Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[Samantha Rinne]

Shouldn't you update a statement when it is wrong?

Suppose you are interviewed by the police. They ask you the same question several times over the course of a long interrogation, but you change it.

Congratulations, you are arrested. They caught you in a lie.

Besides, how do we know the scientific version of events is any more true?

Here's an example.
I accept flat Earth non-rotating Earth theory. It's not for everyone, but it does provide a straightforward reasoning for things. Sun rotates above the Earth appearing to dip as it reaches the vanishing point, Earth is a flat disc with monodirectional gravity, seasons as caused by the sun heading towards the northern or southern side of the equator. Flat Earth is claimed by the Bible, even after "science has proven it wrong." So maybe it's wrong. It's also extremely simple.
Round Earth theories have to tweak how omnidirectional gravity works, how we don't observe dramatic vertical curves when viewing the horizon (there are however horizontal curves; I've watched planes fly and also when walking down a curved street and watching it gradually straighten, which is consistent with Earth being a disc), why we don't feel the Earth orbiting and rotating at incredibly high speeds when a blender can liquify food at much lower ones, and the big one being how day and night are not inverted every six months.

This? This wrong. At December and June, or September and March, the Earth would be 180 degrees from its original position given a fixed rotation. In other words, it should be like this...

(The sun still brightens the side of the Earth it hits, I am depicting it this way to explain that days should be fully 12 hours inverted)

How does science deal with this? "Oh wait, some of our days are sidereal days. The Earth wobbles (despite you never seeing such strange days) therefore you never get day/night inversion. Problem solved!" No ummmm, problem not solved, and seriously wtf?

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Besides, how do we know the scientific version of events is any more true?

By educating yourself in scientific methods which then makes you better equipped to understand and interpret the evidence on your own.

 

[cladking]

Religion is usually right and usually only right in a left handed sort of way.

"Science" is rarely right even though experiment is always exactly right and its correct interpretation is usually pretty right as well.

As a general rule we must each find our own way and nobody should reject reason, logic, facts, and experiment. Nobody should reject religion just because it's religion nor accept it as gospel.

 

[Heyo]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

Science, no contest there.

Reliable is defined as giving the same or compatible results in every experiment.
When I go to any scientist, anywhere on earth, and ask her a question from her field of expertise, I'll get the same or compatible answer 99%+ of the time. When I go to a priest/preacher/imam/rabbi/shaman/monk/sage/druid/gode and ask him a question of his field of expertise I'll get a different or irrelevant answer 99%+ of the time.

 

[Watchmen]

Science.
Science.
Science.
Science.
Science.

I can’t wait for the day we can leave fairy tales (religion) behind. They served their purpose, but I find we’ve reached a point where they are no longer needed.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

For me, religion
I do not believe in human created things to be devine

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

For me, religion
I do not believe in human created things to be devine

Religion is clearly human-created.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Both can be misleading....
I think religion in general can be more so.

I mean, grief, the Aztecs had a religion which said it was ok to sacrifice humans against their will.

Other, more recent, religions teach that God torments people forever.

Seems off, to me!

 

[firedragon]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

The question is a false dilemma.

 

[osgart]

Spirituality serves as knowledge because it describes our being experiences rather well.

Religion is all man made. No knowledge in it.

Science is extremely reliable man made methodology. Where science gets lost is when it tries to philosophize its discoveries. Science must stick to experiment and ditch its agenda to answer all existential questions of being with bogus ideologies; physicalist/materialist accounts of how everything began, the origins of life, the universe, philosophical naturalism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which religion is more reliable over another?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which religion is more reliable over another?

If you are religious, your individual religion is reliable to for you.
IMHO religion is subjective, so to ask which one is more reliable than another can only be answered subjectively.

 

[gnostic]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

It depends on what knowledge you are talking about.

So what knowledge are referring to?

With regards to religion, it is less about seeking knowledge, and more about seeking beliefs and faith.

And one of the main problems with religions are, what used to be considered “knowledge” will become outdated over time...that the doctrines will become dogma.

For instances, very little changes will occur once scriptures were written. And scriptures that are over 1000, 2000, or even 3000 years old, will stagnate with outdated and unreliable “knowledge”, that they are only accepted as faith in belief.

Knowledge and Belief are not the same things.

Science allowed for knowledge to be tested, and keep testing them even when are already accepted, because there are always for corrections, updates, improvements, and if necessarily replace them with better TESTED knowledge.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Something you keep changing and updating every time something doesn't fit is a lie.

No it's not.
Stating something you know to be false as a truth is a lie.
Changing your mind on something based on changing evidence is decidedly not a lie.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

Can't make heads or tails of the question. It's way too broad for me to respond effectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on what knowledge you are talking about.

So what knowledge are referring to?

With regards to religion, it is less about seeking knowledge, and more about seeking beliefs and faith.

And one of the main problems with religions are, what used to be considered “knowledge” will become outdated over time...that the doctrines will become dogma.

For instances, very little changes will occur once scriptures were written. And scriptures that are over 1000, 2000, or even 3000 years old, will stagnate with outdated and unreliable “knowledge”, that they are only accepted as faith in belief.

Knowledge and Belief are not the same things.

Science allowed for knowledge to be tested, and keep testing them even when are already accepted, because there are always for corrections, updates, improvements, and if necessarily replace them with better TESTED knowledge.

And the problem is that you consider religion based on scripture and dogma. That is not true of all religions, only some.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Science.
Science.
Science.
Science.
Science.

