The difference between science and religion

[Subbir]

Although there's a conflict between religion and science religion affects science Through religion we've been ready to expose science Science is typically technology-dependent and religion has been around since the creation of the planet. Science has just emerged albeit science is dead religion will never die it'll last for a short time.

[1714688293]

1714688293

[1714688293]

1714688293

[1714688293]

1714688293

[BADecker]

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs

You mean like Lt Gen Leslie Groves, son of a pastor, who directed the Manhattan project? Or J. Robert Oppenheimer, a Jew, who was lead scientist? Or maybe Robert Serber, also a Jew, who wrote The Los Alamos Primer?

Not only were the morals of the religious not trying to stop the development, but they were the ones who were in charge of the development.

Another 100% made up lie brought to you by BADecker. Do you not realize that people know how to use Google? Your nonsense can be refuted by a 5 year old.

No. I mean like the war-mongering, conquering religions of such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Kahn, etc.

If you are going to recognize religion, why not recognize it all rather than a sliver of it?

Even war-mongers like ISIS have the religion of good for their families.

Wake up and realize what religion really is... like the religion of putting your faith in science. Similar to those who bow down to the idols they have made out of wood, metal and stone.

[styca]

Wake up and realize what religion really is... like the religion of putting your faith in science. Similar to those who bow down to the idols they have made out of wood, metal and stone.

One problem I have is that people who dismiss science tend to do so in a religious sort of way, sorry to quote this, I'm just using it as an example... "putting your faith in science"... the thing is, science is a label, what it means is verifiable facts, reproducible every time you repeat the same experiment. When we use the word 'science', we could quite legitimately substitute the phrase 'verifiable facts' instead, because that is what science is. So the quote becomes "Wake up and realize what religion really is... like the religion of putting your faith in verifiable facts." You see how the statement becomes absurd.

Dismissal of science tends only to be partial, too. I would bet that the person dismissing it accepts certain science (certain verifiable facts) as true. Computers and phones and keyboards for example, monitor screens, all products of phenomenally complex science, each generation building on the truths uncovered by the last, over at least a few hundred years back to the industrial revolution, and back past that to Newton and calculus, etc etc.

When someone from the science side of the divide attempts to dismiss religion, they use the same basis - but religion by its nature is not verifiable fact, it's something else, it is faith. So 'there's no evidence' is not really an argument against religion. I am not religious, I can see that it does some bad, religious wars, indoctrination etc, but also that it can do good, bringing people together, offering emotional and spiritual support to those in need of it. Personally I do not believe in god, but that is not my point against religion. My basic problem is the disavowal of responsibility that is implicit when following any religion. If you believe that a god created the universe, created people, and is some sort of omnipotent overseer, then you are in effect retreating into the safety of childhood, you return to a state where there is a parent figure, where you are not responsible for your own actions, your own choices, your own mistakes - it's all on god. So this is why I do not follow a religion, not because I think that god doesn't exist, but because I think that he can be an excuse to hide behind.

[BADecker]

Wake up and realize what religion really is... like the religion of putting your faith in science. Similar to those who bow down to the idols they have made out of wood, metal and stone.

One problem I have is that people who dismiss science tend to do so in a religious sort of way, sorry to quote this, I'm just using it as an example... "putting your faith in science"... the thing is, science is a label, what it means is verifiable facts, reproducible every time you repeat the same experiment. When we use the word 'science', we could quite legitimately substitute the phrase 'verifiable facts' instead, because that is what science is. So the quote becomes "Wake up and realize what religion really is... like the religion of putting your faith in verifiable facts." You see how the statement becomes absurd.

Dismissal of science tends only to be partial, too. I would bet that the person dismissing it accepts certain science (certain verifiable facts) as true. Computers and phones and keyboards for example, monitor screens, all products of phenomenally complex science, each generation building on the truths uncovered by the last, over at least a few hundred years back to the industrial revolution, and back past that to Newton and calculus, etc etc.

