Saturday, June 16, 2012

The difference between religion and science

Lawrence M. Krauss, particle physicist at Arizona State University explains how scientists can get excited about being wrong. This is a major difference between science and religion. Clearly explained by philosopher Karl Popper, the falsifiability of an idea in science makes the idea more rigorous while in religion falsifiability weakens the power of church authority. Bully for Lawrence Krauss slipping in this major point at the 2012 World Science Festival in New York City.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

An excerpt from Thomas Paine's discourse to the Theophilanthropists. I understand that just because you've named your blog after Paine doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he said. I just think it's a little ironic, and that Paine makes a few good points:

It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the author.

When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue, or an highly finished painting, where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist.

When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of GOD? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them from the Being who is the author of them.