{"id":45,"date":"2012-10-20T12:07:54","date_gmt":"2012-10-20T06:37:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/saravanan.org\/?p=45"},"modified":"2018-07-29T15:47:15","modified_gmt":"2018-07-29T10:17:15","slug":"religion-philosophy-and-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saravanan.org\/religion-philosophy-and-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Religion, Philosophy and Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Religion,<\/a><\/p>\n

Religion, philosophy and science all try to tackle the same problem: To give us a model of how things are arranged.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Religion uses faith to explain things. \u00a0Faith is a product of feeling. \u00a0‘Feelers’ love to claim that feelings come from the heart. \u00a0People of religion primarily depend on how they ‘feel in their heart’ to tell us how things are arranged. \u00a0Unfortunately, they don’t have a mechanism in place to resolve internal inconsistencies in what they claim. \u00a0Whenever they hit up on a dead end or a conflict, they draw a new path. \u00a0As a result, religion has million different ways to describe and explain things. \u00a0Everything that religion tells us is right and wrong based on who is looking.<\/p>\n

Philosophy try to a better model than the religions. \u00a0It tries to resolve inconsistencies between ideas using tools of logic. \u00a0Unfortunately, philosophy doesn’t have an ‘outside’ way of verifying its proposals. \u00a0So, it often went up the wrong tree. \u00a0For example, Aristotle thought that the brain is an organ used to cool the body. \u00a0And the idea persisted for centuries.<\/p>\n

Science takes off where philosophy leaves and uses mathematical modelling and experimental verification for ironing out the bugs in the ideas. \u00a0That way, science can’t have more than one explanation for a given situation. \u00a0If it does, then the theory is incomplete.<\/p>\n

This is how I see Religion, Philosophy and Science:<\/p>\n