Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[Guitar's Cry]

I echo those saying it depends on the knowledge being sought. When I learn science, I am learning about the mechanisms of the Universe. When I learn about religion, be in theology, mythology, philosophy, or art, I am learning to interpret my relationship with the Universe. Both overlap quite a bit, but provide different types of understanding.

 

[exchemist]

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.

What is this hanging, head chopping, poisoning, etc by Christians of scientists that you refer to? Who did this happen to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Science obviously.
Regardless of the subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religion. Whether it's right or wrong, religious statements stay the same for centuries.

Even when it's shown to be wrong.

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

Some people call it "learning" and "making progress".

It's how we are communicating right now, while my grandfather grew up in a world where the primary means of transportation was a horse and had been a horse for thousands of years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Is that why you switched religions at least 3 times already?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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

I know how scientific method works. You try something, you get a result. It doesn't, you try again with a revised assumption. It does, you repeat the thing possibly under slightly different conditions (to make sure it's not a fluke from some environmental). Then maybe someone else also tests it to make sure you didn't fake the results. And so on.

But what if that's just reinforcing biases by repetition?

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

I would say right-brained. There's a sort of logic to religion, usually involving allegory. There are probably not 7 literal days of creation, but rather 7 stages.

Even when it's shown to be wrong.



Some people call it "learning" and "making progress".

It's how we are communicating right now, while my grandfather grew up in a world where the primary means of transportation was a horse and had been a horse for thousands of years.

Bah excuses. Human beings don't really learn anything. Or we would have stopped fighting wars and stopped trying to control people centuries ago. As for the other, because we don't know if the reality we see is actually real, it's entirely possible that I am actually sending messages by raven, and you've replaced that image in your head to justify the instead sort of message you're receiving.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Is that why you switched religions at least 3 times already?

Hmmmm. No I haven't. I am Aiken , which means I am syncretic Christian with Buddhist and Taoist (and other) overtones. My book is called the Mune Shinri. For the sake of convenience, I typically engage most with Christianity, as I grew up around it, and there a are churches in my area.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is that why you switched religions at least 3 times already?

No

 

[wellwisher]

Science is the study and knowledge of things outside ourselves, while religion is the study and knowledge of things within ourselves; the kingdom of God is within. These opposite ends of knowledge use different tools. Sconce is about what we can see and agree via seeing; seeing is believing. Religion is about using inner senses and intuitions, to discover common human experiences that we can share, though shared inner experiences.

In this respect, religion is more connected to the operating system of the human brain. Its code needs to be read and experienced from the inside, since the brain has no removable hard drive, for science to study, outside.

Religions do not change very often, since the symbolic foundations of the human mind were inferred in the earliest times, when things were simpler. This core does not change as new layers appear in human nature; updates appear.

As an example of the contrast, say you had a toothache. A scientist can observe you from the outside. He can also wire you to machines to monitor various body output. What is still missing is the unique inner environment of the patient, who is most aware of the pain and the pain profile. Pain is subjective and this data is not easy to quantify, except from the inside by the patient. Typically, the scientist will have to ask the patient their pain level, since the patient has direct data input from the inside. This fills in the gap of extroverted science; prescribed medicines.

Science by being composed of humans, has it own inner subjectivities governed by human nature. Science is not only about truth in nature, but it is also about finding and keeping good jobs and good paying careers. These things are important, all by themselves, regardless of science. Playing by the rules for promotion; company politics, is part of the inner reality of many scientists; human nature.

These personal needs and dreams are a wild card in terms of being a good company man or woman and a good scientist, in the light of conflicting data, that can have an impact on livelihoods. Religion, through morals and ethics helps one deal with these inner conflicts within the conscience. Truth is not always in your best professional interest. As such, Science rarely turn on a dime, to new discoveries, if these conflict with the status quo, since there is also the group hug and one's career to think about.

For example, in about 2003 it was discovered the core of the earth spins faster than the surface. The earth has a moon sized object inside; iron core, that spins faster than the surface. The core is dragging the surface along. This data should have become the center piece for earth science. However, it is not widely known or promoted, since this truth conflicts with needs, other than science. Science continues to sell stale donuts; obsolete theory. Atheists science is morality relative, so this position can be justified, as doing science, since lab coats are present. A timeless moral foundation, consistent with the operating system, might do it differently. However, this may result in personal liability.

 

[Windwalker]

Depending on how you define spiritual, yes science does investigate that for it does investigate the mind, its nature, its functionning. It also investigate the nature of the observable universe.

