Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[nPeace]

Accusing @Polymath257 of being wrong and then moving the goal posts, classy.
What if you not use your definition of religion (= my religion) but the common definition? Or if you are not certain which definition OP meant, ask?

Sorry you misunderstood.
When I say science, it is easy to include "science" if you believe in "science", so I like to clarify. Same with religion.
That's not moving the goal post.
It's clarifying.
If one has a problem with the clarification, then it's up to them to show that there is something wrong with what was said.
Do you find something wrong with what was said?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I have. I stick with my original position.

Good to hear that.

I don't consider that to be a matter of knowledge, but rather a matter of personal motivation. In my view, YOU get to choose the purpose of your life. There is no purpose external to human choices.

It's not a matter of what you consider. You are not also ruler of language, are you?
Knowledge -
1) facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
Take your pick. Your view does not count here.
We gain knowledge, whether you like it, or not.
However, if you insist it is not knowledge, that's okay. Much of the "knowledge" you think you have, is falsely called knowledge. 1 Timothy 6:20 (falsely called science KJV).

I would disagree. It is taking personal responsibility that changes lives. Religion can help with this, but it can also hinder it in many people.

Acting on the knowledge gained from religion helped the person to have a better life, or change their life.
The religious knowledge, thus saved their life.
If the drowning man took responsibility to save himself from drowning in the deep blue, but he did not have the life raft thrown to him, he would have been a drowned man.
The life raft saved his life.
You really do love those blinders, don't you? What did God ever do to you.

<snip>

I am aware that false religion hinders people, but how would true religion hinder people?

Exactly. It was before scientific knowledge and then re-interpreted after the knowledge was gained.

Oh boy. The blinders are on again.
Keep them on if you like.
He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing
Please explain how that has interpreted. What did it say originally that it needed interpreting?

From my perspective, you are the one with the blinders. As far as I can see, there is no reliable *knowledge* from religion. And the personal motivation aspect can be better derived from other sources.

Of course. can a man wearing blinders have any other perspective than that.
I don't think your "personal motivation" quibble worked. If anything, I think it boomeranged

I would claim that there is NO true religion. In any case, I have found no reason to think any religion has ever found anything close to the truth. Science has done far more in that way in 400 years than religion managed to do in 4000.

I think your personal motivation will keep you blind to that fact.
Science has done a lot of good. It has done a lot more harm than good. Religion has done a lot of bad... probably the most damage than any other "structure" on earth.
True religion has done more good in peoples lives. If it was a science endeavor, I am sure it would do a lot more good, but it is not a science provider.
However. religion has helped scientists with their work, and continues to help them.

 

[oldbadger]

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

Huh?
My late wife gave birth to a dreadfully disabled baby, helpless for all of its short life, because of 'science'.

I won't answer your survey in any case because science builds up and tears down in turns, as can religion.

They are both right and wrong, good and bad, and we just have to thread our way through all as best we can.

 

[Polymath257]

Good to hear that.


It's not a matter of what you consider. You are not also ruler of language, are you?
Knowledge -
1) facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
Take your pick. Your view does not count here.

And since neither of those definitions is consistent with religious beliefs, such beliefs are not knowledge. No facts, information, or skills. Nor awareness or familiarity gained by experience. At least, that's what I see. Instead, I see delusion and self-deception brought on by superstitions.

We gain knowledge, whether you like it, or not.

Yes, but not about religious topics.

However, if you insist it is not knowledge, that's okay. Much of the "knowledge" you think you have, is falsely called knowledge. 1 Timothy 6:20 (falsely called science KJV).

Since I reject that text as authoritative at all, I see no reason to respond to it.

Acting on the knowledge gained from religion helped the person to have a better life, or change their life.
The religious knowledge, thus saved their life.
If the drowning man took responsibility to save himself from drowning in the deep blue, but he did not have the life raft thrown to him, he would have been a drowned man.
The life raft saved his life.
You really do love those blinders, don't you? What did God ever do to you.

And those that have found meaning in ways other than religion have 'saved their lives'. That doesn't mean religious beliefs are 'knowledge': just that they are *one* way for people to change. It also does not mean they are the best way to change.

I am aware that false religion hinders people, but how would true religion hinder people?

