Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[lewisnotmiller]

Suppose you are interviewed by the police. They ask you the same question several times over the course of a long interrogation, but you change it.

Congratulations, you are arrested. They caught you in a lie.

Besides, how do we know the scientific version of events is any more true?

Here's an example.
I accept flat Earth non-rotating Earth theory. It's not for everyone, but it does provide a straightforward reasoning for things. Sun rotates above the Earth appearing to dip as it reaches the vanishing point, Earth is a flat disc with monodirectional gravity, seasons as caused by the sun heading towards the northern or southern side of the equator. Flat Earth is claimed by the Bible, even after "science has proven it wrong." So maybe it's wrong. It's also extremely simple.
Round Earth theories have to tweak how omnidirectional gravity works, how we don't observe dramatic vertical curves when viewing the horizon (there are however horizontal curves; I've watched planes fly and also when walking down a curved street and watching it gradually straighten, which is consistent with Earth being a disc), why we don't feel the Earth orbiting and rotating at incredibly high speeds when a blender can liquify food at much lower ones, and the big one being how day and night are not inverted every six months.

This? This wrong. At December and June, or September and March, the Earth would be 180 degrees from its original position given a fixed rotation. In other words, it should be like this...

View attachment 44167

(The sun still brightens the side of the Earth it hits, I am depicting it this way to explain that days should be fully 12 hours inverted)

How does science deal with this? "Oh wait, some of our days are sidereal days. The Earth wobbles (despite you never seeing such strange days) therefore you never get day/night inversion. Problem solved!" No ummmm, problem not solved, and seriously wtf?

You've completely mis-represented what a sidereal day is.
The question now is : Do you keep your erroneous understanding of it, or do you update your understanding of what a sidereal day is, then change your opinion on it.

The funny thing is that you claim to do the former is honest whilst the latter is lying.

There is an old saying appropriate here:
To be hoisted on one's own petard.

Whilst an old saying, it remains unchanged, since it still applies today. And Hamlet has a timeless quality science does not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

Too vague as reliable is not defined in a reliable manner.

 

[gnostic]

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

It isn’t about being “divine”, Amanaki.

I don’t design roads, bridges, and other public works, and supervise their construction, to be “divine”.

I don’t do programming, testing software, to be “divine”.

I don’t marry and have children to be “divine.

Why would you think that people do things, to be “divine”?

It is utterly absurd. Where do get such silly notions?

Only delusional people think they can be gods or become ones. And often they are power-crazy autocratic tyrant.

Come to think of it...That sounds like Muhammad, wanting to be god-like - the Messenger of God. A prophet who started wars because his home city slighted him and Jews living at Medina rejected him as a new prophet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well answers from one can be in disagreement with another so I'm not sure what 'reliable' means here other than providing the basis for conflict. Which it has done. It seems to me that what religions have done is to take over morality as their pet and to do this - my moral system is better than yours. And since the evidence seems to show that the religious are no more moral than the non-religious, I'm not sure they have such benefits. Reliable as in dogmatic perhaps.

Well, my religion is not better or worse than your moral system. I think you take for granted that all religions claim Objective Authority.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It isn’t about being “divine”, Amanaki.

I don’t design roads, bridges, and other public works, and supervise their construction, to be “divine”.

I don’t do programming, testing software, to be “divine”.

I don’t marry and have children to be “divine.

Why would you think that people do things, to be “divine”?

It is utterly absurd. Where do get such silly notions?

Only delusional people think they can be gods or become ones. And often they are power-crazy autocratic tyrant.

Come to think of it...That sounds like Muhammad, wanting to be god-like - the Messenger of God. A prophet who started wars because his home city slighted him and Jews living at Medina rejected him as a new prophet.

So all of the world revolves around you as "I" in your version.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

You realise not all theists believe in a 6000 year old planet, right? There are at least a couple who don't...

 

[gnostic]

And the problem is that you consider religion based on scripture and dogma. That is not true of all religions, only some.

Give any newer religions or newer sects some times to pass, from a few decades to few centuries, and more often than not, they will go down the same route.

 

[Heyo]

You realise not all theists believe in a 6000 year old planet, right? There are at least a couple who don't...

Yeah, that's the problem, you don't get reliable answers from theists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, my religion is not better or worse that your moral system. I think you take for granted that all religion claims Objective Authority.

Plenty on RF who seem to think their morality is the best (and only one), and coming from their belief. And much of this coming from the particular texts they prefer to believe and/or accept as 'the truth'. A belief in the monotheistic God presumably implies objective authority - coming from such? I know many religious beliefs are not so though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, that's the problem, you don't get reliable answers from theists.

Ask an atheist the right question and you'll get unreliable answers too...
Much more reliable asking a dog if he wants a bone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Give any newer religions or newer sects some times to pass, from a few decades to few centuries, and more often than not, they will go down the same route.

We agree, it is not universal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Plenty on RF who seem to think their morality is the best (and only one), and coming from their belief. And much of this coming from the particular texts they prefer to believe and/or accept as 'the truth'. A belief in the monotheistic God presumably implies objective authority - coming from such? I know many religious beliefs are not so though.

"The truth" is not limited to religion.

 

[gnostic]

So all of the world revolves around you as "I" in your version.

I have no interest in being divine, and I have no interest in becoming immortal - “to live forever” isn’t my cup of tea - or becoming god.

Does the world revolves around me? Definitely not. Not even in my neighborhood.

You are being just as absurd as Amanaki.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no interest in being divine, and I have no interest in becoming immortal - “to live forever” isn’t my cup of tea - or becoming god.

Does the world revolves around me? Definitely not. Not even in my neighborhood.

You are being just as absurd as Amanaki.

I can't live my life "one to one" in regards to how you do it. Where do we go from there?

 

[Heyo]

Ask an atheist the right question and you'll get unreliable answers too...
Much more reliable asking a dog if he wants a bone.

This is not theists vs. atheists. This is religion vs. science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not theists vs. atheists. This is religion vs. science.

Or religion and science. It is not certain it is versus. It could be and.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is not theists vs. atheists. This is religion vs. science.

True enough.
The OP remains broad to the point of being unanswerable in my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"The truth" is not limited to religion.

Limited is not a word I would use here - how about relevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Limited is not a word I would use here.

Well, for what truth is, it is not that simple. Depending on how you approach it there are at least more that one. I can if I go wide count at least 8 versions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Religion is clearly human-created.

Not in my belief