Replies

You REALLY don’t understand Science, do you? Your physicist friend is right, and is most likely referring to M-theory (what used to be called String Theory). You’d need a particle accelerator the size of the Solar System in order to prove some of the implications of M-Theory. Perhaps the greatest difference between science and religion (other than science being based on observable, repeatable data, i.e. empirical evidence, and religion being entirely faith-based) is that science makes PROGRESS. Religion already claims to know all the answers, and thus it is static. Furthermore, if religion changes, then doesn’t this render it untrue as it has strayed from the original ONE TRUE WORD of God? How many times have religions been updated or changed during history?

OF COURSE a currently-untestable theory is science! Theories are the building blocks of science! The presently-untestable M-theory is a perfect example of this. Just because we can’t think of a way to test it NOW, science doesn’t just give up, or ascribe it all to a mythical supernatural force. Scientists continue to strive to find new ways to test, they just don’t give up, even if it takes generations to find the answer. A good analogy to the state of incompleteness M-theory now finds itself in would be the theory of electromagnetism. In the 19th century, they had theories for electricity and magnetism, and knew that both were related somehow. In 1864, James Clerk Maxwell published a paper with his now-famous equations that showed the relationship clearly. Unlike static religion, science has excellent prospects for solving problems, and, indeed has done more to alleviate human suffering than any religion is remotely capable of.

Science is a search for the ultimate Truth. Theories and hypotheses are presented, published for peer-review, and all those who read it try every way they can think of to DISPROVE the theory. If they cannot, then that hypotheses or theory becomes a stronger theory. Ultimately, as with thermodynamics, enough proof can be amassed to make it into a scientific Law.

The difference is a “never” testable theory would not be science, in my opinion. It could be considered theology or some subset of knowledge or speculative philosophy, but it is no longer in the realm of science. It moves into mathmatics or logic or some such. When energies get so huge that solar systems are required to generate them, I’d say we’ve reached that limit.

I’m a big fan of sci-fi, but I know it’s fiction, not science.

“is that science makes PROGRESS. Religion already claims to know all the answers, and thus it is static. Furthermore, if religion changes, then doesn’t this render it untrue as it has strayed from the original ONE TRUE WORD of God? How many times have religions been updated or changed during history?”

Such a self-contradicting statement! And in both instances, incorrect.
Religion is not “static” for one very good reason- it has founded the principles even you adhere to to this day. “The Protestant Work Ethic” anyone? How about having a working knowledge and even semi-functional understanding of Latin? The Church brought us through the Dark Ages, not the Self.

Aside from that, it is neither simply a tool which contradicts itself, even though it is often the preserver and backdrop of knowledge (many would call this “wisdom”) it does not change it’s message. Jesus has always died for our Sins. And I am as of yet having trouble finding a passage that contradicts science (especially when read in a non-literal fashion, as many of the book’s chapters are writ).