1. nikita_kotov says:

Science, as a social institution, partly fulfills some of the functions of religion for the layman.�

But so far there is no evidence that the laws of nature take effect only after the number of believers in them reaches a certain value. Otherwise, how would it be possible to open them?

UPD: You can even give a detailed explanation. Let's assume that everything is exactly as Vyacheslav tells us. How should such a universe work? Here I am throwing pebbles from the roof. I want to understand how everything works. I have no faith in the fact that there is an acceleration of gravity equal to 9.8 meters per second. After all, I am Galileo – not that I, no one in the world, do not believe in the existence of an acceleration of gravity equal to 9.8 meters per second, moreover, everyone who is more or less aware (that is, a couple of thousand people on the planet out of several hundred million) knows that there is no acceleration, Aristotle did not write anything about it. And yet, I throw stones and find that the acceleration is there. I write to my friend, who at first says that I'm a moron and Aristotle didn't have anything like that, but after persuasion checks – and also finds the acceleration of free fall. And it also calculates that it is 9.8 meters per second. And if they swam to Africa at this moment, found an African there and asked him to leave the pebbles, even he would find that there is an acceleration of gravity equal to 9.8 m/s.

So how can you, Vyacheslav, explain this incredible phenomenon, if the world works according to the principles that you have voiced? Where does the acceleration of gravity come from before I discovered it? Why isn't it a constant, and not the deceleration of free fall? How did objects fall before? Why does everyone who tries to refute me by repeating my experience, those who don't believe me, still get exactly my result, although they don't believe me and there are no believers in my law at all, because I am its discoverer?

You'll have to answer these questions if you want your idea to gain any credibility.

2. nikolay_bobin says:

There are some questions that can be answered very briefly, or you can… write a thick book.

This question is just like that.

Therefore, I will give only a short answer: science is based on obtaining knowledge, and religion is based on faith. This is their fundamental difference, and therefore science cannot be a religion in any way. Knowledge excludes Faith. The opposite is not true, because Faith does not exclude Knowledge, but only presupposes it.

“I live in Russia” is knowledge. “Russia will exist forever” is a belief.

“Man appeared in the course of the evolution of life on the planet” – this is knowledge. “Man is made of clay in the image and likeness of God” – this is faith.

“If I jump off the roof of a ten – story building, I will crash” – this is knowledge.

“If I jump off the roof of a ten – story building, I won't break” – this is faith.

Some will notice that hypotheses in science or the desire of a scientist to realize the possibility of knowledge can also be called faith?!

Yes. This is faith. But not a religious belief. The scientist's faith presupposes that his knowledge will be correct. And this belief is sometimes realized: discoveries are made, beautiful theories are created that give not only an explanation, but also the possibility of controlling the world in the broadest sense of the word.

And here there is a fundamental difference between the scientist's faith and religious faith: if the scientist makes a mistake, he will reconsider his knowledge or ideas and try to find out again what his faith pushes him to do.

Religious faith does not tolerate denial or even error. The latter is fatal to her.

3. yuri_tikhonravov says:

Recently, I have been increasingly inclined to believe that life is a chaos in which there are no universal laws. There are only amorphous and unstable islands – for a mock variety-that create temporary illusions of conformity to the law. Pareidolia and Apophenia are our true deities, ruling our world undividedly and succeeding each other almost like day and night. No one knows anything, can't do it, and can't do it. Technology is impossible; if something happens, it's only by accident. Technical success is the result of an inhuman will, driven by an unbearable inner terror, which has temporarily imposed on reality the absolutely fantastic ideas that are the essence of so-called science. If this will runs out, the triumph of science will also end. In fact, some already see how all this is coming to its end.

4. vyacheslav_trofimov says:

No, it is not. They differ in the method of cognition.

Religion uses postulates that are always valid, they are not discussed. These postulates, as well as the religion itself, cannot be verified, it is impossible to doubt it. If you don't like something, you will be punished.