When someone from the science side of the divide attempts to dismiss religion, they use the same basis - but religion by its nature is not verifiable fact, it's something else, it is faith. So 'there's no evidence' is not really an argument against religion. I am not religious, I can see that it does some bad, religious wars, indoctrination etc, but also that it can do good, bringing people together, offering emotional and spiritual support to those in need of it. Personally I do not believe in god, but that is not my point against religion. My basic problem is the disavowal of responsibility that is implicit when following any religion. If you believe that a god created the universe, created people, and is some sort of omnipotent overseer, then you are in effect retreating into the safety of childhood, you return to a state where there is a parent figure, where you are not responsible for your own actions, your own choices, your own mistakes - it's all on god. So this is why I do not follow a religion, not because I think that god doesn't exist, but because I think that he can be an excuse to hide behind.

But people die! They need something to hide behind to be saved from their death. The only thing strong enough is God Who created everything.

Consider that science becomes a religion for people when they rely on it. If you do something once or twice, it might not be a religion for you. But when you incorporate it into your life, it becomes a religion. So, the more a scientist is a scientist, the more he has made science a religion for himself.

To see the difference between science and religion, one needs to examine the dictionaries and encyclopedias. The thread title, "The difference between science and religion," is a misnomer. They are part of each other.

[styca]

But people die! They need something to hide behind to be saved from their death. The only thing strong enough is God Who created everything.

No, but this is a great example that perfectly illustrates my point.
Some people find religion a great comfort when considering mortality - and this is good, it helps them, that's fine.
Other people - including myself - believe that one life is all we have, that death defines the limit of our existence, and that after that moment we cease to exist. But we - I, anyway - think this fixed end point is what gives life meaning. If I were to live forever in heaven (or hell), then my actions now would lose relevance. If on the other hand I have say 5 years, 10 years left and then I'm gone, then those years are imbued with so much more meaning, and become so much more valuable. We don't need or indeed want anything to hide behind, we embrace the brute reality of a disinterested universe, and we build our own meaning.
Death can still be terrifying and traumatic whichever side you're on, but different people have different perspectives, that's all.

Consider that science becomes a religion for people when they rely on it. If you do something once or twice, it might not be a religion for you. But when you incorporate it into your life, it becomes a religion. So, the more a scientist is a scientist, the more he has made science a religion for himself.

Can I do the word substitution again? "Consider that verifiable truth becomes a religion for people when they rely on it." No, it doesn't become a religion. Acceptance of verifiable truth is just acceptance of something that you know can be replicated. Religion is faith. Verifiable truth is not. Science is believed not for it's own sake based on faith, but precisely because of doubt, because you can say 'no, that doesn't sound reasonable, do it again, demonstrate it to me again and again so that I can see the cold hard evidence in front of me, and then I'll believe it'. Science demands evidence. It's not faith-based.

"The difference between science and religion," is a misnomer. They are part of each other.

They're not, though. Science relies on evidence. Religion - faith - relies on the absence of evidence. That's just what faith is, the ability to beleive in something in the absolute absence of proof. It's like that test where you fall off a stage backwards and your friends catch you. That is faith, and faith can be important and can be valuable. But it's not science.

[BADecker]

But people die! They need something to hide behind to be saved from their death. The only thing strong enough is God Who created everything.

No, but this is a great example that perfectly illustrates my point.
Some people find religion a great comfort when considering mortality - and this is good, it helps them, that's fine.
Other people - including myself - believe that one life is all we have, that death defines the limit of our existence, and that after that moment we cease to exist.

Since science is showing us that the existence of life is impossible in any way that we can logically think up, there is no reason to believe that it won't happen a second time. Because of this, the religion of one existence is losing much of its credibility.

But we - I, anyway - think this fixed end point is what gives life meaning. If I were to live forever in heaven (or hell), then my actions now would lose relevance.

Except if those actions tied into where you existed in the next life... Heaven or Hell.