Since I don't think there *is* a 'true religion, I see ALL of them as hindrances.

Oh boy. The blinders are on again.
Keep them on if you like.
He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing
Please explain how that has interpreted. What did it say originally that it needed interpreting?

Look at the context of those quotes. The first was during a period of time when the sky was seen as a 'tent over the Earth' which needed to be spread out over things.

The second was a much later text (in Job) written after the Greeks took over the area: they had a model of the universe with the Earth at the center and nothing below.

Of course. can a man wearing blinders have any other perspective than that.
I don't think your "personal motivation" quibble worked. If anything, I think it boomeranged

I think your personal motivation will keep you blind to that fact.
Science has done a lot of good. It has done a lot more harm than good. Religion has done a lot of bad... probably the most damage than any other "structure" on earth.
True religion has done more good in peoples lives. If it was a science endeavor, I am sure it would do a lot more good, but it is not a science provider.
However. religion has helped scientists with their work, and continues to help them.

Actually, it helps in motivation, but it doesn't help at all in terms of knowledge.

I strongly disagree that science has done more harm than good. The simple fact that we no longer have to worry about smallpox or polio means a LOT. That we can even think of providing food consistently to billions of people is another HUGE thing. That we can communicate and travel is yet another HUGE advance. The very fact that we can have this conversation is because of the work of science, not that of religion.

 

[Polymath257]

Then let's test the assumption that you know how science works.

You and your assistant are doing a study that involves repeated measures. Your assistant suggests a fixed effect regression model would best suit your data. Are they correct?

Science is not the same as statistics. Although certainly a knowledge of statistics helps in understanding the data obtained. But then, so does a knowledge of science.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Science is not the same as statistics. Although certainly a knowledge of statistics helps in understanding the data obtained. But then, so does a knowledge of science.

Studies that use repeated measures are fairly common in many branches of Science.

 

[nPeace]

And since neither of those definitions is consistent with religious beliefs, such beliefs are not knowledge. No facts, information, or skills. Nor awareness or familiarity gained by experience. At least, that's what I see. Instead, I see delusion and self-deception brought on by superstitions.

Perhaps you see the knowledge as foolishness, because it goes against your lifestyle... I don't know.
Whatever the reason, it has no bearing on the fact that people gain knowledge from books of wisdom, including the Bible. Hence the reason they act wisely, and not foolish, and make decisions they feel ashamed of later.

Spoiler

(Proverbs 23:20, 21) 20 Do not be among those who drink too much wine, Among those who gorge themselves on meat, 21 For a drunkard and a glutton will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe one with rags.
(Proverbs 23:30-35) 30 Those lingering long over wine; Those searching out mixed wine. 31 Do not look at the wine’s red color As it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly, 32 For in the end it bites like a serpent, And it secretes poison like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will speak perverse things. 34 And you will be like one lying down in the middle of the sea, Like one lying at the top of a ship’s mast. 35 You will say: “They have struck me, but I did not feel it. They beat me, but I did not know it. When will I wake up? I need another drink.”

To be sure, you are saying the above is not knowledge, and one does not experience this, and it is not factual. Yes?

Yes, but not about religious topics.

What are you saying? You seem a bit confused. Or maybe you are trying to confuse me, by pretend to be an expert on what you don't know.
Are you saying we do gain knowledge about the world, but we gain no religious knowledge?

Since I reject that text as authoritative at all, I see no reason to respond to it.

That's okay. There was no obligation for you to

And those that have found meaning in ways other than religion have 'saved their lives'. That doesn't mean religious beliefs are 'knowledge': just that they are *one* way for people to change. It also does not mean they are the best way to change.

So now what are you saying? That we do gain religious knowledge?
You see. Your trying so hard at denial is showing up. Why are you trying so hard?

Since I don't think there *is* a 'true religion, I see ALL of them as hindrances.

However, since there is true religion, and even if it was denied, one cannot deny the evidence it produces.
When one sees a river flowing, it's hard to deny a source... even if one claims there is none.

Look at the context of those quotes. The first was during a period of time when the sky was seen as a 'tent over the Earth' which needed to be spread out over things.

The second was a much later text (in Job) written after the Greeks took over the area: they had a model of the universe with the Earth at the center and nothing below.