How does the scientific method of cognition work? First, a theory is created, at this stage it is similar to religious postulates, the differences begin further. This theory is consistent with other already known theories. Then they begin to test it with experiments. It is very important that this theory can be tested, otherwise it makes no sense. When all this is consistent with each other, the scientific work is shown to the world. Discussions begin in the scientific community. Everyone is looking for either confirmation or refutation of the theory. The theory will be considered correct and working until it is refuted.

In summary, there is no room for doubt in religion, and therefore for development. You must take everything on faith, otherwise you will be punished. In science, disputes are constantly going on, it develops only through doubts, the search for something new. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science.

Now it is a popular opinion that science is a kind of religion where everything is taken on faith, because when people hear about Newton's laws, they do not run to find mistakes, but really take it on faith. The point here is that science is now so advanced that even scientists are only good in a certain area. An ordinary person's life is not enough to independently check all the achievements of science. But this is not necessary, because in every field of science there are people who will do it for you. All you need to know is how the scientific approach works and that this is how all scientific achievements are tested. This approach may change one day, but right now it is most effective at confirming or refuting theories.

Things take a different turn if you're a conspiracy theorist. In this case, you should first work out this point. But that's a different story altogether.

5. andrey_larionov says:

according to your faith let it be done to you

Not at all about the formation of the laws of nature. This is about breaking the laws of nature.

This phrase was spoken by Jesus when the blind asked Him to heal them.

When something happens, for example, healing, everyone can count as he believes is true, one will think-here is a miracle, through my prayer God cured me, the other will think-what a pleasant coincidence or here I am and recovered as it should be (runny nose, treat it or not treat it will pass in a week).

A miracle happens only if you believe in it, and not as proof of disbelief. And if you asked, or just needed, and then decided that what came true came true on its own, then this is no longer a miracle.�

So remember, do not betray, if you asked and it happened according to your faith, then be honest, remember that you asked, believed. Changed your mind about what happened, do not discredit what happened.

Remember that to those who asked for a miracle, Jesus: “sternly said to them,' Take heed that no one knows.'

Even when you know for sure, there is something deeply ugly and unworthy when a person says: “I know it's not Santa Claus, but my parents …”.

6. dmitry_zernov says:

@Yuri Mishenkov, the evidence on which science is based is based on logic, which in reality is based on a kind of” social contract”, widely accepted by a narrow circle of conventions.

here I mean that logic is not at all a universally recognized, fundamental system of terms for everyone, which is why there are people today who paranoically find the most outrageous confirmations of the most insane hypotheses, which for them are not hypotheses at all, but axioms,— that is, their method is unscientific in the academic sense, their logic is retro-intelligent, or as it is correct in Russian.. from the heat, in general, it moves-unnatural.

although, again, what can we say about naturalness? it is enough just to think about the meaning of the fundamental operands of modern science for the worm of doubt to start its work. As Mr. Gasset said (I finally found someone who shared an idea that had occurred to me for a long time),— cogito ergo cognitum est. that's all.

that is, thinking does not confirm our existence at all, but only the existence of thought. and even this is not an axiom at all— Messrs. de Carte and Augustine still allowed themselves some assumption, claiming in this sense more than is possible, being scientifically honest. although, then what kind of science can there be? you can say that this is, in a way, logical egoism ..)

by the way, the word axiom means only worthy, that is, it has a subjective connotation, and the word theorem means a God-given thought at all. well, the word religion can be translated as a worldview.

I haven't used any reference books, so there may be some inaccuracies in the details, but you understand the essence-everything objective is a fantasy, a religion.

7. vary_green says:

No, it is not. Science goes blindfolded and ear-plugged, it doesn't believe in theism or atheism. Her method is to try, define, and sort everything. And only what she has learned she accepts as truth.

In the Bible, this method of thinking (knowing) is called the Spirit of Truth, the helper.

8. oleg_malashonok says:

“Radish horseradish is no sweeter” or “where there are two, but from a casket, there is no sign of a crown, but where there is a falcon in the sky, there is unity in voices.”

Let me put it another way: “A mind without a heart is the dullness of thoughts, with a heart-light, knowledge of strings. Together, their union is one to the silver hairs.”

