The fundamental difference between science and religion

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've seen many debates between science and religion, I've participated in a few of them. And I've began noticing something, especially when the topic is creationism against evolution and abiogenesis.

We have two groups of thought, each arguing their point from a differing underlying philosophy. On the one hand, you have religion arguing from the point of view based in metaphysical speculation, where empirical evidence isn't important. For religion, it doesn't matter if one can experience what they believe through the senses; it doesn't matter if the belief is logical and based in reason. All that matters is belief. Data, tests, observations, logic; none of that matters in the realm of religion. On the other hand, you have science arguing from the point of view of reason and empiricism. Logic and reason are of the utmost importance, experience through the senses is the basis of understanding. Data, testing, observations, rational thought- these are the means of science.

And these two are operating in different realms. The issue comes in when they overlap, such as in the belief of creationism. This is the basic idea that the metaphysical had great influence on the physical, regardless of whatever data there is to show otherwise. Science deals only with the physical realm. Science is not concerned with metaphysics, spiritual realms, supernatural beings, etc., mainly because these cannot be tested and observed. The only dealing science has with such things is when those who espouse them bring them into focus.

I say all this for a very good reason: the reason why nothing ever gets solved, say, in the debate of creationism versus evolution/abiogenesis, is because each side is operating from a mindset that is fundamentally different from the other. Creationists say that god created the world (with the mindset that I've already laid out), and science says prove it (with the mindset that has already been explained). Creationists don't need proof or evidence, all they need is faith and belief. Science needs evidence that can be tested and observed, or it's not really worth the time.

So, it's my contention that this very fundamental difference between religion and science is the reason why debating one with the other is basically pointless, even if each side understood the underlying philosophy of the other side, it still wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Iti oj]

The issue is all to often creationist like to claim they are scientific. \

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that they fundamentally have nothing in common.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have two groups of thought, each arguing their point from a differing underlying philosophy. On the one hand, you have religion arguing from the point of view based in metaphysical speculation, where empirical evidence isn't important.

There's a reason we distinguish the philosophy of science and metaphysics from the sciences: the sciences are sets of methods with a fair amount of shared techniques and the reliance on observations. However, even this is straining things as the emergence in social networks and correlations between paired space-like separated photons depend upon observations that are indirect and/or acausal (at least epistemically).

There's also a reason that what was natural philosophy (which, according to Plato's Apology, was one of the charges the Greeks executed Socrates for) became "science". That reason was a Christian worldview at the right time (towards the end of scholasticism (more or less the intellectual equivalent of Greek philosophy and heavily dependent upon Greco-Roman philosophy) and with the necessary elements (a belief that a designed cosmos had an order and the teleological aftereffects of early Christian millenarianism). To avoid repeating myself: Galileo and the Origin of Science

However antithetical to the sciences that religion in general and Christianity in particular has become, empiricism entered into the pre-curser of science (natural philosophy) through an aberrant worldview: a belief that
1) the world as understandable and ordered because it was designed
&
2) that the path to understanding the designer was to investigate (empirically) the design

For religion, it doesn't matter if one can experience what they believe through the senses

For many religions it does, and the sciences have some fuzzy boundaries as well. A number of academic conferences, from one held at Cambridge University in 2001 to another at the same place (different college, same university) in 2005, but in particular one held at Stanford in 2003 resulted in the publication of a volume which shares the name of the 2003 conference: "Universe or Multiverse?". The volume, as academic volumes do, consists of papers by specialists in fields (astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics, etc.) and was published by Cambridge University Press in 2007.

The volumes editor (Bernard Carr) notes the following in this introduction:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...
For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashowm Martin Gardner and George Ellis, with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence...To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design."

Although modern mathematical developments, from Hilbert space & non-Euclidean geometries to something as "simple" as rigorously defined analysis, so surpass the capacity of scholastic theologians or Greek philosophers to develop cosmological models that it seems any analogies between these must be flawed, the basic underlying theme is the same. It is the use of mathematical/geometric models to derive a result, not observe it.

it doesn't matter if the belief is logical and based in reason

In some religions this is no doubt true. In others it is not. As logic remains in the domain of philosophy and was begat by the Greeks and continued by first the Muslims and then the Christians through the origins of modern science (and not by coincidence), reasoning has been essential to the most influential and widespread religions in the world. Islam and Judaism have tended towards jurisprudence, but this remains a matter of reasoning even if it isn't logic applied to empirically derived data.

All that matters is belief.

