Comments on: In Response to the Assertion That Science is Not Based on Faith http://jameslao.com/2008/02/18/in-response-to-the-assertion-that-science-is-not-based-on-faith/ It's just software. Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:31:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Andrew http://jameslao.com/2008/02/18/in-response-to-the-assertion-that-science-is-not-based-on-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-1153 Andrew Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:07:26 +0000 http://jameslao.com/2008/02/18/in-response-to-the-assertion-that-science-is-not-based-on-faith/#comment-1153 I am no expert in either science or religion; however, it appears to me that one of the biggest problems in the whole debate is that arguments so often reach a point of arguing about the meaning of the words instead of what we actually understand to be the case. The issue of laws or rules is one that comes up time and time again, as is theory, and faith and so on. Science doesn't contend that the universe is restricted by rules in the sense that you and I are restricted, but that the rules science devises to explain the universe are restricted by the way the universe actually operates. The causal relationship is the opposite of that that requires the prior creation of the rules. I am no expert in either science or religion; however, it appears to me that one of the biggest problems in the whole debate is that arguments so often reach a point of arguing about the meaning of the words instead of what we actually understand to be the case.

The issue of laws or rules is one that comes up time and time again, as is theory, and faith and so on.

Science doesn’t contend that the universe is restricted by rules in the sense that you and I are restricted, but that the rules science devises to explain the universe are restricted by the way the universe actually operates.

The causal relationship is the opposite of that that requires the prior creation of the rules.

]]>