9. alexander_beskorovayny says:

Yes, it is… There is not a single statement of science that has not been refuted over time, so in fact it is an ever-changing concept, not the truth. Science will search for truth forever, so you should not rely too much on it in the search for truth, God, yourself.

10. yuri_novikov says:

Previously, science was a part of religion, which was engaged in applying the acquired knowledge in real life. But then science decided to take the place of religion, to supplant it. And she created the myth of her infallibility, of her omniscience and omnipotence. Many people still believe in it.

11. sergey_bochkarev says:

No it is not. The functionality is different. Science studies the world. Its goal is to explore the world and create a convenient tool for interacting with it. Religion is already one of the tools of this interaction. Not always convenient and eerily primitive. But this is the result of attempts to understand the world by a primitive, even then, person.

12. oleko_bor says:

Science is not a form of religion, if by religion we mean faith in God or in the supernatural.

But science, like religion, is a form of faith. Religion is built on the basis of faith in God, science is built on the basis of faith in Being, i.e. in existence. And in particular in the existence of an external objective world. In the East, they do not believe in God (the creator) or in Being (existence), they believe in Brahman (the Absolute).

However, this is not a sign that all these systems are meaningless fantasy. Faith is the foundation of every world we have the courage to live in.

“I can't think of a better epithet than ‘religious’ for believing in the rational nature of reality to the extent that it is accessible to the human mind” – A. Einstein.

13. pavel_petrov says:

well, you can check everything and make sure . only basically, if people check, then something basic, basic, concluding from this that the more complex and confusing laws and principles of science are true. This is how science differs from religion.

14. karavaev_ruslan says:

Now science has become a religion. And Einstein Is The Main Prophet Of The Big Bang. And Hawking is the prophet of the Black Hole. There are still a lot of adepts out there, but they're all either freaks or Jews.

15. vasily_ivanovich says:

science and religion contradict each other, how can one be part of the other? funny ))

The scientific method of cognition of the real world creates working theories with ONE HUNDRED percent predictive power in the field of application. For example, a good computer always allows you to write such a funny question as the author's.

And religion is exactly the opposite, based strictly on non-existent unverifiable fairy tales. Never under any circumstances (zero percent!) it is impossible to prove that a certain phenomenon was created by God, and of course it cannot be repeated.

Therefore, Reality and Science are certainly not a” variety ” of Fairy Tales and Religion.

A bald spot is not a type of hairstyle, but a lack of hair )) Atheism is not a form of faith, but a refusal to use fairy tales.

16. nikolay_ugrin says:

Of course not.But throughout human civilization, science has often been in the service of religion, and it is only in the last two centuries that secular science has completely alienated the cultists.Although the church has preserved and is developing many scientific institutes, the scientific potential of which is not so insignificant..

17. nikolay_kovalevsky says:

There is a scientific method in science. Brief summary: building a theory based on observations and experiments that have repeatability of results, applying logic to drawing conclusions and creating terms. Science aims to obtain objective information about the world.

Religion is based on books and faith. Faith differs from knowledge in that it does not come from observing real objects and processes in the world, but is transmitted orally and in writing. Once you check that 2+2=4, you don't need to believe it anymore. Conversely, you can believe that 2*2=5, check, and stop believing when you find out that it is still 4. Religious faith is more difficult, since questions of the existence of the Creator, the origin of people, and other world structures are not easily provable or refutable. In a discussion between a believer and an atheist, there is a misunderstanding due to the unwillingness of the believerзнать knowing and unwillingness of an atheist to take his word for it.�

Knowledge and faith have one thing in common – they are people's needs. Believing is easier, knowing something is more difficult, because you can't learn and understand everything. Faith gives a sense of certainty, knowledge gives an understanding of the presence of uncertainty in the future. Take the same combinatorics, with minimal familiarity with it, you will no longer be able to say that everything is predetermined – there are too many options for combining different factors. A simple example: the Go board has more options for developing the game than there are atoms in the Galaxy. And life is more complicated than the game of Go.