Difference between Science and Religion

[RamaRaksha]

I fear you are over-simplifying it. A theory must survive falseability before it becomes a theory. Until then it is a hypothesis.
Often. Not always and not necessarily.
Religion can exist without alienating itself from science and facts, although I will readily grant that it is depressingly common for it not to.

Basically the big difference is that a scientist proposes a theory, shows his math and the steps he had taken to come up with the theory and invites other scientists to disprove his findings - basically the scientist is inviting disagreement

Religions are the total opposite - they do not want to hear anything that contradicts their holy books - i have proposed new ideas on this forum and either i am proselytizing or offending someone or it is not religion but my personal opinion

Religious people seem stuck in the past - the goal of a heaven is to run back to the womb, the nest - live an ignorant, irresponsible life in retirement for eternity

 

[RamaRaksha]

I think that you're mistaking religion with people who claim to be religious. Religion doesn't necessarily have to junk facts, I haven't heard a single commandment from religion to do that. May I note that people who claim to be scientists can do that too (disregrad facts). In fact dogma can creep into what was previously considered to be science.

Evolution scares people - it says maybe everything happened naturally no super being needed that scares religious people - it's not that they care that much whether God exists or whether He made us or not - it is that they are scared that death is the end - no easy life of sitting on their collective butts and taking it easy in heaven - try going to any yahoo news story on evolution and in fact any news story and watch the religious people troll in with their put downs. As our knowledge increased, God has retreated further and further - God of the Gaps - today the gap is that we don't know what caused the Big Bang or what existed before that - I hear that is where God is hiding today - behind the big bang

Science says I am curious, I want to know, learn
Religion says i am not curious, i don't want to know, i don't want to learn

Science stands for Knowledge
Religion for lack of knowledge

 

[RamaRaksha]

I would say the difference between science and religion is religion teaches how to be good, which is subjective, and science, at least the physical sciences, teach things that just are. Being good and teaching broad concepts is different from a tangible, observable science. Also, there are many different religions and there are also many different sciences. "An economist and a political science teacher go into a bar..." You just know they're going to have a field day arguing about what is "best" for us. Science can't even make up its mind regarding true reality yet, with different theories regarding the eventual state of our universe and conflicting theories that arise from superstring theory. Religion is no better, obviously.

It's funny, religion and science got along for a long time. The Catholic church has built many hospitals and schools, for instance. And I think while most people in the United States are Christian, a majority of those people probably believe in evolution too, even to the point of a common ancestor. Religion and science can work together but the problem is the two largest religions haven't been able to keep up with social and scientific advancements in the past 500 years or so.

Look at Unitarian Universalism. That religion is about embracing and accepting people of many different faiths, with a common goal of human unity. UUs don't worship God. They worship fuzzy secular concepts such as *love*. They take their inspiration from any source, ancient or modern. They have life lessons for us all. UUism fully embraces science. They are against climate change and are pro-environmental policies. They are also skeptics. Modern Unitarianism came around in the 1960's, and membership has been dwindling. Its probably because of Christianity's own liberalisation, and the fact that there is no strong reinforcement to go back to the church. The first church I went to was a Unitarian Universalist church.

Uh, sorry. I like talking about myself. What was I on about? Oh, religion and science. They answer two different questions: religion answers why should something be here, and science answers how it got here to begin with. Two completely different questions, two viewpoints. To me, how is a definite answer, whereas why isn't. Why I'm I here? Because my parents ****ed and my mom raised me while I was growing up. Wait ... that's HOW I was here. The question of why is a lot deeper. I answer the question within my own religion by saying this: humans, and all other things, want to live as long as possible with the most amount of options as possible. The longer you live, until you get too old to live life fully you have more and more options available to you. Prolonging death as far as possible and allow one to experience all the options of life is a fruitful way to live, one that should be worth exploring. Along the way you'll see conditions are improving for the vast majority of people. Our natural extropy is accelerating, and one day will reach truly divine place where the big five divinities are not just considered but chosen by a future species. Our cause to divinity is the reason why I live. But that is not the only reason one could live.

Good post thank you. Sorry to hear that your church is declining - seems like they teach good values, but maybe that is not what people want to hear

Science is ever-changing, constantly in flux, whereas religion is like a fairy tale like Cinderella - the stories never change

 

[Riverwolf]

Science is ever-changing, constantly in flux, whereas religion is like a fairy tale like Cinderella - the stories never change

ROLFMAO!! XD XD XD "Never change", huh? Oh, that's a laugh.