Okay, expert. Everything you believe about the Bible is true... to you. Hence your science belief can't be any different from what I am seeing. Thanks for that.

I see no context you speak of.
However, hanging the earth upon nothing, must mean what it says then, if you think that saying making something like or as something means that it is the thing.
You can't deny that fact, can you?

Actually, it helps in motivation, but it doesn't help at all in terms of knowledge.

You don't know what you are saying. You are just saying it... I understand you want to appear to know.
Are you speaking from your experience?

I strongly disagree that science has done more harm than good. The simple fact that we no longer have to worry about smallpox or polio means a LOT. That we can even think of providing food consistently to billions of people is another HUGE thing. That we can communicate and travel is yet another HUGE advance. The very fact that we can have this conversation is because of the work of science, not that of religion.

Even this you would deny.
A trial and error system is expected to do more harm than good.
We learn from our mistakes. The thing about that, is the damage done may have repercussions... some irreversible.
Although I could find many, I will just give one, because you won't remove the blinders when you are trying so hard to keep them on.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps you see the knowledge as foolishness, because it goes against your lifestyle... I don't know.

I suspect my lifestyle is very similar to what it would be if I were religious.

Whatever the reason, it has no bearing on the fact that people gain knowledge from books of wisdom, including the Bible. Hence the reason they act wisely, and not foolish, and make decisions they feel ashamed of later.

People do that whether or not they follow the Bible (or any other religious text).

(Proverbs 23:20, 21) 20 Do not be among those who drink too much wine, Among those who gorge themselves on meat, 21 For a drunkard and a glutton will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe one with rags.
(Proverbs 23:30-35) 30 Those lingering long over wine; Those searching out mixed wine. 31 Do not look at the wine’s red color As it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly, 32 For in the end it bites like a serpent, And it secretes poison like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will speak perverse things. 34 And you will be like one lying down in the middle of the sea, Like one lying at the top of a ship’s mast. 35 You will say: “They have struck me, but I did not feel it. They beat me, but I did not know it. When will I wake up? I need another drink.”

To be sure, you are saying the above is not knowledge, and one does not experience this, and it is not factual. Yes?

And how is it actually *religious* knowledge? It sounds to me like some of the common sense stuff you find everywhere.

What are you saying? You seem a bit confused. Or maybe you are trying to confuse me, by pretend to be an expert on what you don't know.
Are you saying we do gain knowledge about the world, but we gain no religious knowledge?

That is correct. The knowledge we gain has nothing to do with religion. And religion has no special knowledge it can convey. At least, that's how I see it.

That's okay. There was no obligation for you to

So now what are you saying? That we do gain religious knowledge?
You see. Your trying so hard at denial is showing up. Why are you trying so hard?

No, I am saying that wisdom is different than knowledge. And that religion adds nothing to knowledge and very little to wisdom.

However, since there is true religion, and even if it was denied, one cannot deny the evidence it produces.

Again, I do not believe there is a 'true religion'.

When one sees a river flowing, it's hard to deny a source... even if one claims there is none.

Seems beside the point (as well as false).

Okay, expert. Everything you believe about the Bible is true... to you. Hence your science belief can't be any different from what I am seeing. Thanks for that.

I see no context you speak of.
However, hanging the earth upon nothing, must mean what it says then, if you think that saying making something like or as something means that it is the thing.
You can't deny that fact, can you?

I'm saying it is not special religious knowledge. It was derived from a different source.

You don't know what you are saying. You are just saying it... I understand you want to appear to know.
Are you speaking from your experience?

Even this you would deny.
A trial and error system is expected to do more harm than good.
We learn from our mistakes. The thing about that, is the damage done may have repercussions... some irreversible.
Although I could find many, I will just give one, because you won't remove the blinders when you are trying so hard to keep them on.

And I see you as having the blinders on. To each their own.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My beliefs appear to work.

To you... they appear to work to you. I'd like YOU to admit that that is pretty much as far as it goes - and that everyone else's beliefs in the religious arena are basically just as personal to themselves - since just about none of it can be independently verified.

I just want to level the playing field and get you to admit that is also all you have.

