Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Boy oh boy I didn't see that one coming. . . .

Cramming a false equivalence doesn't help either.

What wrong is, is human and what reliable is, is human. And both have elements of culture and psychology. I am not the only one, who is a result of nature and nurture.

Now as a skeptic I suspect that you have beliefs without evidence, proof, truth and so on. You might surprise me, but so far based on your posts I suspect that you are a variant of philosophical naturalism, even if you don't know that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Science deals with observation with the intent to describe what is observed to the point that one can reliably deduce/predict/reproduce how the system under observation is going to behave. I would say this puts reliability as one of the core tenets of "science."

Religion doesn't, at all, concern itself with the reproducibility/reliability of any of its tenets/points/statements/assertions. It can't. If it actually did (especially as much as scientific studies are forced to adhere to on this score), it would necessarily fall apart within moments.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science deals with observation with the intent to describe what is observed to the point that one can reliably deduce/predict/reproduce how the system under observation is going to behave. I would say this puts reliability as one of the core tenets of "science."

Religion doesn't, at all, concern itself with the reproducibility/reliability of any of its tenets/points/statements/assertions. It can't. If it actually did (especially as much as scientific studies are forced to adhere to on this score), it would necessarily fall apart within moments.

Yeah, but is religion reliable in another sense?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, but is religion reliable in another sense?

I'd be hard-pressed to think of the sense in which it is "reliable." Maybe reliable at getting together crowds of people? Perhaps reliable to some for getting warm and fuzzy feelings? But that part I highlighted "for some" - that's key right there. If it is only reliable to some people, then I would be reluctant to consider that "reliable" in any broad sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd be hard-pressed to think of the sense in which it is "reliable." Maybe reliable at getting together crowds of people? Perhaps reliable to some for getting warm and fuzzy feelings? But that part I highlighted "for some" - that's key right there. If it is only reliable to some people, then I would be reluctant to consider that "reliable" in any broad sense.

Yeah, but if we go science as objective and religion as subjective, religion in the broad sense is the only category which can be used on the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
I use religion as here: religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions Of course that has overlap with philosophy and politics.

But in the (over-)reductive sense you end with science versus religion. Or evidence versus belief/opinion. Or objective versus subjective.

 

[Heyo]

This is so... wrong. So absolutely... wrong, Polymath257.
Did you think this through?
Please consider...

* Religion
When I use the term religion, I use it for common understanding, but I am really referring to true worship since there are thousands of different religions, but really, there is only one true religion.
Just as there is science, that is true science - testable, observable, verifiable, and then there is "science" beliefs based on assumption, and accepted on authority, there is religion that is based on accurate knowledge, and then there is religion based on false knowledge.
We can know the difference, It's not rocket science.

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

So what is religion?

 

[DKH]

The bible...

No, Modern Science is Not “Catching Up” to the Bible - Articles

Note: I do not support all the contents in the above article, only the supplied chart.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The bible...

No, Modern Science is Not “Catching Up” to the Bible - Articles

Well, the Bible is one set of religions, but not religion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, but if we go science as objective and religion as subjective, religion in the broad sense is the only category which can be used on the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

However, as you are certainly aware, the question is HOW RELIABLE religion is within this use-case. So... how about it? How RELIABLE is religion at discerning "the meaning of life, the universe and everything?" How reliable? With the number and flavor of religions that there are, if the answer comes back as anything other than "not very reliable" then I think we can discount your opinion right out of the gate.

I use religion as here: religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions Of course that has overlap with philosophy and politics.

And do you find it to be reliable? Which religion is it that you find to be reliable? Do you feel that you could find other religions just as reliable, for the same purposes, even if the information/knowledge supposedly attained within them was contradictory to your current religion? Therein lies the real problem with suggesting that any religion is "reliable."

But in the (over-)reductive sense you end with science versus religion. Or evidence versus belief/opinion. Or objective versus subjective.

Again, we're talking about RELIABILITY. Can you rely on "religion" in a broad sense to produce consistent results for even you, yourself? Or only a particular religion? So which is reliable? "Religion?" Or your particular sect/denomination/creed? Reliable only for you, and not necessarily for anyone else? There is always this turn to what is "objective" versus "subjective." But honestly, that's missing the boat anyway. We only get "subjective." But within that, it definitely helps to realize what is more reliable than other things. And it definitely helps loads to acquire knowledge and practice in what can be relied upon by ALL of us as opposed to some of us... or only one of us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

However, as you are certainly aware, the question is HOW RELIABLE religion is within this use-case. So... how about it? How RELIABLE is religion at discerning "the meaning of life, the universe and everything?" How reliable? With the number and flavor of religions that there are, if the answer comes back as anything other than "not very reliable" then I think we can discount your opinion right out of the gate.

