Atheists: Your thoughts on this quote please?

Question

This may have been said buy someone smart once but I do not know who. When I read it I read it here not as a quote;

"Religions offer cerntainty without proof, Science offers proof without certainty."

I have no idea who is going crazy with the thumbs down ><

Thank you Kjelstad.

Answer 1

So like, every religion is the only right one regardless of how many contradictions its holy text has, but science looks at actual facts and will change as new facts become available? Yeah, that seems quite accurate to me.

Answer 2

Why are you asking atheists? As you see by the responses, everyone's giving his or her opinion, regardless of belief.

About the quote, I think it's false, it just sounds like a truism.

Religions should offer guidance and faith, an explanation beyond science about the purpose of life, about a power beyond our own, about spiritual growth. That something is based on faith & not scientific proof doesn't make it certain. The problem is when religion is used to support totalitarianism & it becomes a sin to question not only dogma, but anything and *anyone* related to the church. It's a symbol of a weak religion, backwards in thinking and more interested in control than faith.

Science should offer knowledge and logic, each bit of information forming the basis for new development. It's always growing and changing as those same bits are re-analized and either reinforced or disproven. We have a thirst to understand ourselves and the universe around us, first the parts we can touch and see, then more and more, including aspects we can only guess at. We develop ways to reach what's beyond our own senses, use clues to infer more and build on those. What starts as a castle of cards can become a fortress of certainty as techniques are developed and new facts discovered. The possibility of future discoveries doesn't make those certainties any less so, in fact it gives science its beauty.

Trying to dismiss either science or religion from our lives is an impossibility, we're human after all both are part of our world, but we should all fight against absolutism. The moment someone tries to sell you the idea that their way is the only true one and no questioning is allowed, run for the hills, they're only about control, no matter how the picture is painted.

Answer 3

Religions offer belief or faith, which is an overwhelming sense that something is right, facts don't come into it, they are only useful if they sustain the belief.

Certainty is a state of mind that comes after carefully considering all evidence, you have the absolute conviction that something is true, there are no other alternatives possible and a "fact" is established. Faith would not come into that process and for it to take place rigorous steps would have to taken to exclude bias from belief contaminating the thought process.

Science has methods which seek to test ideas or hypotheses and place them in relation to the rest of knowledge. Universities have rigorous processes of peer review to establish what is and isn't true. Finally if a fact is not true then the use of it in the real world would fail. Scientific knowledge is tried and tested in the real universe.

For example E=MC squared - Einstein's equation for the equivalence of energy and matter and its relationship with space time gives rise to all sorts of ideas and observations most incompatible with Biblical Literalism. It also produces the means to create nuclear power and atomic weapons, something that no other form of knowledge can do.

At the moment many religious literalists are picking and choosing parts of science, conveniently ignoring the fact that many of us would be dead if it wasn't for scientific medicine. Many are in denial as to the nature of the world as revealed by science. Science is a framework, and a pretty tight one at that. there may be discussion about minor points, but many fields of knowledge are very well established. However the public and churches have not kept up. Science offers the best certainty that is available and also has the humility to revise theory if new observations become available. Would that many religious sects could do the same. The world would be a much more forgiving and I dare say Christian world if believers could be more pragmatic and open to the wonders of the real world, a book (in their view) also created by God and more rich and wonderful than any written words.

Answer 4

Ashley Montagu from the introduction to Science and Creationism, “…science begins where bigotry and absolute certainty end. The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.”

This reminds me of another quote by unknown that is probable a spin off of this quote.

Philosophy is full of questions that may never be answered
Religion is full of answers that may never be questioned.

I love that one because "may never" is so different in each of them.

The first part of your quote is obvious, but the second part I think people are taking the wrong way. Science looks at the proof, but does not turn it into dogma. It is valid.

Thanks for pointing out where one of my favorite quotes came from. Or at least good proof of where it came from, though I am not certain.

Answer 5

I'd say that it nails the concepts dead on.

"Religions offer certainty with out proof" means that believers have faith in their religion, and don't need proof that it's right. They believe it. Papal infallibility is one example; prayer is another. You can't prove that either one does what it claims to do, yet the believers say it does, and cannot be dissuaded from their position.

"Science offers proof without certainty" means that science and the scientific process tests ideas, theories, etc, to see if they are valid. If the concept doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, it is changed or thrown out, and replaced with something that does stand up to testing. The theory of evolution is an example. The evidence strongly supports the theory, but without being able to travel through time, we can't be absolutely certain that it worked that way. The best we can do is say that this theory fits the available facts better than anything else.

Answer 6

Essentially correct but it needs unpacking. Most bumper sticker slogans are too simple to convey a complete idea. For example: the "certainty" the scientist is missing is actually a willingness to revise a theory or interpretation on the basis of new information. And some religious people are well aware that certitude is the enemy of real faith. Still, it's a great discussion starter. If only more people were willing to actually start it.

Answer 7

Actually, some religions are quite scientific (Advaita Vedanta, Yogacara Buddhism, etc.). But in general religion offers nothing but guesses.

Science, on the other hand, ONLY offers certainty (since it is inductive) and never proof (which is a deductive term).

Answer 8

It's a false statement, even within the same church, ppl have their own interpretations.

"Science offers proof without certainty"
That depends on whats being studied.
While somethings change when new facts are discovered, other things have been certainly proven.


I guess the statement could be considered generally true.

Answer 9

Science never professes to provide "proof". It merely offers the best testable explanation of observed phenomena available at the time. Unless, of course, you or I can come up with something better!
Religion, on the other hand, offers no testable evidence for the existence of a "higher" existance and is based on blind faith and superstition, codified by established faiths into cynical and manipulative dogmas.

Answer 10

Science offers proof with no certainty? That`s pretty stupid because the certainty comes from proof.

I think this quote is retarded.

Answer 11

I believe the gist of it is meant to be: Religion states absolute certainties and "facts" with no hypothesis or evidence, Science states hypothesis and evidence without offering absolute certainty or "facts"
(For anyone about to shoot me down with claims of: Of course science offers certainty and facts......look up falsification. You cannot prove a theory correct, only demonstrate its flaws. We "proved" the geocentric theory of the solar system. Then we disproved it......Science may be absolutely right...but we can't prove it other then in our own small sphere of circumstances)