If on the other hand I have say 5 years, 10 years left and then I'm gone, then those years are imbued with so much more meaning, and become so much more valuable. We don't need or indeed want anything to hide behind, we embrace the brute reality of a disinterested universe, and we build our own meaning.
Death can still be terrifying and traumatic whichever side you're on, but different people have different perspectives, that's all.

People's perspectives are irrelevant regarding the next life. Whatever happens is what will have happened.

People use religion to hopefully gain a better resurrection, but at least a better death. People use science to find out things, or to make money. Is there anyone who uses science to determine whether he is going to Heaven or Hell?

Consider that science becomes a religion for people when they rely on it. If you do something once or twice, it might not be a religion for you. But when you incorporate it into your life, it becomes a religion. So, the more a scientist is a scientist, the more he has made science a religion for himself.

Can I do the word substitution again? "Consider that verifiable truth becomes a religion for people when they rely on it." No, it doesn't become a religion. Acceptance of verifiable truth is just acceptance of something that you know can be replicated. Religion is faith. Verifiable truth is not. Science is believed not for it's own sake based on faith, but precisely because of doubt, because you can say 'no, that doesn't sound reasonable, do it again, demonstrate it to me again and again so that I can see the cold hard evidence in front of me, and then I'll believe it'. Science demands evidence. It's not faith-based.

Where is verifiable truth? Certainly not science. Look at the science of the 1800s. Most of it has been overturned, and the rest of it has been sorely challenged. Right now there are scientists who have found a new brand of neutrinos coming up through Antarctic without a verifiable source. This tells us that the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/276151-2020-02-01-mysterious-particles-spewing-from-antarctica-defy-physics.htm. So, where is the truly verifiable science? Science verifies that there isn't any really verifiable science... simply by its continued changes in understandings.

"The difference between science and religion," is a misnomer. They are part of each other.

They're not, though. Science relies on evidence. Religion - faith - relies on the absence of evidence. That's just what faith is, the ability to beleive in something in the absolute absence of proof. It's like that test where you fall off a stage backwards and your friends catch you. That is faith, and faith can be important and can be valuable. But it's not science.

Science relies on faith that the evidence is interpreted correctly. Religion has basis that is not only faith. Religion has evidence, as well.

This is exactly the reason why science is religion. Especially among laymen is science religion. They have to believe what the scientists are saying, because they don't understand how to do the experiments themselves.

If there is a dividing line between science and religion, it is very tenuous.

[BADecker]

Oh the shock of unbelieving scientists... er, believing scientists... whatever.


Scientists SHOCKED As Galaxy Goes DARK! - The Ancient Mystery Of Inter-Dimensional Consciousness

The galaxy XMM-2599 existed about 12 billion years ago. Creating 300 billion suns, the galaxy was massive and then suddenly one day went dark.

This brings to question the fundamentals of the universe in general and has perplexed scientists and astronomers.

In this video not only do we break this strange story down, but we go into the frequency of the universe, thought, consciousness, who we really are. Are we just computers taking in vast data and calculating the data?

Soon, people will have to admit that we know absolutely nothing about the universe and hopefully this will send us on a journey to properly decipher the universe around us with an open mind. The ancients mapped out the stars and were incredibly innovative when it comes to building to the stars. What did ancient civilizations know so well that we have simply forgotten today?

Scientists SHOCKED As Galaxy Goes DARK! - The Ancient Mystery Of Inter-Dimensional Consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3c0KpvshaI

[Subbir]

Without religion science isn't possible you're right in saying that science works due to religion Science is that the external one that everybody can see, and religion is extant. Only people can know it as the relation of physical body and mind we will change science if we would like but religion isn't possible Science is employed to get new things and religion controls us we'd like two on the way It's just a thought.