Literally. For everyone. What distinguishes belief systems (at least as it relates to this topic) is justification for beliefs. No matter what a person says about the fallibility of sensory perception or using examples like optical illusions and mirages to demonstrate the potential inaccuracies of sensory experiences, such persons either do not believe what they say or they will die (from starvation wondering whether or not they are actually hungry, from being hit by a car considering if it is really there, etc.).

On the other hand, you have science arguing from the point of view of reason and empiricism.

Our experiences in research and literature reviews must differ quite a bit.

Data, testing, observations, rational thought- these are the means of science.

Which is why decades of testing, observations, and rational thought have resulted in mutually contradictory theories of cognition as expressed in thousands of studies across most of the world. The sciences do, in my opinion, have a far better basis for their conclusions than those derived from "faith through reason", but let us not replace god with Science by treating it both philosophically and grammatically as a sentient entity.

I say all this for a very good reason: the reason why nothing ever gets solved, say, in the debate of creationism versus evolution/abiogenesis, is because each side is operating from a mindset that is fundamentally different from the other.

Usually, whenever I have come across debates regarding relgion and science it involves two parties that both misconstrue what science is (and things like theories, hypotheses, The Scientific Method, etc., are).

I think the picture you paint, as neat and tidy as it is, doesn't really accurately depicts any reality.


I blame people. "I love humanity. It's people I can't stand."

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue is all to often creationist like to claim they are scientific. \

Pretty much this. And also a stubborn refusal to give science its due.

 

[Skwim]

The issue is all to often creationist like to claim they are scientific. \

Exactly. And to the point where some want creationism taught in public school science classes. If it wasn't for this asinine encroachment into the arena of science education very few of us would care one wit what they believe. Aside from this, I think some of us find it an amusing diversion to challenge creationists in their religious wanderings into the fields of science. Supercilious claims beg for a slap-down.

 

[Alceste]

I think I was dreaming about this last night. I dreamt I thought differently. First, decided what my conclusion had to be, then directed all my intellectual faculties to rationalizing it, cherry picking factoids to tie it all together, sometimes inventing factoids to plaster over the cracks.

The thrill of the game was in creating the argument itself, not proving anything to anyone. If whatever I rationalized was internally coherent, I was satisfied. It absolutely was not about sincerely trying to figure out the difference between truth and falsehood. Truth was not relevant. Or the truth of my a priori conclusion was assumed.

Anyway, it was a trip. Woke up completely understanding how our resident YECs can keep it up, thread after thread, without ever being in the least bit influenced by evidence contrary to their beliefs. They're just practicing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think I was dreaming about this last night. I dreamt I thought differently. First, decided what my conclusion had to be, then directed all my intellectual faculties to rationalizing it, cherry picking factoids to tie it all together, sometimes inventing factoids to plaster over the cracks.

The thrill of the game was in creating the argument itself, not proving anything to anyone. If whatever I rationalized was internally coherent, I was satisfied. It absolutely was not about sincerely trying to figure out the difference between truth and falsehood. Truth was not relevant. Or the truth of my a priori conclusion was assumed.

Anyway, it was a trip. Woke up completely understanding how our resident YECs can keep it up, thread after thread, without ever being in the least bit influenced by evidence contrary to their beliefs. They're just practicing.

To be fair, we all do this to varying extents regarding different things. The key is in being aware and honest enough to recognize when and how we do this, the reasons why we do it, and whether or not the ends may justify the means for us when doing this consciously. Understanding this in ourselves and others is also useful in determining they types of tactics for discussions or arguments which are the most effective for influencing people.

 

[Alceste]

To be fair, we all do this to varying extents regarding different things. The key is in being aware and honest enough to recognize when and how we do this, the reasons why we do it, and whether or not the ends may justify the means for us when doing this consciously. Understanding this in ourselves and others is also useful in determining they types of tactics for discussions or arguments which are the most effective for influencing people.

Yeah, the difference was that instead of taking the tendency to cognitive bias into account and compensating for it in the search for truth, in the dream I was using it as a tool to craft my argument. On purpose. That was the game. That's where the thrills came from. I wasn't even trying to fight it.

In the dream I was flipping back and forth between that way of thinking and my normal way. Ordinarily, I don't bother having an opinion on anything at all until I do some research into the subject. Then I try to compensate for cognitive bias by ensuring I'm getting my information from high quality sources and reading several different perspectives or studies. Then I come up with an opinion.

Yeah, I guess I'm a freak.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yeah, I guess I'm a freak.

We don't like your kind around here, weirdo.

 

[Sunstone]

I say all this for a very good reason: the reason why nothing ever gets solved, say, in the debate of creationism versus evolution/abiogenesis, is because each side is operating from a mindset that is fundamentally different from the other. Creationists say that god created the world (with the mindset that I've already laid out), and science says prove it (with the mindset that has already been explained). Creationists don't need proof or evidence, all they need is faith and belief. Science needs evidence that can be tested and observed, or it's not really worth the time.