Did you know the Princess never kissed the frog? In the story as originally collected, the Prince changed back because she threw him against a wall after refusing to have sex with him on her father's orders.

Snow White was revived because the Dwarves dropped her casket, which caused the apple that was lodged in her throat (given to her by her Evil biological Mother, incidentally) to fly out.

As for Cinderella, in addition to being one of the most (bafflingly) reworked and retold of the fairy tales the Grimm brothers collected (and so is constantly changing; one of my favorite reworkings is one where the Fairy Godmother is late by several decades, and so the eponymous character ends up living a mundane but fulfilling life married, with children, to another working-class person), her Evil Stepsisters actually mutilated their feet so they'd fit the shoes.

And all of this from just barely a century of folktale evolution. Imagine how different they probably looked a thousand years ago.

The original "sleeping beauty" is the Valkyrie and Shieldmaiden, Brunhild.

 

[RamaRaksha]

ROLFMAO!! XD XD XD "Never change", huh? Oh, that's a laugh.

Did you know the Princess never kissed the frog? In the story as originally collected, the Prince changed back because she threw him against a wall after refusing to have sex with him on her father's orders.

Snow White was revived because the Dwarves dropped her casket, which caused the apple that was lodged in her throat (given to her by her Evil biological Mother, incidentally) to fly out.

As for Cinderella, in addition to being one of the most (bafflingly) reworked and retold of the fairy tales the Grimm brothers collected (and so is constantly changing; one of my favorite reworkings is one where the Fairy Godmother is late by several decades, and so the eponymous character ends up living a mundane but fulfilling life married, with children, to another working-class person), her Evil Stepsisters actually mutilated their feet so they'd fit the shoes.

And all of this from just barely a century of folktale evolution. Imagine how different they probably looked a thousand years ago.

The original "sleeping beauty" is the Valkyrie and Shieldmaiden, Brunhild.

Good post - shall we say Science changes because we find new facts, old facts then are thrown out whereas fairy tales change based on popularity or changing morals? People retelling the stories embellishing things as they see fit and sometimes the new stories catch on?

 

[LuisDantas]

Basically the big difference is that a scientist proposes a theory, shows his math and the steps he had taken to come up with the theory and invites other scientists to disprove his findings - basically the scientist is inviting disagreement

Except that, once again, at that point it is not a theory at all. A theory has been tested already.

Religions are the total opposite - they do not want to hear anything that contradicts their holy books - i have proposed new ideas on this forum and either i am proselytizing or offending someone or it is not religion but my personal opinion

Religious people seem stuck in the past - the goal of a heaven is to run back to the womb, the nest - live an ignorant, irresponsible life in retirement for eternity

That is religion at its worst, though. A popular form, but not a fair representation.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Evolution scares people - it says maybe everything happened naturally no super being needed that scares religious people - it's not that they care that much whether God exists or whether He made us or not - it is that they are scared that death is the end - no easy life of sitting on their collective butts and taking it easy in heaven - try going to any yahoo news story on evolution and in fact any news story and watch the religious people troll in with their put downs. As our knowledge increased, God has retreated further and further - God of the Gaps - today the gap is that we don't know what caused the Big Bang or what existed before that - I hear that is where God is hiding today - behind the big bang

Science says I am curious, I want to know, learn
Religion says i am not curious, i don't want to know, i don't want to learn

Science stands for Knowledge
Religion for lack of knowledge

Again I say, you're mistaking religion for people who claim to be religious. How would you know that that is the motivation of 'religious' people who are against evolution? Maybe some people are like that, but is it fair to say that they represent what religion is? As for God retreating further and further, well God was never hiding in the gaps of our knowledge to begin with. Can you provide a single scientific discovey with outrules the existence of an omnipotent being?

 

[Augustus]

Science says I am curious, I want to know, learn
Religion says i am not curious, i don't want to know, i don't want to learn

Science stands for Knowledge
Religion for lack of knowledge

The stupid science/religion dichotomy stands for lack of knowledge.

If you are genuinely interested in knowledge then move beyond this cartoonish and superficial understanding of such an important part of human history.

 

[atanu]

Please don't get personal just because you don't like the post - when in a forum you will find posts that are not for your liking but don't shut down such posts - that's censorship

There is no question of liking or of disliking. I stated a fact about the OP, as I saw it.

 

[RamaRaksha]

Again I say, you're mistaking religion for people who claim to be religious. How would you know that that is the motivation of 'religious' people who are against evolution? Maybe some people are like that, but is it fair to say that they represent what religion is? As for God retreating further and further, well God was never hiding in the gaps of our knowledge to begin with. Can you provide a single scientific discovey with outrules the existence of an omnipotent being?