[@MarkHen29177965]

Discussion on the relationship and opposition of religion and science is not new. Definition of religion and science is different, which many people have from their position. Like definition analysis, it has been criticized a lot. Either way, no matter what the religion says, the basic idea of ​​religion is that man is the creation of a mighty Creator. That creator is the cause of everything else, including this earth. The only possible guarantee of morality and human justice is the intervention of this Creator. Religion has been influencing people's minds and society since ancient times. For geographical and political reasons, we see not only the diversity of religions, but the nature and nature of all religions are almost the same.

Clear as a science. In Einstein's words, science is a centuries-old systematic effort by which to illustrate the visible events of the world in harmony with the imagery of the present and to highlight its possibilities for the future. Science has never sought to control man or his activities, but has sought to extend human boundaries, whereby humans exploit their current knowledge and intelligence to make this world and its habitable more useful by unlocking new horizons of possibility. The purpose of science is to know the unknown, not to block the path of knowing. And that method of knowing is never meant to be a follower of the blind.

Faith is the basic foundation of religion. The basic premise of science is mistrust. Science follows the method of finding the answer by asking all the questions in disbelief, and in most cases finding the answer, many years later.

Religion causes division among people. The unity of their own religion is the cause of differences with other religions. Religion is forgotten, people are human first, then everything else. Science, on the other hand, seeks to remove divisions, in the light of inventions and logical explanations, and exposes the causes of differences to humans.

Religion does not follow systemic approaches. Explanation and propagation of religion is different from country to time. There is no change in religion, no evolution. Fear of religion in change and evolution. Religion does not want to get out of the darkness in which religion originates, religion itself forbids its evolution and change. Science lies in its quest for truth, its success in change and evolution.

Although religion has its benefits, it depends on the individual. The benefits of science are universal. The discovery and benefit of science touches everyone undoubtedly.

Religion wants to control people, the scriptures and religious practices are proof of this. The farther away from modern education, the closer it is to religion. Therefore, religion is able to control the state in those environments. Science controls nothing, science is the only truth-seeker and revealer of truth.

[styca]

But we - I, anyway - think this fixed end point is what gives life meaning. If I were to live forever in heaven (or hell), then my actions now would lose relevance.

Except if those actions tied into where you existed in the next life... Heaven or Hell.

Again I'd disagree. If you live your life believing that your actions determine whether you go to heaven or hell, then any kind or good act you commit is not really kind or good, it's selfish, it's impossible to disentangle it from expectation of future reward. Religious belief leaches meaning from your actions.

Is there anyone who uses science to determine whether he is going to Heaven or Hell?

Well, no. The initial investigation would be establishing either mathematically or through empircial evidence that heaven and hell exist. Since these can't be proven, we can't proceed to the next step.

Consider that science becomes a religion for people when they rely on it.

I understand your point, but this is not religion. We make assumptions, hundreds each day, that certain things will go as we expect. If you cross a road, you have faith that the cars won't speed up. This is similar to faith in science (verifiable truth), it's based on past proof, and if there is some science you're not convinced by, you can examine the evidence to determine that proof. Religion is faith codified into a system. But everyday faith that for example night will follow day, is based on past experience and past evidence, and so is not religion.

Where is verifiable truth? Certainly not science. Look at the science of the 1800s. Most of it has been overturned, and the rest of it has been sorely challenged. Right now there are scientists who have found a new brand of neutrinos coming up through Antarctic without a verifiable source. This tells us that the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong

I think this is a misunderstanding. Science proceeds because it is falsifiable. Newton's laws of motion were established laws, but Einstein's relativity didn't prove that Newton's laws were nonsense, they proved that they were quite a good approximation, just not as good as relativity. Science proceeds in these little steps, every discovery improving on those of the past. Yes, sometimes we hit dead ends and one particular branch of science is disproven, in which case that branch is cut away and work begins anew. This is why science is verifiable truth. Each scientific discovery advances our understanding a tiny bit more.