What tools does it use to investigate spiritual experience? Are you referring to psychology, which attempts to make maps out of the varieties of religious experience, such as you find with researchers such as William James, or later on James Fowler investing the stages of faith development in human beings?

While that is itself a scientific investigation, taking an objective look at subjective experience, if you wished to explore the nature of spiritual experience itself, is science the right tool for that. to read up as much as you can about the subject? Or would you instead take up a spiritual practice itself firsthand and explore the nature of spiritual experience, by introspective, meditative pursuits?

Are you using science in the broad sense of the term, meaning a discipline that follows an injunction, experimentation, and peer examination? In which case, a Zen monastery and its meditation practices, can be said to follow those as well. Would you consider that science, or does it have to be the narrower definition of science as the empiric sciences which takes a 3rd person-objective view of the world only, and discards subjectivity in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[ChristineM]

Religion. Whether it's right or wrong, religious statements stay the same for centuries.

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

Thats science for ya, learn some new fact and you have to change to fit the fact.

Religion on the other hand, does not learn new, it relies on old.

Hence the reason religion is generally in decline and science goes on learning

 

[Cooky]

Oops, I accidentally clicked religion. My bad.

 

[nPeace]

Well, I consider religion to not be a reliable source for knowledge at all (although some religious texts have some historical facts in them).

So science win hands down as far as I'm concerned.

This is so... wrong. So absolutely... wrong, Polymath257.
Did you think this through?
Please consider...
There is much knowledge religion* gives, which science does not possess, and will never possess, which is also more useful long term, than anything science can ever produce.

As an example, take the question, "Is there a purpose to life, and can one find it?"
Having knowledge of this, has resulted in the betterment of lives, and societies. It has resulted in the overall well being of the one possessing this knowledge, and also affects their overall character.

Take a few examples 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and please read the experience of Kenneth, who at one time was like you, and the poster of the OP. Science Was My Religion
Whether it be addition to illegal drugs, suicidal, violent... it is religious knowledge that changes lives.

Science has produced no knowledge that can change the mind (heart) of man, which is the root of his sick actions.

Mankind wants to solve his problems, but he cannot solve them with science, as most realizes, that solving man's problems begins at the heart (mind) - creating a new mind.
They see the dilemma.
Faith, hope, and love, has changed people's lives for the better.

There is a lot of knowledge gained in religion, which was well before scientific knowledge.
Many though there are, consider just one...
(Job 26:7) He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;

This knowledge along with others, are not necessary to live, like much of the knowledge science gives - planets in orbit around the sun, the earths magnetic shield, etc.

This knowledge is not what religion pursues, as it has no bearing on our spiritual lives, which is more important.
Religion is more focused, on knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, that allows us to live for the real life, not just the few we have now, and this allows for the betterment of our present life.

Religion does not boast in the knowledge it gains, but seek to use knowledge aright - wisdom.
For example, religion does not want to show that they can make a cat glow in the dark, or give fruit flies different colored eyes.

Even now, there is knowledge religion possess, which science will never gain, because science doesn't go there. It can't.
Today, science is still sitting and waiting, and hoping for something that may not even be... I feel safe to say, isn't - SETI, earth-like planet with advanced life forms...

Anyhow, let me stop before I write a book.
You are sadly mistaken Polymath257. May I suggest you remove your blinders.

* Religion
When I use the term religion, I use it for common understanding, but I am really referring to true worship since there are thousands of different religions, but really, there is only one true religion.
Just as there is science, that is true science - testable, observable, verifiable, and then there is "science" beliefs based on assumption, and accepted on authority, there is religion that is based on accurate knowledge, and then there is religion based on false knowledge.
We can know the difference, It's not rocket science.
Any mistakes in this post, where misspelling is concerned, I apologize. I have to run, and have no time to spell check. Later.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Not in my belief

So? What does that have to do with it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So? What does that have to do with it?

To someone, who considers science manmade and religion from God, religion could be more reliable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet many others seem to be handling it just fine.

What is your point?

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

To someone, who considers science manmade and religion from God, religion could be more reliable.

Believing a fairy tale over facts doesn't make you right, nor does it make your knowledge more reliable.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

What is your point?

I must have quoted the wrong post by mistake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Believing a fairy tale over facts doesn't make you right, nor does it make your knowledge more reliable.

Yeah, that is your belief.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Yeah, that is your belief.

Boy oh boy I didn't see that one coming. . . .

Cramming a false equivalence doesn't help either.