And do you find it to be reliable? Which religion is it that you find to be reliable? Do you feel that you could find other religions just as reliable, for the same purposes, even if the information/knowledge supposedly attained within them was contradictory to your current religion? Therein lies the real problem with suggesting that any religion is "reliable."

Again, we're talking about RELIABILITY. Can you rely on "religion" in a broad sense to produce consistent results for even you, yourself? Or only a particular religion? So which is reliable? "Religion?" Or your particular sect/denomination/creed? Reliable only for you, and not necessarily for anyone else? There is always this turn to what is "objective" versus "subjective." But honestly, that's missing the boat anyway. We only get "subjective." But within that, it definitely helps to realize what is more reliable than other things. And it definitely helps loads to acquire knowledge and practice in what can be relied upon by ALL of us as opposed to some of us... or only one of us.

Reliability is always reliable to someone. It is subjective because it is to someone. To you subjectively reliable has to be objective. To me that is different.
If science it has to be objectively reliable to me, where as religion has to be subjectively reliable to me.

So what I find reliable, depends on what it is about as a part of the world.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So? What does that have to do with it?

I believe in a god, you dont, religion is more correct in my view

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Reliability is always reliable to someone. It is subjective because it is to someone. To you subjectively reliable has to be objective. To me that is different.
If science it has to be objectively reliable to me, where as religion has to be subjectively reliable to me.

So what I find reliable, depends on what it is about as a part of the world.

So your idea here is to just pretend whatever you say is reliable even when it is not. Seems very self-serving and self-centered.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

I believe in a god, you dont, religion is more correct in my view

And I am sure you mean your God and your religion. . . .

That's how religion work, pretend you are right, even when you are wrong, and pretend everything reloves around you and your beliefs. Clearly the work of humans.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Only humans are egotistical enough to create something as self-serving as religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So your idea here is to just pretend whatever you say is reliable even when it is not. Seems very self-serving and self-centered.

Well, the world is in practice a combination of objective and subjective. Now the objective is not dependent on how I think/feel, but the subjective to me as me is dependent on me.

So e.g. gravity is not dependent on any one human, but how I do the meaning of life, the universe and everything is for me dependent on me and the only reliable source I have for that is me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only humans are egotistical enough to create something as self-serving as religion.

Yeah, I like that. We all have to be somewhat self-centered, because I doubt e.g. you would do everything for me as me. Or in reverse. So I look out for me in part and you look out for you.
As for the rest. That is a variation of the 4 Fs in biology.

 

[ReluctantMathematician]

Well, the world is in practice a combination of objective and subjective. .

That makes no sense. The world is not a combination of the two, as those are merely a binary categorical classification that you have chosen to assign to various perceived phenomena based on arbitrary characteristics. It is a false dichotomy and it is just a tool to help you process information in a more simplistic fashion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That makes no sense. The world is not a combination of the two, as those are merely a binary categorical classification that you have chosen to assign to various perceived phenomena based on arbitrary characteristics. It is a false dichotomy and it is just a tool to help you process information in a more simplistic fashion.

Okay, please unpack your words and flesh it out and give examples.

 

[Polymath257]

This is so... wrong. So absolutely... wrong, Polymath257.
Did you think this through?

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

Please consider...
There is much knowledge religion* gives, which science does not possess, and will never possess, which is also more useful long term, than anything science can ever produce.

As an example, take the question, "Is there a purpose to life, and can one find it?"
Having knowledge of this, has resulted in the betterment of lives, and societies. It has resulted in the overall well being of the one possessing this knowledge, and also affects their overall character.

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.

Take a few examples 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and please read the experience of Kenneth, who at one time was like you, and the poster of the OP. Science Was My Religion
Whether it be addition to illegal drugs, suicidal, violent... it is religious knowledge that changes lives.

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.

<snip>

There is a lot of knowledge gained in religion, which was well before scientific knowledge.
Many though there are, consider just one...
(Job 26:7) He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;

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

Anyhow, let me stop before I write a book.
You are sadly mistaken Polymath257. May I suggest you remove your blinders.

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.

*

Religion
When I use the term religion, I use it for common understanding, but I am really referring to true worship since there are thousands of different religions, but really, there is only one true religion.

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.