What is the difference between science and religion?

[Skwim]

I thought the following, from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, answers this question quite well---nice and succinct. And I suggest people use it to explain to those here who may conflate the two, or simply have no idea of what they're talking about. The linked site also gives separate explanations of science and religion. It also has a nice piece on evolution, creationism, and ID. (scroll down the page).

"SCIENCE
Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future. When scientists see that a proposed explanation has been well confirmed by repeated observations, it serves the scientific community as a reliable theory. A theory in science is the highest form of scientific explanation, not just a “mere opinion.” Strong theories, ones that have been well confirmed by evidence from nature, are an essential goal of science. Well-supported theories guide future efforts to solve other questions about the natural world.

RELIGION
Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning. However, “testing” of religious understandings of the world is incidental, implicit and informal in the course of the life of the religious community in the world. Religious understanding draws from both subjective insight and traditional authority. Therefore, some people view religion as based on nothing more than personal opinion or “blind faith,” and so, as immune to rational thought. However, this is an erroneous judgment. Virtually all of the historic religions include traditions of rational reflection."
source and much more
​

 

[Draupadi]

I can understand why you opened this thread. But believe me the one who should know won't be bothered.

 

[Skwim]

I can understand why you opened this thread. But believe me the one who should know won't be bothered.

Which is why I suggested to use it as a instructional aid by those who do know.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nice idea.

 

[Riverwolf]

I thought the following, from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, answers this question quite well---nice and succinct. And I suggest people use it to explain to those here who may conflate the two, or simply have no idea of what they're talking about. The linked site also gives separate explanations of science and religion. It also has a nice piece on evolution, creationism, and ID. (scroll down the page).

"SCIENCE
Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future. When scientists see that a proposed explanation has been well confirmed by repeated observations, it serves the scientific community as a reliable theory. A theory in science is the highest form of scientific explanation, not just a “mere opinion.” Strong theories, ones that have been well confirmed by evidence from nature, are an essential goal of science. Well-supported theories guide future efforts to solve other questions about the natural world.

RELIGION
Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning. However, “testing” of religious understandings of the world is incidental, implicit and informal in the course of the life of the religious community in the world. Religious understanding draws from both subjective insight and traditional authority. Therefore, some people view religion as based on nothing more than personal opinion or “blind faith,” and so, as immune to rational thought. However, this is an erroneous judgment. Virtually all of the historic religions include traditions of rational reflection."
source and much more
​

I was prepared to lambast the definition of religion, since it's so often misunderstood, but I found that to be very accurate. It even addressed the misconception I see so often, and argued against it.

What I want to stress is that the things that definition of religion lists are not worthless or to be completely discarded. They just have no place in scientific inquiry.

 

[Revoltingest]

If everyone actually understood those descriptions of religion & science,
76.3% of the threads here would never exist.
What fun is that?

 

[Sees]

I was prepared to lambast the definition of religion, since it's so often misunderstood, but I found that to be very accurate. It even addressed the misconception I see so often, and argued against it.

What I want to stress is that the things that definition of religion lists are not worthless or to be completely discarded. They just have no place in scientific inquiry.

Same here...I think the descriptions were well-written and bookmarked the site.

The author/team seems to have a grasp that theism and religion have varying amounts of sophistication, depth, etc. In contrast to the frequent, dry, and repetitive presentation as being unfortunate, childish ignorance carried over from a primitive past - at odds with growing, evolving information/knowledge.

 

[idav]

Between science and faith, one seems more accepting of blind faith than the other. It is interesting that religious try and paint science similarly as a method of faith but science relies heavily on concreteness and detests blind faith.

 

[metis]

I think that the Smithsonian likely caved in under maybe a fear of a backlash, but the definition of "Religion" misses a very major point, namely that, generally speaking, religion and its basic precepts are unfalsifiable, which is not generally true of scientific precepts. Let me give an example:

The planets and suns in our universe are actually spit-wads from the Cosmic Godzilla deity that is one of 1,000,001 Gods, and the suns are burning because his breath ignited them. Now, try and prove this wrong, or even what supposed steps could be taken to prove this wrong?

This is why there are virtually many hundreds of religions/denominations, and in most cases it is virtually impossible to prove them wrong.

 

[idav]

I think that the Smithsonian likely caved in under maybe a fear of a backlash, but the definition of "Religion" misses a very major point, namely that, generally speaking, religion and its basic precepts are unfalsifiable, which is not generally true of scientific precepts. Let me give an example:

The planets and suns in our universe are actually spit-wads from the Cosmic Godzilla deity that is one of 1,000,001 Gods, and the suns are burning because his breath ignited them. Now, try and prove this wrong, or even what supposed steps could be taken to prove this wrong?

This is why there are virtually many hundreds of religions/denominations, and in most cases it is virtually impossible to prove them wrong.

With religion being unfalsifiable it is no wonder that religions always speak the truth.

 

[sun rise]

If everyone actually understood those descriptions of religion & science,
76.3% of the threads here would never exist.
What fun is that?

That's sadly true. And confirmation bias helps make sure they won't understand. But maybe it will matter to a few. But don't despair. We'd still
have plenty to argue about - theology is so much fun, isn't it?

 

[Sha'irullah]

For many theists, if they can label science as being religious then it works i their benefit. Even theists who subscribe to the evolutionary theory detest it as it makes their religion seem less valid. It is just a matter of hypocrisy where the lips speak the the heart does not follow

 

[jidex]

Jesus has always been confirmed by Science. Its just that science takes a while to catch up with the Truth.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Jesus has always been confirmed by Science. Its just that science takes a while to catch up with the Truth.

It takes real talent to fail miserably at both science and religion at the same time.

Kudos.