The difference between science and religion

[Spendulus]

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

Frankly on this thread I have not seen much understanding either of the nature of science or religion. Although as you point out, the noise to signal ratio may be so high as to make it impossible.

[1713569203]

1713569203

[1713569203]

1713569203

[1713569203]

1713569203

[Moloch]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?

[BADecker]

....
I assume you mean math/science is fact-based not faith-based... math/science is based on facts which you can show to another person... I can show you that 1 + 1 = 2... I can show you how to do an experiment that proves the Earth is spherical... science shows you the evidence, rather than asserting claims without facts or evidence which can be shown to someone (the way religion does it)

Science is based on observations, and the scientific hypothesis.

This is different than "facts."

Math is based on mathematical proofs.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?

You can't even show that 1+1=2, because it doesn't. Why not? Because numbers are abstract.

Does one apple plus one orange equal two fruit? No! Because languages are abstract ideas just like numbers.

One plus one never equals two, because everything is different than everything else... at least by the space that it occupies.

Why do we use 1 + 1 = 2 (math, in other words)? Because we can make things happen that are against nature. And ultimately doing so will destroy us all, and nature right along with us if nature can't destroy us first.

[cryptothief]

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

[Spendulus]

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

[cryptothief]

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

[BADecker]

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

The extremely interesting thing about this religion evolution is, Martin Luther took the Roman Catholic stuff, back to what it was in the early days of Catholicism. The evolution was back, not forward into something else. Along with Luther were other reformers who did the same.

[Spendulus]

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.

[af_newbie]

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.

Eventually, science will explain what causes people to believe in these ridiculous religious dogmas.  One day, science will figure out the cure so that people who suffer from this condition can get some help.

As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

[Spendulus]

....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

As I mentioned, those religions which are adaptable seem to prosper much better than those which are rigid. But I used "adaptable" in a very general sense, not just science vs religion.

Note that some religions historically utterly collapsed when people with advanced tech came into the picture. Why?

How did Cortez conquer 20,000 Aztec soldiers with 400 men? Read about this and you will see the collapse of the entire Aztec belief structure, not a story of a military victory. (caution, it's a pretty bloody and sordid story).

My point: Aztec religious beliefs WERE NOT ADAPTABLE.

[af_newbie]

....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

...

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

[CoinCube]

Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".

Actually Genesis says God made man from dust. Interestingly modern scientific theory is inching towards that same conclusion.


Scientists believe that we may have had our beginnings in CLAY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

[CoinCube]

What is the difference between science and theology
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-difference-between-science-and.html?m=1

I have been reading and thinking about the nature of science, and its definitions, for a long time - probably since I saw Bronowski's TV programme The Ascent of Man in 1972.

Any comprehensive definition must be minimal - in particular there is no characteristic scientific method, nor mode (i.e. Popper was wrong, although interesting and useful) - nor does science have any essential attribute of being self-correcting, nor is science necessarily observational or empirical.

And so on.

So what made the difference between science and what went before?

*

This is the idea: Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.

*

So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.

But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.

*

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.

*

NOTE ADDED: in sum, to put it another way, progress in science was essentially a consequence of the quality and quantity of man-hours dedicated to the aim of discovering truth about the world using reason and excluding religious explanations.

When the most able truth-seeking people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from theology into philosophy (from, say, the twelfth century onwards in the West) and then from philosophy into science (from, say, the seventeenth century) - this shifted achievement in the same direction.

And when the most able people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from truth-seeking and into other things (especially careers) (from, say, the early-middle twentieth century) this shifted achievement into... well, bureaucracy and media distractions.

[darklus123]

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Poof? so you think that atheism is the answer? Even a great scientist like Einstein believes in  the

pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.

Therefore teaching children truth is not a child abuse.


Science has nothing to do with God's existence. Therefore there is no point in using science to prove that if God really existed or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Einstein may have a different view about God but still he believes that there must be an entity that created everything. Also believing that god did not exist because of the lack of evidence cannot make you more knowledgeable than to those who believed.


As I quote

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

It is a pure slap to an atheist lol.


Now I have learned that

Religions believes in science
Science does not believe in religion.
Religion respected science views, On the other hand some atheist uses Science or even Scientist to disrespect religion.


Now I still remember your question which is the honest position?

[CoinCube]

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

[af_newbie]

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.

[BADecker]

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.

You can't do anything without God - not even belong to a social club - because He penetrates everything if only for the purpose of holding it all in existence. Go to the Scientific proof that God exists? thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 - to see that God exists, and how He controls everything.

People who do not understand that the Earth in its present, general physics form is only about 6,000 years old, might have skills that make them worth hiring, even if they have a different religion than you.

[Bunsomjelican]

Science for me was came from knowledge, you are exploring something on which are creating by God almighty. Whether it is a creatures from land, sea, heaven, and universe and etc. While religion was a kind of group organization that has their won belief about the creator of all things in this earth.

[bivaetjetakoe]

My friend, hello, I really liked your opinion. About religion I completely agree, do you think that religion will ever disappear from our land?

[Moloch]

Even a great scientist like Einstein believes in the "pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza."

Einstein was not a religious scholar, it was not his area of expertise.  Anyway, he was most definitely not a christian.



Einstein was also a Socialist...



And extremely anti-capitalism