"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>> Religion is defined as a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with
> arbor and faith (Marrium Webster, 10th ed). Science does definitely fit
> this definition.
Nope. Science is a method of determining provisional information about
observable phenomena. It is not a "cause" or a "system of beliefs" and neither
"arbor" nor "faith" have any role in science.
1. Science and the knowledge obtained via science is available to anyone, not
just the "elect".
2. Anyone with inclination and ability can independently verify the
[provisional] claims made via science.
2a. That is an essential part of the scientific process, where independent
verification of claims is encouraged. Whereas in religion, any questioning of
dogma is at least strongly discouraged; it it usually labeled "heresy" or
"blasphemy" and is typically "punished" by torture and/or by murder.
2b. Note that science only deals with testable claims about observable
phenomena. Religions purport to be authorities on untestable claims regarding
unobservable propositions as well as observable phenomena.
3. "arbor and faith" are characteristic of dogma, which has no place in science.
Consult your *Merriam* Webster re. the definition of "dogma".
4. Fundamentalist religions in particular, others to a slightly lesser extent,
claim that their dogma is unchanging and inviolable. Science, per contra, only
progresses by abandoning old models when they are found to be inadequate in the
light of new discoveries; e.g. Aristotelian dynamics was replaced by
Galilean/Netwonian dynamics, which has subsequently been supplanted by
Relativity.
For a more thorough exposition of the differences, see Nobel Prize-winning (for
literature) philosopher Bertrand Russell's "Religion and Science", ISBN
0-19-511551-1.