I can’t wait for the day we can leave fairy tales (religion) behind. They served their purpose, but I find we’ve reached a point where they are no longer needed.

Hmmmm...
I'm not religious at all, and would personally happily see it's back.
But don't be so quick to write off the importance of narratives in general.

 

[Clara Tea]

The very bloody (hanging, head chopping, poisoning, torturing) battle fought by Christians against scientists (not fought by scientists against Christians), should be a surrender, not a fight.

The New Testament bible, heavily redacted by the Roman Empire to use Christianity as a political tool, and to erase history (Romans killed Jesus, blamed Jews), cannot be used as proof.

But what about all of the first hand testimony of apostles who were quoted in the bible which was written about 100 years after their deaths? They couldn't have personally told the author of the bible anything.

But what about God guiding the writing of the bible by divine intervention, making it perfect? Which of the many versions of the bible is perfect, and would it be perfect if it was rewritten by mankind with different words and different meanings?

What about the mistakes in the bible (contradictions, for example). Genesis 1:25 contradicts Genesis 2:18 about which came first (animals or man). If there are contradictions, like this, how can we assume that the bible is the divinely inspired and perfect word of God?

DNA is used as court evidence, and every court in the world (as far as I know) accepts DNA as absolute proof. Though, statistically, there is a small chance of an error.

DNA proves evolution. Evolution was already science before DNA, and it was based on the structure of fossils and how they related to life today. And it evolution was about the similarities of various animals (and plants) and how some seemed to adapt to conditions better than others (natural selection).

Thus, DNA and evolution are established facts.

Those who use shaky theology to argue against evolution and DNA, do so without knowledge of science. Furthermore, they do so with an agenda to prove that religion is right and science is wrong. Scientists don't have agendas. If a scientist suddenly proved that God was real, he would objectively write about it and show the proof.

If science proves religion, then the question "which is more valid" is moot. Both are true. Anyone (even a liar) is capable of occasionally telling the truth.

Thus, we see that theists lie.

They might tell falsehoods out of ignorance, and refuse to learn the truth. They refuse to accept the findings of those who have greater educations and have studied the issues.

Once science firmly establishes the truth, theists should try to merge that truth into the bible. For example, scientists say that the universe is 13.4 billion years old (based on Freidman's equation in general relativity), but theists insist that the universe is 6,000 years old. To merge the two opinions into agreement, one should also consider that scientists know that time is not absolute, but it is relative. Time slows in extreme gravity and at extreme speeds (close to the speed of light in a vacuum). Thus science can be used to prove religion. Theists would know that if they bother to learn science and don't merely burn scientists at the stake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The very bloody (hanging, head chopping, poisoning, torturing) battle fought by Christians against scientists (not fought by scientists against Christians), should be a surrender, not a fight.

The New Testament bible, heavily redacted by the Roman Empire to use Christianity as a political tool, and to erase history (Romans killed Jesus, blamed Jews), cannot be used as proof.

But what about all of the first hand testimony of apostles who were quoted in the bible which was written about 100 years after their deaths? They couldn't have personally told the author of the bible anything.

But what about God guiding the writing of the bible by divine intervention, making it perfect? Which of the many versions of the bible is perfect, and would it be perfect if it was rewritten by mankind with different words and different meanings?

What about the mistakes in the bible (contradictions, for example). Genesis 1:25 contradicts Genesis 2:18 about which came first (animals or man). If there are contradictions, like this, how can we assume that the bible is the divinely inspired and perfect word of God?

DNA is used as court evidence, and every court in the world (as far as I know) accepts DNA as absolute proof. Though, statistically, there is a small chance of an error.

DNA proves evolution. Evolution was already science before DNA, and it was based on the structure of fossils and how they related to life today. And it evolution was about the similarities of various animals (and plants) and how some seemed to adapt to conditions better than others (natural selection).

Thus, DNA and evolution are established facts.

Those who use shaky theology to argue against evolution and DNA, do so without knowledge of science. Furthermore, they do so with an agenda to prove that religion is right and science is wrong. Scientists don't have agendas. If a scientist suddenly proved that God was real, he would objectively write about it and show the proof.

If science proves religion, then the question "which is more valid" is moot. Both are true. Anyone (even a liar) is capable of occasionally telling the truth.

Thus, we see that theists lie.

They might tell falsehoods out of ignorance, and refuse to learn the truth. They refuse to accept the findings of those who have greater educations and have studied the issues.

Once science firmly establishes the truth, theists should try to merge that truth into the bible. For example, scientists say that the universe is 13.4 billion years old (based on Freidman's equation in general relativity), but theists insist that the universe is 6,000 years old. To merge the two opinions into agreement, one should also consider that scientists know that time is not absolute, but it is relative. Time slows in extreme gravity and at extreme speeds (close to the speed of light in a vacuum). Thus science can be used to prove religion. Theists would know that if they bother to learn science and don't merely burn scientists at the stake.

Only relevant for a subset of some religions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you are religious, your individual religion is reliable to for you.
IMHO religion is subjective, so to ask which one is more reliable than another can only be answered subjectively.

Well answers from one can be in disagreement with another so I'm not sure what 'reliable' means here other than providing the basis for conflict. Which it has done. It seems to me that what religions have done is to take over morality as their pet and to do this - my moral system is better than yours. And since the evidence seems to show that the religious are no more moral than the non-religious, I'm not sure they have such benefits. Reliable as in dogmatic perhaps.