Tue
20
Nov '07
What, fundamentally, is the difference between a Church Service and a High School Science Class?
Goals
- House Down Payment Fund:
$32.78 of $10000.00 - Total Savings Goals:
$13532.78 of $37500.00Emergency Fund2007 Vacation*2007 Christmas*Headstone FundCar FundMaternity Leave Fund- House Down Payment ($10000)
- TBWITWW Roth IRA*
- 2008 Christmas ($600/$1000)
- High-Interest Loan
- Morydd Roth IRA*
- 101 in 1001
16 in progress,
and 0 completed
633 days remaining
To me, the fundamental issue is faith. A church service is about faith in the teachings of the church, whereas science is about proving the veracity of the teachings. The scientific method is about the collection and analysis of data to support a conclusion. There is no such process in the Church: most people don't evaluate the scriptures looking to prove or disprove them. Rather, the default position is that those writings are true.
This is highlighted rather well in Scalzi's report from the Creation Museum:
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121
The other difference, generally, is that careful consideration of what is presented is generally discouraged in a church environment. Not always, of course, but the general attitude is "Here's what we believe. This is non-negotiable." Whereas (good) science says "Here's what we understand so far. It's a pretty strong position, supported by lots of experimentation; but if something new comes along we're all willing to revise our opinions."
I'm pretty much with Skippy here. Anything you do requires some modicum of faith. You have to believe that other drivers will not aim for you on the freeway. You have to believe that electricity will do what it's always done and not jump through the light switch and kill you. You have to believe that the foods you have eaten are not going to suddenly poison you when they've nourished you in the past. etc etc etc. In most science classes, You have to believe that your instruments are accurate and consistent. That when the balance says 12 grams it indicates the same thing as it did last time it said 12 grams. And so on.
Because of that, I wouldn't say that faith is a delineating factor. In either situation, you have somebody feeding you information and you need to believe it in order to carry on. The difference is how far the faith takes you in your belief. In Science, you are encouraged to ask questions. To prove time and again that what your teacher says is true. In most religions, questions are discouraged or given pat answers and in many faiths, a need for evidence is a sign of weakness.
The difference is the source. In religion, belief comes from faith. A willingness to believe no matter the evidence or lack thereof. In Science belief comes from doubt. A total unwillingness to believe without consistent, reproducible evidence.
There's a reason I chose a High School science class. At least in my experience, you were not encouraged to question the facts presented. The person at the front of the room told you what the facts were, you were tested on your memorization of the information as presented by the person at the front of the room, and the "experiments" were about as rote as communion. Yes, the actual practice of science is very different from the actual practice of religion, but it seems to me that most people never practice either outside the high school classroom or the church. Both of you (Skippy and Geoff) posited your arguments from the point of view of Church Service vs. Science as-a-whole. So, I think that, so far, no fundamental differences have been presented. Anyone else want to take a shot?
You're wrong. Flat out wrong.
The BASIC teachings are the problem. In religion as a whole on a fundamental level, you're told your facts and nothing else. Even in a high school science classroom you get to test these facts for yourself. Yes- they are controlled experiments but the outcome is repeatable and verifiable. When you mix baking soda and vinegar, you get the gas bubbles to release. every time. And even the most rudimentary science classes teach that these are how the world works and this is how you can see it.
In a typical sunday school class, you're told stories and parables and how they apply to your life but never anything tangible. Nothing beyond faith is given.
If you have an invisible, intangible, being that can affect the world at will but cannot be affected by the world, then you CAN'T disprove or prove its existence. So faith is all you get. In every science class, at least something of it can be proved. More importantly, it can be disproved.
Also- Skippy DID point out a fundamental difference. Science has theories. Things that seem accurate but are open to interpretation and even very major changes in paradigm based on new evidence. When was the last time a religious leader got up and said "This is what we believe happened but you know, if it turns out that God doesn't actually give a shit how many times you masturbate, we'll reconsider."
A subtle sub-point to the distinction that Geoffrey makes is that science adapts its theories to the strongest, most complete theories available at the time. Organized religions often try to adapt the world to the canons espoused by that religion.
I think your characterization of a high school science lesson is a little myopic. Sure, there are some instructors who stifle independent critical thought, but I think there are at least as many that would welcome a lively intellectual discussion with a genuinely interested student working toward a superior understanding of the world around them. In such cases, the two can agree to disagree, until such time as additional evidence bears out on theory over the other. In disagreements of faith, you're either right or wrong, saved or sinner.
Finally, the other big difference between science and religion is that the scientists don't go home and violate the laws of gravity, unlike many church leaders who say one thing but live a drastically different lifestyle behind closed doors! ;)
I heart Skippy.
Besides- you had classes with Mr. Geb. He TOLD us that "these are just what work in most situations. we're still trying to figure out the rest of the situations so this is all subject to change."
I have read the above arguments, and I think, for the most part, you've all got a pretty good handle on things. I would argue that there is a difference between faith and belief, the former involving faith in God (or Spaghetti Monsters, etc.) and the later involving your trust that the sun will rise, the Earth's gravity will not fail, etc. Faith is different from belief in that it requires - well - a leap of faith, a willingness to accept without scientific proof, an opening of the heart. Simple belief requires none of these. If you don't believe the sun will rise, just wait until tomorrow morning. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but it's how I approach the two.
Now, just some quick thoughts on the question, "What, fundamentally, is the difference between a Church Service and a High School Science Class?"
Church services usually involve a greater percentage of people who actually want to be there.
Both have a certain repetitive or cyclical nature to them.
It's rude to talk out of turn in both settings.
You don't get a grade based on your performance or participation at a church service.
Church services are intended to help people find answers that science cannot answer.
Science classes often inspire faith (see notes above) in many people.
Both require you to pay attention or you'll miss the point.
Okay, that's enough. The fundamental difference between a church service and a science class then, is that church requires faith, whereas a science class only needs you to show up.