Sure - every last thing I rely on is a belief. Yes. So what? I still have loads better justifications for all of mine than you do for yours. I can guarantee you that because there is actual, real-world, observable evidence for the tenets I hold dear. Evidence that I could share with you and that you would be hard-pressed to deny. You could deny it, but you would look like a fool. On the other hand, I can deny your religious claims all day long, and you have nothing to display to myself or anyone else that would make me look as much a fool. And, to be sure, the vast majority of claims I would make about the observable world around me you also hold as tenets of your own reality. And so you would likely call it "absurd" that I would even raise those as the tenets of my "beliefs." And yet there they would be, and my ability to demonstrate them would be undeniable, because their reliability cannot be shaken. You don't have this for your religious beliefs. You don't. You can't. And to my mind there is very good reason for that.

Beliefs and no justification.

I hold the belief that I exist. Let's start there. I have loads of justification for holding this belief. Observation of my condition day in and day out. And sure, we can break it down and say that I am nothing more than states of change happening to various amounts and types of matter. We can get pedantic and ask "Do you really exist?" But the simple fact of the matter is that, according to all evidence I have at my disposal, I exist, and I could demonstrate my existence to you in a way that you will likely never be able to reproduce for any idea of "God" that you have. Just even consider that fact that you are reading my words on the internet that I have typed. Even THAT is better evidence of the existence of this thing I am calling "myself" than you will ever have for "God."

Justification is philosophy and it didn't work.

Observation and demonstration. That's what I care about. In the end, I am going to have to react to something that is presented to me as reality in order to continue what I am presented with as "my" existence. I will go on doing that, and my justification is that all the evidence I have points to my being a living being who must accomplish certain tasks in order to continue being. Based on what I observe and what I seem (again, according to all available evidence) to be able to demonstrate to myself and anyone else around me that I choose, "I" exist. Again... loads better justification for belief and a vastly better caliber of evidence than you will likely ever have for your "God." My simple, mundane existence blows your concept of "God" out of the water from an evidential standpoint. Ain't that a b1tch?

BTW it is interesting with all that "wacky" and "delusion" you throw around. Are you an expert in that?

By now I have at least heard all of the very best that those arguing for a god's existence have to offer. And believe me... I have gone looking. I am sure you think it arrogant of me to believe that I have heard the best. But "the proof is in the pudding" - if there is something better, and you know of it... then present it. Shouldn't it be so easy if God is such a fundamental part of our existence? Shouldn't that just be the easiest thing? But it's not, is it? It most definitely is not the easiest thing.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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

Science is more reliable to determine what is true.

Religion is more reliable with regards to social engineering and helping people to overcome trials.

 

[exchemist]

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

Science is more reliable for knowledge of nature, since "science" is short for "natural science".

Religion is not primarily concerned with nature but with teachings and practices to help people live their lives by providing direction, guidance, solace and company. There is wisdom and knowledge to be found in the major religions that enables them to fulfil this function. Science barely addresses such matters, if at all.

So your question seems to me a bit like peremptorily demanding an answer to: "Which is better? Stilton cheese or a walk in the countryside?"

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Science is more reliable for knowledge of nature, since "science" is short for "natural science".

Religion is not primarily concerned with nature but with teachings and practices to help people live their lives by providing direction, guidance, solace and company. There is wisdom and knowledge to be found in the major religions that enables them to fulfil this function. Science barely addresses such matters, if at all.

So your question seems to me a bit like peremptorily demanding an answer to: "Which is better? Stilton cheese or a walk in the countryside?"

Considering you can eat your cheese while walking in the park it was not really a which-is-better question. This thread was made after my other thread "How much can we trust science?", and it was in my mind a follow-up to that thread. However, if you want to ask me which is better, I am going to say science every time.

 

[gnostic]

Science is more reliable to determine what is true.

There are various forms of science, and it can largely be broken down into two.

1. Natural Sciences
2. Social Sciences

Natural Sciences can also be divided into two again, as...

1. Physical Sciences (which encompassed a number of branches, eg physics, chemistry, Earth science & astronomy)
2. Life Sciences (various forms of biology and biology-related fields).

Natural Sciences are considered “hard science”, which employs the Scientific Method, while Social Sciences are considered “soft science”, don’t use Scientific Method.

Social Sciences concern itself with human behavior or emotion, human cultures and human social activities.

Having said all that...

Religion is more reliable with regards to social engineering and helping people to overcome trials.

