Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
Science does not in any sense differentiate between "fact" and "fantasy"
It differentiates between propositions which are "currently proven" and "not proved"
Science cannot tell us anything about the material reality of religion other than it is not proved by existing science.
|
I know what you mean by "currently proven." But I prefer the terms like "accepted" or "validated," while talking about science. In my vocabulary, the term proof is reserved to logic, as used, for example, by mathematicians. To prove something means to demonstrate that it logically follows from axioms, and from already proven theorems.
Scientists, like many others, also use logic. But their methods of validation are based on experiments and observations, not on logic. Not everything that is logically correct (theoretically predicted) is automatically accepted as truth, in science.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------
P.S.
Theologians, by the way, also validate their claims "by logic only," not by experimental data, like scientists. That is why I think that theology is closer to mathematics than to science. Theological axioms are statements found in holy books. New claims logically consistent with holy books are accepted as valid.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.