Difference between Science and Religion

[RamaRaksha]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

 

[Terese]

This is a good thread. Very productive.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

There are many religions, but there's only one science.

 

[RamaRaksha]

There are many religions, but there's only one science.

lol good one

I am amazed the forum admins haven't called you out for the bottom portion of your post - what is it called by the way? You are offending muslims, are you not?
FYI - ever wonder why there is so little that is known about Christ - he is born and there is a big to-do with stars and kings coming and then nothing? They pick up the story years later which ends with his death? What happened in between - did he act a bit un-christ like? Fell in love, act normally that contradicted all that divine talk?

As for theists knowing more about their particular God - they know about evolution, they know that their books talk about the sun circling the earth which is an impossibility and yet they believe - dude, you are talking to brainwashed people

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along?

Not really. Science emerged thanks in no small part to religion, and even today we can see the influence:
"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, how do we know the laws are immutable and unchanging?
...It seems to me that after three centuries we should consider the possibility that the classical theological/Platonic model of laws is an idealization with little experimental or observational justification."
(p. 91-3; emphases added)
from Davies, P. (2014). "Universe from Bit". In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (Cambridge University Press).

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

One doesn't if one actually works in the sciences. This isn't how we work. That said, scientific methods are empirical. Theology (and religion more generally) isn't. This is one of a large number of differences. But the reason the sciences and religion don't "get along" is because they are largely concerned with different things, and what concerns they share they approach differently. Similarly, philosophy and science don't "get along" (despite the integral role philosophy has played and continues to play in our understanding of scientific theories, scientific methods, the nature of science, epistemology, etc.), theater and science don't "get along", art history and science don't "get along", and in general fields and approaches to knowledge that lie outside the sciences (even the field of the study knowledge and approaches to it!) don't "get along" with science.

There are many religions, but there's only one science.

There are many sciences. It is highly misleading at best to say that there is some singular entity "science", but it is certainly not true to assert that to the extent one can't speak of "religion" in the singular, one can somehow speak of a singular science nonetheless.

 

[RamaRaksha]

Not really. Science emerged thanks in no small part to religion, and even today we can see the influence:
"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, how do we know the laws are immutable and unchanging?
...It seems to me that after three centuries we should consider the possibility that the classical theological/Platonic model of laws is an idealization with little experimental or observational justification."
(p. 91-3; emphases added)
from Davies, P. (2014). "Universe from Bit". In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality (Cambridge University Press).


One doesn't if one actually works in the sciences. This isn't how we work. That said, scientific methods are empirical. Theology (and religion more generally) isn't. This is one of a large number of differences. But the reason the sciences and religion don't "get along" is because they are largely concerned with different things, and what concerns they share they approach differently. Similarly, philosophy and science don't "get along" (despite the integral role philosophy has played and continues to play in our understanding of scientific theories, scientific methods, the nature of science, epistemology, etc.), theater and science don't "get along", art history and science don't "get along", and in general fields and approaches to knowledge that lie outside the sciences (even the field of the study knowledge and approaches to it!) don't "get along" with science.

There are many sciences. It is highly misleading at best to say that there is some singular entity "science", but it is certainly not true to assert that to the extent one can't speak of "religion" in the singular, one can somehow speak of a singular science nonetheless.

You are giving too much credit to religion - just human beings living a few thousand years ago - with very little knowledge of the world around them, coming up with concepts that gave them comfort - that's religion. Have you not noticed that God acts suspiciously like a King? Get down on your knees and beg for mercy? Isn't that what subjects were asked to do before the King? God will reward some, torture others? Kings rewarded those who are loyal and those that were not loyal(unbelievers) were jailed or worse?

Did you forget about the world being made in 7 days, the sun circling the earth etc? They said the sun circled the earth because well, that is what they saw. If you and i lived a few thousand years ago and you asked me the age of the earth and suggested a few thousand years, I would most probably agree - they didn't know any better

As far as not getting along - there is a definite clash esp in the south where they are trying to push creationism and push out evolution. Go to any Science story on yahoo and read the comments - religious people showing up mocking science - you won't find theater majors or history teachers doing that. You are playing a bit fast and loose with the word not getting along - history and theater are different from Science but it is a stretch to say they don't "get along"

 

[Scott C.]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

Is this yet another declaration that the existence of God contradicts fact? Yawn.

 

[Yerda]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along?

Nope.

 

[Thana]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

I know right?
It's like Politics and Biology. Why can't they get along? I mean I know they are two completely different subjects but I'm just going to lump them together anyway. Cuz brain smarts iz kewl!

 

[atanu]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

You speak as if you know all the facts.