...here, I don’t think that’s really true in modern societies.

Many things that religions teach, whether through (A) spokespeople (eg priests, clerics, disciples, prophets, etc) or (B) through traditions or scriptures, may be true for when those religions started out, back then...

...but with today's societies and cultures being so complex and people being far more diverse, I seriously don't religions have adapted so well with changes...meaning they are so well-equipped and reliable with social engineering or with helping people like they used to. If religions are 1,000, 2000 or 3000 years old or more, then religious teachings can be outdated, their wisdom unuseable.

As I said before, there is Social Sciences, which have many different fields and sub-fields, and these would include psychology, behavioral studies, study of mental illnesses and so on.

These studies, like I said, are soft science, therefore finding exact are not always possible, especially when dealing with psychological/behavioral disorders or social disorders.

Religions cannot help people who have non-religious issues/problems. So it might be better seeking help and counseling from specialists.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

There are various forms of science, and it can largely be broken down into two.

1. Natural Sciences
2. Social Sciences

Natural Sciences can also be divided into two again, as...

1. Physical Sciences (which encompassed a number of branches, eg physics, chemistry, Earth science & astronomy)
2. Life Sciences (various forms of biology and biology-related fields).

Natural Sciences are considered “hard science”, which employs the Scientific Method, while Social Sciences are considered “soft science”, don’t use Scientific Method.

Social Sciences concern itself with human behavior or emotion, human cultures and human social activities.

Having said all that...



...here, I don’t think that’s really true in modern societies.

Many things that religions teach, whether through (A) spokespeople (eg priests, clerics, disciples, prophets, etc) or (B) through traditions or scriptures, may be true for when those religions started out, back then...

...but with today's societies and cultures being so complex and people being far more diverse, I seriously don't religions have adapted so well with changes...meaning they are so well-equipped and reliable with social engineering or with helping people like they used to. If religions are 1,000, 2000 or 3000 years old or more, then religious teachings can be outdated, their wisdom unuseable.

As I said before, there is Social Sciences, which have many different fields and sub-fields, and these would include psychology, behavioral studies, study of mental illnesses and so on.

These studies, like I said, are soft science, therefore finding exact are not always possible, especially when dealing with psychological/behavioral disorders or social disorders.

Religions cannot help people who have non-religious issues/problems. So it might be better seeking help and counseling from specialists.

There are three main branches of Science.

There are the Formal sciences. They study formal systems, such as mathematics, logic, statistics, computer science, etc.

Then there is also the Natural sciences and Social sciences as you suggest.

Branches of science - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Considering you can eat your cheese while walking in the park it was not really a which-is-better question. This thread was made after my other thread "How much can we trust science?", and it was in my mind a follow-up to that thread. However, if you want to ask me which is better, I am going to say science every time.

You make my point for me: you can study science and also follow a religion - as many scientists do. So presenting it as an either/or issue is something of a false antithesis, as other contributors have pointed out.

Where you are obviously right is in the rather trivial sense that insofar as religions purport to account for the workings of nature, they will be a poor source of knowledge. But only rather primitive versions of religions try to do that. Most major religions have learned to accommodate science with little difficulty.

As for what you personally think, that was obvious from the somewhat tendentious nature of the OP.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

You make my point for me: you can study science and also follow a religion -

Sure you can study facts and make stuff up at the same time, but when it comes to making important decisions and conclusions I rather have reliable knowledge to inform those decisions and conclusions than fantasy.

 

[exchemist]

Sure you can study facts and make stuff up at the same time, but when it comes to making important decisions and conclusions I rather have reliable knowledge to inform those decisions and conclusions than fantasy.

People's lives consist of a lot more than "making important decisions and conclusions", though.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

People's lives consist of a lot more than "making important decisions and conclusions", though.

What does that have to do with my statement? Kind of seems like you are just avoiding the point.

 

[exchemist]

What does that have to do with my statement?

It points out that your statement, while perhaps true in many circumstances, is not an adequate reason for dismissing the role of religion in people's lives as worthless.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

It points out that your statement, while perhaps true in many circumstances, is not an adequate reason for dismissing the role of religion in people's lives as worthless.

This thread is about which is a more reliable source of knowledge. So are you here to address the question in the OP, or just defend religion?