"the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong" - Not wrong, potentially incomplete. If we were to discover a new kind of neutrino, that wouldn't mean that the other types don't exist, it wouldn't invalidate the entire history of particle physics, it would just add to the depth of understanding, and aid in the direction of future research. Wrong is not the same as incomplete. If you talk about the standard model being wrong, what the standard model is is our human interpretation of the stuff we've discovered so far. The interpretation can change, but the past evidence can't.

Science relies on faith that the evidence is interpreted correctly. Religion has basis that is not only faith. Religion has evidence, as well.

This is exactly the reason why science is religion. Especially among laymen is science religion. They have to believe what the scientists are saying, because they don't understand how to do the experiments themselves.

I would contest the point about religious evidence, but I don't want to get derailed. I'm not attacking religion, I'm defending science.

People accept what scientists say because the evidence of scientific truth is all around us, literally all technology is based on science. People may indeed not understand or be able to perform experiments themselves, but they can still accept science. This is my point above about faith and the speed of cars when you cross the road.

If you buy a bottle of beer, you will take a drink of it without testing it. You don't know that is definitely beer and not deadly poison, you just have faith based on previous experience. This is not religion, it's expectation of the future resembling the past.

[BADecker]

But we - I, anyway - think this fixed end point is what gives life meaning. If I were to live forever in heaven (or hell), then my actions now would lose relevance.

Except if those actions tied into where you existed in the next life... Heaven or Hell.

Again I'd disagree. If you live your life believing that your actions determine whether you go to heaven or hell, then any kind or good act you commit is not really kind or good, it's selfish, it's impossible to disentangle it from expectation of future reward. Religious belief leaches meaning from your actions.

Name a time when your actions aren't based on your belief... since nobody knows with absolute certainty what will happen in the next second.

Is there anyone who uses science to determine whether he is going to Heaven or Hell?

Well, no. The initial investigation would be establishing either mathematically or through empircial evidence that heaven and hell exist. Since these can't be proven, we can't proceed to the next step.

So, since science can't tell, and since we don't even know for an absolute fact what will happen in the next second, everything we do is based on faith. We all have religion. Some of us believe in H and H. Some of us don't.

Consider that science becomes a religion for people when they rely on it.

I understand your point, but this is not religion. We make assumptions, hundreds each day, that certain things will go as we expect. If you cross a road, you have faith that the cars won't speed up. This is similar to faith in science (verifiable truth), it's based on past proof, and if there is some science you're not convinced by, you can examine the evidence to determine that proof. Religion is faith codified into a system. But everyday faith that for example night will follow day, is based on past experience and past evidence, and so is not religion.

Past proof isn't really proof. Rather, it is the fact that the universe is relatively peaceful... at least for those who seem to have past proof.

Our examinations of Ancient Pompeii show that past proof isn't really proof. If it was proof, Pompeii would never have been destroyed, or the people would have left it before it was destroyed.

Where is verifiable truth? Certainly not science. Look at the science of the 1800s. Most of it has been overturned, and the rest of it has been sorely challenged. Right now there are scientists who have found a new brand of neutrinos coming up through Antarctic without a verifiable source. This tells us that the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Science proceeds because it is falsifiable. Newton's laws of motion were established laws, but Einstein's relativity didn't prove that Newton's laws were nonsense, they proved that they were quite a good approximation, just not as good as relativity. Science proceeds in these little steps, every discovery improving on those of the past. Yes, sometimes we hit dead ends and one particular branch of science is disproven, in which case that branch is cut away and work begins anew. This is why science is verifiable truth. Each scientific discovery advances our understanding a tiny bit more.

"the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong" - Not wrong, potentially incomplete. If we were to discover a new kind of neutrino, that wouldn't mean that the other types don't exist, it wouldn't invalidate the entire history of particle physics, it would just add to the depth of understanding, and aid in the direction of future research. Wrong is not the same as incomplete. If you talk about the standard model being wrong, what the standard model is is our human interpretation of the stuff we've discovered so far. The interpretation can change, but the past evidence can't.

If science is a method for constantly proving itself wrong, where is there any other empirical proof in science, except that it is wrong? All that science is proving is that we don't know. It's even proving that we don't know how to properly find out. It's starting to sound more and more like a faulty religion.

Science relies on faith that the evidence is interpreted correctly. Religion has basis that is not only faith. Religion has evidence, as well.

This is exactly the reason why science is religion. Especially among laymen is science religion. They have to believe what the scientists are saying, because they don't understand how to do the experiments themselves.

I would contest the point about religious evidence, but I don't want to get derailed. I'm not attacking religion, I'm defending science.

Nothing wrong with science... if it is used as a tool. Believing in science too deeply and in the wrong way turns it into religion for the believer.

People accept what scientists say because the evidence of scientific truth is all around us, literally all technology is based on science. People may indeed not understand or be able to perform experiments themselves, but they can still accept science. This is my point above about faith and the speed of cars when you cross the road.

Literally all technology is based on engineering. The science that explains something is almost never accurate, and the engineering is what proves this out. If we want to get into a person doing the engineering of crossing a road, this means that everybody is a scientist for calculating the scientific odds. This makes science a religion according to the definition of religion, because people use this kind of science all the time. they use it religiously.

If you buy a bottle of beer, you will take a drink of it without testing it. You don't know that is definitely beer and not deadly poison, you just have faith based on previous experience. This is not religion, it's expectation of the future resembling the past.

Actually, the beer thing is religion. You have faith in the brewer, and you trust the bartender.

[styca]

Again I'd disagree. If you live your life believing that your actions determine whether you go to heaven or hell, then any kind or good act you commit is not really kind or good, it's selfish, it's impossible to disentangle it from expectation of future reward. Religious belief leaches meaning from your actions.

Name a time when your actions aren't based on your belief... since nobody knows with absolute certainty what will happen in the next second.

Agreed, our actions are always based on our knowledge of the past. That's how we model the future. That wasn't my point though. I was saying that you can't be morally good if you are religious, because you can't separate your actions from expectation of reward (going to heaven).

Our examinations of Ancient Pompeii show that past proof isn't really proof. If it was proof, Pompeii would never have been destroyed, or the people would have left it before it was destroyed.

Don't understand what you're talking about here, sorry.

"the standard model of 3 kinds of neutrinos is wrong" - Not wrong, potentially incomplete. If we were to discover a new kind of neutrino, that wouldn't mean that the other types don't exist, it wouldn't invalidate the entire history of particle physics, it would just add to the depth of understanding, and aid in the direction of future research. Wrong is not the same as incomplete. If you talk about the standard model being wrong, what the standard model is is our human interpretation of the stuff we've discovered so far. The interpretation can change, but the past evidence can't.

If science is a method for constantly proving itself wrong, where is there any other empirical proof in science, except that it is wrong? All that science is proving is that we don't know. It's even proving that we don't know how to properly find out. It's starting to sound more and more like a faulty religion.

Not wrong, just sometimes an inexact approximation, as with Newton's laws of motion. Each scientific advancement is built on those we already have.

People accept what scientists say because the evidence of scientific truth is all around us, literally all technology is based on science. People may indeed not understand or be able to perform experiments themselves, but they can still accept science. This is my point above about faith and the speed of cars when you cross the road.

Literally all technology is based on engineering.

I think we had this discussion a couple of months ago. Engineering is a form of science. It relies on reproducible evidence and is falsifiable.

If you buy a bottle of beer, you will take a drink of it without testing it. You don't know that is definitely beer and not deadly poison, you just have faith based on previous experience. This is not religion, it's expectation of the future resembling the past.

Actually, the beer thing is religion. You have faith in the brewer, and you trust the bartender.

I think we have different definitions of religion.


...
I think I might finish here. Partly because we're not really getting anywhere, but mostly because ensuring I get the quote /quote stuff in the right places is driving me insane.