The difference between science and religion

[Lambowei]

Science has been wrong in the past about hundreds of thousands of things that they validated in the past.

Science has never been wrong. Scientists do make mistakes.

[KingScorpio]

Science has been wrong in the past about hundreds of thousands of things that they validated in the past.

Science has never been wrong. Scientists do make mistakes.

like the data scientists who said trump can't win the election including obama.

[SummerBliss]

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

Dont try to find connection between science and religion as unlike science , religion at times talks about supernatural stuff and things that dont make logical sense. Science talks about things that are mostly supported by experiments , facts and theories. Religion on other hand is about beliefs and at times stories to lead mankind.

[BADecker]

If you took all the religions in the world and destroyed them, in 1000 years there would be entirely new religions, completely different from the old religions...

If you took all the science in the world and destroyed it... in 1000 years there would be EXACTLY THE SAME SCIENCE

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or which deities they currently worship

Newton and Leibniz are credited with the co-discovery of calculus... they did not invent it, they both discovered it at the same time... math/science is universal, religion is not

Dont try to find connection between science and religion as unlike science , religion at times talks about supernatural stuff and things that dont make logical sense. Science talks about things that are mostly supported by experiments , facts and theories. Religion on other hand is about beliefs and at times stories to lead mankind.

Except that few people KNOW if science talks about things that are mostly supported by experiments. Most people believe that other people have done the experiments.


One really good example is evolution. Evolution theory says that mutations happen randomly. But there are only two kinds of random:
1. Pure random, like real, spontaneous miracles;
2. Something that appears random because nobody knows how to follow the progreesion of things that made it happen this way.

If it's pure random, you might as well call it miracles = religion.

If it is standard random, it is only the fact that we don't know because we don't understand how or that it worked in any one instance... because we have never followed the progression.

So, nobody knows that there is any evolution. But science says that there is. So, science is treating evolution the way we treat religion... believing it without having any factual knowledge of it, because nobody has ever seen or recorded the progression of evolution.


Religion is first. Science simply follows in its footsteps.

[Negotiation]

Many people believe science is true. But science, itself, shows that it is often wrong, and the wrong is only figured out later.

That's just false, science has never been wrong.

Scientific theories, however, have limits. Science is not the theories, but the method, the scientific method. And the method is not wrong, it never was. The scientific method indeed is used to limit the validity of the models behind the scientific theories, so that we can afterwards improve it with better theories/models.

Science is true, it's just a method of generating knowledge. Religion is a method of keeping yourself from acquiring any new knowledge at all.

There are many differences between science and religion Nothing can be falsified because both are part of our lives Science influences our daily lives and religion is the belief in supernatural power One cannot be mistaken for two things we can improve in life.

[akram143]

^Science is not complete,new things are discovered everyday by scientists so what has been told by religion could be true but people should have to differenciate facts from blind beliefs.

[BADecker]

^^^ Blind belief in what scientists say, is just the same as blind belief in religion. Notice that religion has books. Many of these books have real facts behind them.

The Bible is a record that goes back to the Beginning. Studying the people of Ancient Israel who wrote the Bible, shows that these people were meticulous and truthful in what they wrote.

Big Bang Theory destroys itself by stating that the past of the universe was radically different than the present. Yet the theory fails to acknowledge that such differences could easily extend to astronomy basics, time and mathematics, things that the theory is based on.

Since BB is scientifically unknown, and believing it is really faith in scientists, why not have faith in the eye-witness reports of the Bible, which are as credible as court reports?

[Lambowei]

^^^ Blind belief in what scientists say, is just the same as blind belief in religion. Notice that religion has books. Many of these books have real facts behind them.

The Bible is a record that goes back to the Beginning. Studying the people of Ancient Israel who wrote the Bible, shows that these people were meticulous and truthful in what they wrote.

Big Bang Theory destroys itself by stating that the past of the universe was radically different than the present. Yet the theory fails to acknowledge that such differences could easily extend to astronomy basics, time and mathematics, things that the theory is based on.

Since BB is scientifically unknown, and believing it is really faith in scientists, why not have faith in the eye-witness reports of the Bible, which are as credible as court reports?

How did you manage to write so much bs. You don't need to believe in anything scientists say because you can go and test it empirically.

[merchantofzeny]

So many ways to differentiate them but for me the major difference is that science deals with the observable (most of the time) while religion deals with unseen forces, spirits and stuff.

In the end for the layman it's pretty much hard to verify both's claims. Not everyone is savvy to scientific knowledge and with religion, well we can't really prove/disprove it.

[BADecker]

^^^ Blind belief in what scientists say, is just the same as blind belief in religion. Notice that religion has books. Many of these books have real facts behind them.

The Bible is a record that goes back to the Beginning. Studying the people of Ancient Israel who wrote the Bible, shows that these people were meticulous and truthful in what they wrote.

Big Bang Theory destroys itself by stating that the past of the universe was radically different than the present. Yet the theory fails to acknowledge that such differences could easily extend to astronomy basics, time and mathematics, things that the theory is based on.

Since BB is scientifically unknown, and believing it is really faith in scientists, why not have faith in the eye-witness reports of the Bible, which are as credible as court reports?

How did you manage to write so much bs. You don't need to believe in anything scientists say because you can go and test it empirically.

But you don't do the tests. Why not? Maybe you aren't interested in the science religion or any other religion. Or maybe you have some other religion that is more important to you than the science religion.

If you happen to be an integral part in some particular science testing, you might have reason to KNOW the particular science involved. If you aren't part of the test, the best you can do is believe, just like you might with any other religion.

