEE.

Very well written.

But the impression I'm still getting from the argument is, an assumption is an assumption.

So I packed my lunch for tomorrow and left it in the fridge. I assume it will be there in the morning. It's not 100% certain. There's a chance someone could break into my house and steal it.

Are you guys saying that assuming that my lunch will still be there, the same as assuming (or having faith in) anything else?

yes because if your lunch wasn't there, you'd really start to question what the hell happened (not a good example, but soundy and yodamaster are much better at explaining things at a practical level than i am, ill leave it to them to do that).
yes, if it comes down to it, an assumption is an assumption. In the vastness and infinite possibilities of the cosmos, a small change of assumption of any kind, will lead to a very different result down the road.
like soundy says, you have already taken a stance. even if god himself appeared, he would have a hard time convincing you. so i doubt 3 strangers on the internet can do very much convincing lol.

I think it's more of a way of processing information than anything else.
for those that rely on their 5 senses and solid examples (use this as a primary function in life)... vs people using primarily intuition and abstract theories (and 5 senses come secondary)... one can never fully understand the other. and vice versa. but both, can't deny there is a flaw in logic somewhere (a flaw is a flaw.. it affects everything down the road), and we make up this flaw by replacing it with blind faith. that's what i'm getting at.


I am trying to take a true neutral stance... the more i learn and discover, the more i feel that there is no absolute truth to anything.
amongst the chaotic nature of reality, neutrality has the clearest picture of them all.

Both requires belief...Religion is just the easy way out.

I'm not on either side, I'm just trying to state things from your average athiest's standpoint, since it's more measurable to argue.

Agnostic. I like it.

axioms can never be proven to be certain.
Science is based on axioms. Therefore, Science can not be proven to be certain.
Religion is based on axioms. Therefore, Religion can not be proven to be certain.
Conclusion, Both Science and Religion can never be proven to be certain.

Is this what you mean?

I think i meant more:

axioms need faith to work.
Science is based on axioms. Therefore, Science requires faith to work.
Religion is based on axioms. Therefore, Religion requires faith to work.
Conclusion, Both Science and Religion are based on axioms, and both require the same faith to work.

You're putting the same fuel into different vehicles.

I'm actually LOL'ing. Wife thinks I'm nuts.

She just has to take it on faith that I'm not...

So you're saying faith is faith?

Going back to my lunch example... by having faith that my lunch won't move from the fridge, is the same as having faith that there is/isn't a God?

I think what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is the difference in calibres.

Science has a million different ways to demonstrate a million different things that people can see before their eyes, (still based on assumptions/belief/faith/whatever) so it's easier for people to accept.

Religion is based on stories that no one really knows the true origins of.

Again, I'm not on the athiest side, it's just easier to strike up debate from here.

If what you're trying to say is belief is belief, assumptions are assumptions, faith is faith... then I understand... I guess.

I'm going to admit that I do not have an answer, something about the wording of that confuses me.

My arguement is that faith exists in us whether you believe in a god or not, I do not wish to take a side. I'm happy arguing with myself over certain scientific theories, but I do not believe or disbelieve in god. I would call my self agnostic, but I do not know if being so interested in science would qualify me for that term.


To someone who does not know of science or religion, we might seem to be the same. A story is a story, it might be a book, or it could be the background radiation of our universe. Both stories are read by people that were not there to witness their creation, thus we can only assume or believe that something is true by looking back at what is left behind in that story. To my knowledge, Jesus does not walk among us at the present time, therefore all religious groups have to fall back on is a book. Scientifically minded people have a universe full of matter and energy to research, but the true knowledge surrounding it's origin eludes us to this day.

I did not see Jesus on the cross, nor did I see the birth of our universe, I will not disbelieve or believe entirely in either, but the system of faith still runs through me, whichever path I choose to follow.


I... guess.

We're going into semantics, but the qualifying phrase according to wikipedia's definition of axiom is "as true without controversy" An example would be water H20 -> A premise that is so evident that it is without controversy.

Another thing that confuzzles me is Godel's theorem. Wouldn't this be an axiom in of itself? (if one is to read it as a philosophical theorem).

Secondly, isn't Godel's theorem purely based on the mathematical model of axioms, not philosophical ones?

Just to add on how ludicrous it is to compare Religion to Science...I think we need to explore the sociological, psychological and historical context of religion; why people believed there was a god of thunder, for example. Wouldn't the obvious educated assumption would be, because they didn't know what thunders and lightning were? Wouldn't this defeat the whole "faith" argument since their "faith" was rooted in ignorance?

Levels of faith - in anything - are a very personal thing, based on experience and circumstances.

To use your lunch example: assume you have roommates that you trust implicitly. You know that if you leave your lunch there, you can have a pretty solid "faith" in those roomies that they won't take your lunch.

On the other hand, if I'm visiting and I leave my lunch there... I have no basis on which to hold any faith that they, or you, won't gobble it the moment I turn my back.

To you, your experience tells you that you can have faith in your roomies' integrity. I don't have that same experience, so I'll be more likely to question that faith.

You can tell me all you want that my lunch is safe... how much faith I place in that claim then depends on how well I know you, how far I trust you... perhaps in how well I can "read" you.

And still, to you, your faith that my lunch is safe is unshakable, and you can't understand my concern.

The point is, "faith" to you is not the same as "faith" to me, or to Ulic, or to anyone else.

I know I'm not being overly clear here, but it's late and the ciders are talking to me and I'm not feeling entirely coherent myself.