 

[Skwim]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along?

Actually, the two get along pretty well, except that a few believers don't like some of the claims of science that conflict with their theology, and scientists don't like it when believers interfere with their work.

 

[DawudTalut]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

Science is work of God.
True religion is word of God.
There ought to be no mutual problems.
More @ Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two.
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

 

[Mackerni]

I would say the difference between science and religion is religion teaches how to be good, which is subjective, and science, at least the physical sciences, teach things that just are. Being good and teaching broad concepts is different from a tangible, observable science. Also, there are many different religions and there are also many different sciences. "An economist and a political science teacher go into a bar..." You just know they're going to have a field day arguing about what is "best" for us. Science can't even make up its mind regarding true reality yet, with different theories regarding the eventual state of our universe and conflicting theories that arise from superstring theory. Religion is no better, obviously.

It's funny, religion and science got along for a long time. The Catholic church has built many hospitals and schools, for instance. And I think while most people in the United States are Christian, a majority of those people probably believe in evolution too, even to the point of a common ancestor. Religion and science can work together but the problem is the two largest religions haven't been able to keep up with social and scientific advancements in the past 500 years or so.

Look at Unitarian Universalism. That religion is about embracing and accepting people of many different faiths, with a common goal of human unity. UUs don't worship God. They worship fuzzy secular concepts such as *love*. They take their inspiration from any source, ancient or modern. They have life lessons for us all. UUism fully embraces science. They are against climate change and are pro-environmental policies. They are also skeptics. Modern Unitarianism came around in the 1960's, and membership has been dwindling. Its probably because of Christianity's own liberalisation, and the fact that there is no strong reinforcement to go back to the church. The first church I went to was a Unitarian Universalist church.

Uh, sorry. I like talking about myself. What was I on about? Oh, religion and science. They answer two different questions: religion answers why should something be here, and science answers how it got here to begin with. Two completely different questions, two viewpoints. To me, how is a definite answer, whereas why isn't. Why I'm I here? Because my parents ****ed and my mom raised me while I was growing up. Wait ... that's HOW I was here. The question of why is a lot deeper. I answer the question within my own religion by saying this: humans, and all other things, want to live as long as possible with the most amount of options as possible. The longer you live, until you get too old to live life fully you have more and more options available to you. Prolonging death as far as possible and allow one to experience all the options of life is a fruitful way to live, one that should be worth exploring. Along the way you'll see conditions are improving for the vast majority of people. Our natural extropy is accelerating, and one day will reach truly divine place where the big five divinities are not just considered but chosen by a future species. Our cause to divinity is the reason why I live. But that is not the only reason one could live.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are many religions, but there's only one science.

According to movies, TV, and other media outlets. I.E., sources that frequently demonstrate a complete lack of scientific understanding, even while claiming to espouse "scientific views". Star Trek thinks IRL evolution works like in Pokemon.

In fact, there many sciences. Or, more specifically, many scientific fields. Hence, it's more accurate to say "the sciences", than to refer to "science" as if it were a singular entity.

 

[Useless2015]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

Science is science and religion is religion thats why. There are thousands of Muslim,Christian scientists

 

[ak.yonathan]

There are many religions, but there's only one science.

Not really, there are many scientific theories.

 

[ak.yonathan]

I think that you're mistaking religion with people who claim to be religious. Religion doesn't necessarily have to junk facts, I haven't heard a single commandment from religion to do that. May I note that people who claim to be scientists can do that too (disregard facts). In fact dogma can creep into what was previously considered to be science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along? Easy

Science is about facts - one proposes a theory based on facts and invite others to disprove it and when they come up with facts that disprove it, that theory is junked

I fear you are over-simplifying it. A theory must survive falseability before it becomes a theory. Until then it is a hypothesis.

Religions basically junks facts and latches on to feel-good fantasies

Total opposites - no wonder they don't get along

Often. Not always and not necessarily.

Religion can exist without alienating itself from science and facts, although I will readily grant that it is depressingly common for it not to.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think that you're mistaking religion with people who claim to be religious. Religion doesn't necessarily have to junk facts, I haven't heard a single commandment from religion to do that. May I note that people who claim to be scientists can do that too (disregrad facts). In fact dogma can creep into what was previously considered to be science.

In popular consciousness, definitely.

Within the scientific community, however, I'm not so sure about dogma. Taboos, on the other hand, are quite rampant in the sciences. (EDIT: And no, religious and pseudo-scientific matters are not among those taboos.)

 

[RamaRaksha]

You speak as if you know all the facts.

Please don't get personal just because you don't like the post - when in a forum you will find posts that are not for your liking but don't shut down such posts - that's censorship