Look up - God of the Gaps - on google or yahoo

You can't prove non-existence of something that never existed in the first place - the burden of proof lies with religions, not with Science. Anyone can say that there are invisible dragons watching over us - Science can't rule that out either. Maybe Santa Klaus and the tooth fairy do exist - retired i guess by now - but no one can prove that they do not

say you have been friendly with several families over the years, spent time visiting their homes and they yours - suddenly one of the teenage kids says you molested him or her sometime in the past - it never happened. Can you prove that you are innocent? You can't

 

[RamaRaksha]

There is no question of liking or of disliking. I stated a fact about the OP, as I saw it.

Basically you are getting personal - nothing to do with discussing the issue that i raised. Discuss the issue if you have any ideas

 

[RamaRaksha]

The stupid science/religion dichotomy stands for lack of knowledge.

If you are genuinely interested in knowledge then move beyond this cartoonish and superficial understanding of such an important part of human history.

People hope to go to heaven after death and what do they do there? Nothing! Just sit and enjoy for eternity doing nothing - just being a burden on God - a totally useless existence

 

[leibowde84]

Science is work of God.
True religion is word of God.
There ought to be no mutual problems.
More @ Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two.
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html

Can you support your claim that "science is the work of God"?

 

[DawudTalut]

Can you support your claim that "science is the work of God"?

Peace be on you.
Guided evolution is one of many matters.

 

[psychoslice]

I think religion is an embarrassment to science, and why would science have anything to do with religion, science is built on facts not fiction.

 

[leibowde84]

Peace be on you.
Guided evolution is one of many matters.

I already understood that as your claim. I am asking whether or not you have any evidence to support it?

 

[Augustus]

People hope to go to heaven after death and what do they do there? Nothing! Just sit and enjoy for eternity doing nothing - just being a burden on God - a totally useless existence

Making points like this displays that you have a cartoonish and simplistic view about the role of religion in society.

Ironically, "science" has plenty of good things to say about religion (and are nothing to do with religion being objectively 'true'). Why don't you read about some of them?

 

[Riverwolf]

Good post - shall we say Science changes because we find new facts, old facts then are thrown out whereas fairy tales change based on popularity or changing morals? People retelling the stories embellishing things as they see fit and sometimes the new stories catch on?

Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty accurate description.

I love stories, and feel they are the... well, reason for everything. So I LOATH the (frankly ageist) attitude that modern culture has towards fairy and folk tales. They're wonderful and fun stories! (And no, many of them aren't "for children." Look up what happens to Snow White's mother in the end. It's some Game of Thrones ****.) On top of being the very benchmark for culture. A culture that lacks fairy and folk tales... how can it even be called a culture?

However, I do not, and will never, regard it as virtuous to willingly mistake a story for history or scientific knowledge. You and I obviously don't agree on many things, but I think we can safely be said to agree on the matter of scorning literalist application of stories.

People hope to go to heaven after death

Here's a place we disagree. I'm a religious person; I couldn't give two hoots what happens after death. (No, I actually don't want to go to Valhalla.)

 

[ak.yonathan]

Look up - God of the Gaps - on google or yahoo

You can't prove non-existence of something that never existed in the first place - the burden of proof lies with religions, not with Science. Anyone can say that there are invisible dragons watching over us - Science can't rule that out either. Maybe Santa Klaus and the tooth fairy do exist - retired i guess by now - but no one can prove that they do not

say you have been friendly with several families over the years, spent time visiting their homes and they yours - suddenly one of the teenage kids says you molested him or her sometime in the past - it never happened. Can you prove that you are innocent? You can't

God of the gaps doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist, rather it means that some people mistakenly understood certain phenomena. Mistakes like this can happen anywhere, doesn't mean that that trend will always exist. I believe that people of faith do not have to discard facts, at present there is nothing contradictory between science and religion. Just because we have yet to find evidence for God (as per your claim, some might dispute that), it would be erroneous to conclude that such evidence does not exist.

 

[HonestJoe]

Ever wonder why Science and religion can't get along?

I find that a ridiculous statement. Neither science nor religion are conscious entities so talking about them “getting along” is meaningless. You might as well ask why “happiness” and “purple” can’t get along.

What you’re asking is why some people can’t get along with each other and why they use their (often mis-)understanding of science and religion as weapons against the people they don’t get along with. Since you’re essentially doing that with this very thread, you’re as well placed as anyone to explain why you do it.