Here are my thoughts on week 2:
If more than one theory fits the evidence, how can we choose between them?
Different theories should make different predictions which can then be tested to identify which should be preferred.
Does science provide us with the best way of answering questions about the world? Does it provide the best way to give ourselves the highest probability of our beliefs being true?
Science is an approach which helps answer questions about the physical world. It doesn't answer questions about beliefs relating to morals or politics i.e. questions about the non-physical aspects of life.
Does a scientific understanding of nature leave any room for religion when it comes to answering questions about the natural world?
Science hasn't resolved every question relating to the natural world so there there is some uncertainty in our understanding. That uncertainty can be filled with many theories in the short term but over time science will identify the most reliable theory - basically there is room for religious possible answers until a scientific understanding has been developed.
Are there questions science will never be able to answer? If so, does this mean we need religion to provide the answers?
There are questions that science has not answered yet and is unlikely to ever do so (I have learnt to never say never!). I don't think we need religion to provide answers to those questions but religions can provide multiple answers to those questions, as can non-religious approaches.
Different theories should make different predictions which can then be tested to identify which should be preferred.
Does science provide us with the best way of answering questions about the world? Does it provide the best way to give ourselves the highest probability of our beliefs being true?
Science is an approach which helps answer questions about the physical world. It doesn't answer questions about beliefs relating to morals or politics i.e. questions about the non-physical aspects of life.
Does a scientific understanding of nature leave any room for religion when it comes to answering questions about the natural world?
Science hasn't resolved every question relating to the natural world so there there is some uncertainty in our understanding. That uncertainty can be filled with many theories in the short term but over time science will identify the most reliable theory - basically there is room for religious possible answers until a scientific understanding has been developed.
Are there questions science will never be able to answer? If so, does this mean we need religion to provide the answers?
There are questions that science has not answered yet and is unlikely to ever do so (I have learnt to never say never!). I don't think we need religion to provide answers to those questions but religions can provide multiple answers to those questions, as can non-religious approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment