Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 21. (Read 6610 times)

Religion is a serious topic as long as people commit atrocities in the name of religion.

Science doesn't expect you to take anything on faith.  Everything is science is backed up by evidence you can check yourself.  That is how science works.  If you disagree with the evidence, you have every right to conduct proper research and get your findings published in a reputable periodical.  If your evidence shows you have a better theory for just about anything, you win a nobel prize!

Science doesn't just randomly invent evolution... it simply follows the evidence, and that is the obvious conclusion to the vast majority of people who view the evidence

Except that's a complete lie.

Leslie J. Hoppe (September 2005). New light from old stories: the Hebrew scriptures for today's world. Available here:

"The walls that he and Selling found dated to the seventeenth century BC and earlier - three to five hundred years before the Israelites emerged in Canaan."

"Her excavations showed that the walls found at Jericho were from the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 BC). She concluded that when the Israelites supposedly destroyed Jericho, the city was a small, poor, and unwalled settlement.

Miriam C. Davis (2008). Dame Kathleen Kenyon: digging up the Holy Land. Available here:

"In the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts."

"No evidence for defenses from the Late Bronze Age, the period of Joshua, was found."


And presumably we are just ignoring the fact that archaeological science has proven the world isn't 6000 years old, wasn't created in 7 days, there was no flood, there was no exodus, etc, etc? Cherry picking much?



Another complete lie.

Firstly, scientific theory does not mean "made up guesses" like you seem to think. Suggesting otherwise is at best disingenuous, and at worst plain stupid. A scientific theory is rigorously tested and fits all the available evidence, such as the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and yes, the theory of evolution.

Secondly, evolution is known to factually exist because of the mountain of evidence for it. But if for some reason all the evidence from fossils, anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc, isn't good enough for you then that's OK - we have literally observed evolution happening in bacteria and insects.


Once again, I would suggest that you take your own advice and aim to achieve even the most basic level of understanding of a topic before offering your opinion on it:

Everybody rejects reality at times. But religious people are looking for the truth just like scientists.

For example. Archaeological science has proven parts of the Bible true. An example is the ancient city of Jericho. Before anybody knew where the ancient city of Jericho was, science said that this Bible story was a myth. Then the archaeologists dug up ancient Jericho, and found that its walls had fallen flat, just like the Bible said.

When you consider all the science theory that has been proven wrong, that is exactly what science theory is there for... to find the truth, by weeding out what is wrong, and determining what is right. But people who believe some science theory to be fact, when it is known to be theory (not necessarily factual, because it can change, and often does), are treating the science theory like a religion.

An example of this is the evolution idea. Evolution theory is science theory, subject to change, based on new discoveries. But many people believe that evolution is true when the only place it is factually known to exist is in the theory itself. Such people have a religion in evolution through believing that evolution theory applies to reality in a factual way. Much of science is like this.

So, while there are science facts, and while there are religious facts, there is also science that is believed like it was a religion, and there is a science of religion because many people study religion to find out what part of it is real.

Religious people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?

I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKTq-fnUFQ

People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like religions of the past

I reject this.

Regarding religion. The assertion is an impossibility. "Destroy them?"

A huge part of human experience, in it's history, literature, and even grammar cannot be "destroyed." Communist nations have tried to do this, they failed. So you would predicate a logical conclusion on an impossibility. That has no meaning.

Regarding science. It's often debated whether math is a science. Many things are called science which do not fit your criteria. "Social sciences," political science...Economics...

Many cases can be cited where "science" is influenced by social factors. Examples are the Russian Lysenko and his work, current "climate science," current and past psychology "science."

Many, many other examples. 19th century Phrenology, Piltdown Man, phlogiston. Science always reflects the ignorance and superstition of its times.

Both religion and science are ways of life living which ideally should effect positive changes and impact lives positively too but what differenciate science totally from religion is the high tendency of science to always and aptly revolve with time and modern warfare inventions which isn't corruptible but progressive while religion most times anytime it strives to be possessive and devoid of the real and through values due to the human conceptions and perceptions of different idealogies which makes it tends to be corruptible sometimes.

How do you feel about some of the other things written in the bible, like:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, ... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

Killing a child for being "stubborn and rebellious" seems a bit extreme if you ask me.  It is also illegal, so please don't follow this biblical advice (from god?!?)

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

I personally do not think a woman should be forced to marry her rapist.  How much is a 50 shekel fine these days anyway?

Your analogy is flawed.


There are plenty of non-physical concepts or processes - gravity, calculus, our senses - where we cannot show "where they are", but still have overwhelming evidence that they exist. To say having senses is proof of a god is nonsense. Additionally, your analogy is not specific to a particular god. It equally applies to Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does to any other god.

Science in a way begins and ends with human curiosity to certain questions. These questions leads to discoveries but if you ask me, those discoveries are not just random occurrence but predestined divinely to be so. Religion on the other hand is based on faith in the supernatural that may not require scientific prove to verify it. It exists in itself. Like a little comedienne gigged “a science lecturer told his class to proof the existence of a supreme being, and when they could not prove it, he told the class that such being or religion does not exist. The comedienne and other students thought what to do to prove the lecturer wrong. They came up with something. Approached the lecturer and ask, sir, please, do you have senses, the man not discerning, answered yes, I have many senses, the student now went ahead to ask him to show them where his senses are. At the end he could not prove he had senses. So they conclude for him that he does not have senses just like he told them there is no God or such thing as Supreme Being since they could not prove it. Science is based on facts and experiment, but no evidence to Divine Being. Religion is faith based, beliefs in supernatural and super powers. Etc.
The debate pertaining science and religion has been on for ages and will last till eternity. My conclusion is that whatever view point you are, be true to it. I love what is written in Revelation 22:11 King James Version (KJV) “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

Be on your lane if you are scientist and you dont want anything to do with religion, be on your lane if you a religious person.

I was wondering how long it would take BADecker to show up and completely miss the point.


Firstly, that wouldn't be a religion, and secondly, it's completely irrelevant.



That's entirely the point. Science adjusts its views to new evidence. Religion doesn't. However, if science was wiped out and started again, it would find exactly the same evidence for the big bang, the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. New religions would be entirely different, as has been historical proven many times.



1 + 1 = 2 is absolutely provable, and has been done so many times. Silly word play about things being different doesn't change a mathematical proof.


Perhaps you should take your own advice to learn about things before talking about them.

I appreciate the eloquence of Richard Dawkins, so I will defer to his answer for the nature of scientific evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88


tl;dr -
Q: How do you justify using the scientific method?
A: It works, bitches

If you could take all the other religions of the world and destroy them, you still would have your religion of destruction of religions. But that is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

As long as science has science theory as part of it, science is never the same. Why not? Because science theory changes daily as it is adapted to new findings in science.

1 + 1 = 2 is not a provable concept. It might be a provable in a virtual, visualized way. But 1 + 1 does not = 2 in reality, because there are no two things that are exactly the same. This means that 1 + 1 will always = 1 + 1.

Wake up and learn the things you talk about before you start spouting them out.

science is moving, while religion is staying;
science is knowing, while religion is believing;
science is developing, while religion is stagnating, etc.

Egyptian gods were worshiped for a few thousand years. Now gone. Greek gods. Now gone. Old Norse religion. Gone. Semitic religion. Gone. Mesopotamian religion. Gone. Babylonian. Gone. Celtic polytheism. Gone. Etc. Etc. Etc.

The number of extinct religions vastly outnumbers the number of practicing religions. On what basis then do you say that Christianity will still be around in 1000 years, especially since we are proving more and more of Christian doctrine demonstrably false?

You forget so easily how much religion has added to the world too. In fact, the truth is I doubt there will be any science today without religion. Most of the knowledge we have come to be exposed to now was sponsored by institutions religion set up. So, stop throwing baseless claims around. Some of what is called science today will not be around in some years. The likes of the evolution theory and Big Bang theory are concepts I'm certain will die out. Christianity for example has lasted more than 2000 years. On what basis then do you say that it won't be around in the next 1000 years?

Both are parts of our life. No matter what we think about them, they regulate our daily life. Science and religions are together actually. Science is for the physical body and religion for the spiritual one. As you know, we are made of flesh and spirit. Nobody has ever proved that we are made of spirits. We can see our flesh. We cannot see our spirit. We can feel it. When we dream, we know what we can see and we understand that we are not only flesh and bones. It is thus obvious that science and religion must work together to discover and solve the mysteries of our civilizations. They must not fight but cooperate.

Religion and science are too different and opposing phenomena.

Religion preaches Faith and believe in the supernatural and the unseen. It promotes belief in the existence of a supernatural being or entities that supposedly has power to influence human life course.

Sciences preaches reason, experiment and observation. In science, every event and situation has a logical and reasonable explanation. Any phenomenon that can not be observed doesn't exist.

^^

Watching his Science Guy documentary on Netflix, I think the saddest part was rather than open minds it earned Ham millions to build his "museum of facts".

---

Religion is not a permanent rigid construct either. It changes constantly, based on who wrote or rewrote the sections of any religious text. I do not care what people believe in, but some of my most memorable conversations used to fall apart around the point where I would call a central idea of many religions of "love and peace" into question based on religious leaders actions.

I can't think of a single scientist or science enthusiast I have derailed a conversation with when mentioning things like gravity as a constant, laws of thermodynamics, Or why water is just a weird compound based on it's properties.

I don't want to overly generalize, as I have been able to speak with some open minded individuals who find comfort in the core ideas of their religion and can accept that there are flaws and faults that happen along the way. It's just with scientists, there can be an agreement based on facts and methodologies, up to the point where it's a hypothesis. Then they work to either disprove or prove this and final result can be universally accepted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s

This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.

"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."

Religious answer - nothing.

Scientific answer - evidence.

Well, one big difference is science accommodates to any new "reality". That's how we switched from Ptolemaic to Copernican. There's always something new.

Quite the opposite, religion is supposed to be the same for all time, unchanging.