In the beginning parts of the Book of Isaiah in the Bible, Isaiah talks about people making idols out of wood, stone, and metal. They use some of the wood, stone, and metal for the things of life... like wood for a camp fire, or stone to build a house, or metal for parts of chariot wheels. Then they go and use some of it for idols, false gods, false religions. Science is a religion.

Nowadays we use wood, stone, and metal for science idols... idols that we believe in without having done the experiments for ourselves, to see how they work. We simply believe, because we trust some scientist... just like we believe a prophet or priest in some religion.

Behind all the engineering that works is God Who set the physics of the universe in place. Since we don't know much about God just by using His science, we really need to examine the science of Who and What He is so that we can use His science more accurately.

[Lambowei]

But you don't do the tests. Why not? Maybe you aren't interested in the science religion or any other religion. Or maybe you have some other religion that is more important to you than the science religion.

If you happen to be an integral part in some particular science testing, you might have reason to KNOW the particular science involved. If you aren't part of the test, the best you can do is believe, just like you might with any other religion.

That's a moronic argument. I'm not relying on beliefs, but on trust. I've studied enough and tested enough myself so that I have trust that other people are doing proper science, also knowing the disastrous effects it would have in their reputation and how difficult is to con scientists.

Yes, I have tested many scientific claims of science, you don't need to be doing cutting-edge research for that. Yes, there's a degree of trust involved with the rest. No, it's not the same as having a religious belief.

Just accept religion is based on beliefs and science is not. It's ok to recognize how crazy religious people are, at least crazy in that aspect as many religious people are still scientifically minded in other aspects of their lives.

[BADecker]

But you don't do the tests. Why not? Maybe you aren't interested in the science religion or any other religion. Or maybe you have some other religion that is more important to you than the science religion.

If you happen to be an integral part in some particular science testing, you might have reason to KNOW the particular science involved. If you aren't part of the test, the best you can do is believe, just like you might with any other religion.

That's a moronic argument. I'm not relying on beliefs, but on trust. I've studied enough and tested enough myself so that I have trust that other people are doing proper science, also knowing the disastrous effects it would have in their reputation and how difficult is to con scientists.

Yes, I have tested many scientific claims of science, you don't need to be doing cutting-edge research for that. Yes, there's a degree of trust involved with the rest. No, it's not the same as having a religious belief.

Just accept religion is based on beliefs and science is not. It's ok to recognize how crazy religious people are, at least crazy in that aspect as many religious people are still scientifically minded in other aspects of their lives.

Since you are the one who has judged the argument to be moronic, it is you who are the m****.

Trust only indicates a direction for your belief. Give your favorite scientist $10,000 in cash to hold for you. Do it without any kind of way you could get your money back if he were untrustworthy. Then we'll see where your trust is really based.

Some of the most popular scientific theories are ridiculous: Evolution and Big Bang for example. Yet some of the most trustworthy scientists believe in them while ignoring the scientific fact of the existence of God.

[Lambowei]

Some of the most popular scientific theories are ridiculous: Evolution and Big Bang for example. Yet some of the most trustworthy scientists believe in them while ignoring the scientific fact of the existence of God.

As you believe that facts like Evolution or scientific theories like the Big Bang are hypothesis, I'll stop arguing with you and follow this advice:

Don't argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

[BADecker]

Some of the most popular scientific theories are ridiculous: Evolution and Big Bang for example. Yet some of the most trustworthy scientists believe in them while ignoring the scientific fact of the existence of God.

As you believe that facts like Evolution or scientific theories like the Big Bang are hypothesis, I'll stop arguing with you and follow this advice:

Don't argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

You have a lot of faith to believe that Evolution is and that Big Bang might be, real... especially since there isn't and can't be any proof for either.

Thank you for your time. I enjoy talking to a religious zealot.

[KennyR]

Religion and science is like a two edged sword.both must not be utilised in improper way. Because science says we can change the world religion says one day the world will change.
Religious oaths synonymously may be related to science findings.but both are not same.
However science has a strong evidence to be proved.likewise certain religion is also has its own unity except few.
Both may coincide but never meant similar.

[BADecker]

The definition of religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t - shows that anyone who is deeply devoted to science has a religion going for himself, in the science that he is deeply devoted to.

[Lambowei]

The definition of religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t - shows that anyone who is deeply devoted to science has a religion going for himself, in the science that he is deeply devoted to.

Religion requires beliefs, science implies no belief.

[BADecker]

The definition of religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t - shows that anyone who is deeply devoted to science has a religion going for himself, in the science that he is deeply devoted to.

Religion requires beliefs, science implies no belief.

A science theory is science, right? But the fact that it is a theory shows, that even though it might be the best science of that time, it can be changed if better science comes along.

So, there is double belief in science theory. There is the belief that it is right (for the present time), while at the same time there is belief that it can be changed (if better science info comes along).

Sounds like a very complex religion to me... full of belief and contradicting belief.

[Lambowei]

A science theory is science, right?

You mean a scientific theory.

But the fact that it is a theory shows

That's your mistake, it's not a theory. A scientific theory is not a theory. It's not an hypothesis either. It doesn't have the same meaning as the coloquial term "theory".

According to wikipedia:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

As the premise of your argument is wrong, all your following arguments are invalidated.

[BADecker]

A science theory is science, right?

You mean a scientific theory.

But the fact that it is a theory shows

That's your mistake, it's not a theory. A scientific theory is not a theory. It's not an hypothesis either. It doesn't have the same meaning as the coloquial term "theory".

According to wikipedia:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

As the premise of your argument is wrong, all your following arguments are invalidated.

No, it's your mistake. Notice that the Wiki article doesn't say that it is not a theory. Wiki only says that it is widely accepted as fact, because a whole lot of work went into it. Also, it might be the best we can do for the present. But it really is a theory, because it can be changed on a moment's notice with new science or evidence.