So, it's my contention that this very fundamental difference between religion and science is the reason why debating one with the other is basically pointless, even if each side understood the underlying philosophy of the other side, it still wouldn't make a difference.

I agree with you that (for lack of any better words) "creationists" and "evolutionists" are coming from such radically different perspectives or paradigms that little or no common ground is likely to be found, and little or no agreement reached. To call the differences between the camps matters of "perspective or paradigm" is probably to understate the differences, because the two sides often enough cannot even agree on what constitutes logic, let alone on whether a fossil is evidence for evolution.

I'm not sure, though, that it's helpful to cast one side of the debate as "religion" and the other side as "science". There's some truth to framing it that way, but I think something larger is going on. When a guy tells you 500,000 scientists are in a conspiracy to deny god -- and he believes himself -- that's not religion. That's something else. Blaming such a belief on religion is perhaps merely a polite way of avoiding calling an imbecile an imbecile.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Lets have an apples to apples debate with science of thousands of years ago to make a level playing field with religion.

Do you believe our current science will look smart a couple of thousand years from now?

At the very least, you have to admit religion is at a disadvantage here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For religion, it doesn't matter if one can experience what they believe through the senses; it doesn't matter if the belief is logical and based in reason. All that matters is belief. Data, tests, observations, logic; none of that matters in the realm of religion.

For the record: that isn't an analysis so much as a smear campaign. But perhaps all that matters here is your belief about religion.

 

[Alceste]

Lets have an apples to apples debate with science of thousands of years ago to make a level playing field with religion.

Do you believe our current science will look smart a couple of thousand years from now?

At the very least, you have to admit religion is at a disadvantage here.

We do "admit" that. The literalist camp does not. To them, the Bible is the inerrant magnum opus of God Himself, who apparently has no talent for metaphor, nuance, or narrative. As far as they are concerned, science is at a disadvantage because it changes as we learn more about the world.

 

[Alceste]

For the record: that isn't an analysis so much as a smear campaign. But perhaps all that matters here is your belief about religion.

It can only be perceived as a "smear" by those who value empirical materialism more highly than faith. I'm with SJ Gould - science and religion are "non-overlapping magesteria." If faith had to be based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith. It's possible we need faith in some greater purpose or mystery just as much as we need proven models of the world with explanatory and predictive power. It's only when faith tries to dress itself up as the latter that problems arise.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's probably more prudent to say science conforms accordingly to it's discoveries as opposed to outright change, suggesting prior establishments lose their validity in face of new findings.

Religion tends to be more stolid with conclusions made and established before the facts, forcing it to remain within a rigid framework that makes it difficult or impossible to maintain in face of new discoveries.

The methodology differs between science and religion so no real comparison is there. Either a religion needs to conform to science or science must conform to religion depending upon it's disciplines.

The fundamental difference lies there I think.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It can only be perceived as a "smear" by those who value empirical materialism more highly than faith. I'm with SJ Gould - science and religion are "non-overlapping magesteria."

As do I. Yet one can completely accept Gould's position without claiming as a religionist …

"it doesn't matter if the belief is logical and based in reason. All that matters is belief."​

 

[Alceste]

As do I. Yet one can completely accept Gould's position without claiming as a religionist …

"it doesn't matter if the belief is logical and based in reason. All that matters is belief."​

Ah, I see your point. I took that to be meant in the context of putting forward a particular argument, for example the argument that evolution must necessarily be false because one's particular flavor of faith demands Genesis be taken to be literally true. Certainly, to say that approach to one or two issues sums up one's entire character would be unfair.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Creationists say that god created the world (with the mindset that I've already laid out), and science says prove it (with the mindset that has already been explained). Creationists don't need proof or evidence, all they need is faith and belief. Science needs evidence that can be tested and observed, or it's not really worth the time.

So, it's my contention that this very fundamental difference between religion and science is the reason why debating one with the other is basically pointless, even if each side understood the underlying philosophy of the other side, it still wouldn't make a difference.

There is no fundamental difference between religion and science. Religion should accept what is provable, and reject what is not. Is religion not about truth? In the philosophy I follow, there is no hiatus between science and religion. They are one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but let us not replace god with Science by treating it both philosophically and grammatically as a sentient entity.

Why not, and is your God not sentient (if you have one)?

Do you believe our current science will look smart a couple of thousand years from now?

I do not know if humans will be around to savor it. Won't we use our 20,000 atom bombs ever?

If faith had to be based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith.

Why should religion be based on faith?