Or maybe that's just a story I'm telling to cover my lack of eloquence... you'll just have to accept it on faith, that I have a better idea what I mean than I'm able to articulate at the moment.

Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

Actually I would say it's pretty hard for someone in a religion to turn away from it.

If this helps look at the logic behind science.
Let go of an apple and it falls
Repeat however many times with the same result
Then conclude that apples will fall every time because that's what it did before.
But normally we know that the past doesn't predict the future but in these cases we have faith that there are laws in nature that cannot be broken though we have no reason to believe this other than that they haven't been broken yet. So that's the part of science that's based on faith. Nothing wrong with the measurements and other observations, it's just the part about getting to the conclusion.
Atheist btw

Depends on the religion I guess.
I would think that most people are "born" into religion. They grow up with it because their family believes in it.

I think where you're getting a little confused is by comparing something 'trivial' to the axiom of the other.

For example, when Ulic says that religion's axiom is God, he doesn't mean that science's axiom is 'my sandwich won't disappear from my eyes'.

You'd have to compare scientific axioms with religious axioms.

scientific axioms include broad, basic assumptions about the the nature of the world around us, which can't be proven, but are believed to be true, and are believed to be constant.

Some examples:
- Memory. You could NEVER prove that your memory worked. The world could have been here 5 mins ago, and the rest was just implanted. You'd have to use your memory to debunk this.. so it can't be proven absolutely.

- The consistency of nature (some of the guys have mentioned this). Why should what has happened before indicate what will happen again? A basic axiom is that the same experiment under the same conditions will yield the same result.

Those two are just off the top of my head, and probably not the best ones.. Once you unravel the moral axioms, philosophical axioms, and other areas.. it's gets pretty complicated pretty fast..

the ones that convert later in life are way worst. During Jurassic Park, he yelled out, "You actually believe in dinosaurs?"

But yeah pf course there's science guys who want to burn yoou at the stake for saying science is based on faith

Faith, religion, science.... who gives a shit, I'm still trying to figure out women beyond just tits and ass............ just when you think you've got it covered or figured out.......... what is an axiom again?

Whatever it is, women are the farthest thing from it.

Respectfully disagree
 

Science is falsifiable, religion is not. Scientists congratulate each other if they can be proven wrong, religion conflicts result in bloodshed (because each claims to possess the absolute truth).

Faith is believing in something without evidence, fundamentally different from the scientific approach.

Newtonian physics give way to Einstein which is more accurate at high speed, we progress and learn. Is it the same as the faith in religion?

The example given (axioms) is more in tune with mathematics where we define 1+1=2. Science is different, scientists accept the fact that there are many unknown and they keep searching for more, where as religion is static.


As Bertrand Russell brilliantly said:

“Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved.”

PS All I can say is, when I listen to scientists talk, they make just so much more sense than the clergyman. Have yet to hear a religious figure move me. I have far more respect to scientists than those men in costumes claiming to know everything. I see religion as nothing but politics to control the mass.

I'm not sure if being "falsifiable" is a good thing... but there are certainly plenty of false religions (cults, etc.)

Perhaps you haven't been following the whole "climate change" thing, where any scientist who disputes this "truth" is publicly vilified? Or the whole evolution vs. creation thing, where "evolution" is generally rammed down everyone's throat as unquestionable fact, despite there not actually being one solid "theory" of how the whole thing went down?

No, but that's not the point. This is a perfect example, in fact, of how something in science can be considered "fact"... until something else comes along and proves otherwise. And so there are some things in science - the axoims - that can only be accepted on faith... until something else is found that proves otherwise.

1+1=4 (for extremely large values of 1)

Perhaps you should quote this to the Climate Change<tm> and Evolution<tm> scientists... among others. As I've often said, for some, science itself DOES become a religion.

I've often thought the same thing.

I find it interesting how each side tries to judge the other through their own eyes.

A person of science, will want empirical research on the ideals of religion. How old is the shroud of turin? Is there DNA? Can we carbon date this? Is there PROOF.

But a person of religion will do the same thing. In the face of details and research, they will bring up the hand of god, and his mysterious ways.

This is why I get so annoyed with people that argue so strongly for religion being THE answer, or science being able to explain all. Both sides are being equally obtuse to the other. If some thing, relgion, has existed for thousands of years, and been the answer to so many things for so many generations of people-I think there must be some truth to it.

I'm not willing to say that I am automatically smarter than ALL those that came before me simply because I have, or we have collectively access to more information at our finger tips in the last 100 years through books, libraries and the internet. We can be more informed. I'm willing to look at it with interest.

It's the same for science. It's relatively new, in terms of 'humanity' as a whole. One could say that, of course, 'science' has been with us from day 1. And they are right, but 'science' becoming a school of thought, one to oppose that of religion is a relatively new concept.

This is why I find talking to a group of atheists just as impossible as a group of bible thumpers.

I remember reading, shit....the tenth insight...The Celestine Prophecy when I was younger. A lot of it was a bunch of hooey, but one thing stood out from the book. The author spoke of the path of human interest in obtaining information in the world. We went to religion to provide the answers of what the world was. I'm paraphrasing here. Then we sent out scientists to tell us how the world works. But that's still not enough. Now we want to know why.

I personally believe that the answer to 'why' lies not solely in the hands of scientists, or those of faith. I think it lies in between. To that effect, I don't think you can ever have a right or wrong between men of faith, and men of science. Because neither side can provide the answers to our new questions.

Mind = blown.