I have always found it interesting when people say that they "believe in science but not religion". In my humble opinion and in many ways, there is little difference between the two. That is the reason I have always pursued knowledge of all kinds and have been very careful to avoid the arrogance of making definitive claims. There are few things, in my mind, that differentiate the two (science and religion), at least in some degree. One is the belief that scientific theory (not much different than religious faith in a 'divine' idea) can be proved through experiments; That is, when an effective idea for experimentation can be conceived and realized. However, even then, there have been many scientific 'facts' (theories supposedly proved through experimentation) that have later turned out to be false and/or debunked. I suspect that scientific theory is, in and of itself, another 'version' of religion - albeit one that doesn't deal with divinity and supreme beings. It tends to rely more on the achievements of humans, inasmuch as they are able to create from and understand the materials with which they share their existence. Scientific fact, well...that is still a very unreliable claim in many cases (the main one being mentioned above) and, like all things in a world plagued with unethical, self-serving, capitalistic people (including scientists), there are many other reasons why one should be critical of 'scientific fact. So, I suppose all we have available to us is faith - be it in the divine...or in the accomplishments, honesty and reliability of human achievement (which often leaves much to be desired). After all, we are only as capable of measuring faith as the tools we have to work with allow us to be 0 whether they are lab equipment, books, hearts and/or minds (minds being the things that are best kept open). 😊👍 Here is an interesting article:

I have always found it interesting when people say that they "believe in science but not religion". In my humble opinion and in many ways, there is little difference between the two. That is the reason I have always pursued knowledge of all kinds and have been very careful to avoid the arrogance of making definitive claims. There are few things, in my mind, that differentiate the two (science and religion), at least in some degree. One is the belief that scientific theory (not much different than religious faith in a 'divine' idea) can be proved through experiments; That is, when an effective idea for experimentation can be conceived and realized. However, even then, there have been many scientific 'facts' (theories supposedly proved through experimentation) that have later turned out to be false and/or debunked. I suspect that scientific theory is, in and of itself, another 'version' of religion - albeit one that doesn't deal with divinity and supreme beings. It tends to rely more on the achievements of humans, inasmuch as they are able to create from and understand the materials with which they share their existence. Scientific fact, well...that is still a very unreliable claim in many cases (the main one being mentioned above) and, like all things in a world plagued with unethical, self-serving, capitalistic people (including scientists), there are many other reasons why one should be critical of 'scientific fact. So, I suppose all we have available to us is faith - be it in the divine...or in the accomplishments, honesty and reliability of human achievement (which often leaves much to be desired). After all, we are only as capable of measuring faith as the tools we have to work with allow us to be 0 whether they are lab equipment, books, hearts and/or minds (minds being the things that are best kept open). 😊👍 Here is an interesting article: - We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.