Science vs Religion?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Its not even a contest!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Its not even a contest!

Agreed. Game over.

 

[Enoch07]

I didn't realize a competition even existed. Science is just a tool. It's like saying a "wrench vs atmosphere" wrench wins! LoL

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is mainly a war against evolution. When early geologists showed that the Noah's Ark story was a myth there was not that big of a reaction against it, but for some reason certain Christians have a huge problem with the fact that they are apes.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't realize a competition even existed. Science is just a tool. It's like saying a "wrench vs atmosphere" wrench wins! LoL

Scientists really don't give much more than a dry fart about religion, as long as the religious don't interfere with the dissemination of science, particularly in public schools. However, as long as science keeps exposing the errors of religious claims, religion will always be trying to compete with science, protecting its turf so to speak.

.

 

[Enoch07]

Scientists really don't give much more than a dry fart about religion, as long as the religious don't interfere with the dissemination of science, particularly in public schools. However, as long as science keeps exposing the errors of religious claims, religion will always be trying to compete with science, protecting its turf so to speak

Science has exposed the errors of some religious peoples opinions about the world, but that's a different thing entirely.

I see no competition between religion and science. For these reasons.

1. Science is a tool used to explore our physical/tangible reality.

2. Religion is used to explore spiritual/ethereal/intangible world.

There is an amount of crossover. But the only way they are competitive is when people try to make it that way. People who like to compare wrenches vs atmosphere and claim that wrenches or atmosphere wins. The fact is they should not be compared at all because they are not even in the same category. It's just an exercise in futility and utter nonsense.

 

[corynski]

Its not even a contest!

Science versus religion...... Yes, science is a method, but isn't it more than that? It's an attempt at agreement, of finding a common language and reality that we can all agree upon.... that we can use as a stepping stone to the future. This is completely the opposite of religion, which is..... what? An arbitrarily contrived worldview that has no reality that can be commonly perceived and agreed upon. Men have created thousands of gods and goddesses, and religions and worldview, none of which agree, resulting in endless fighting and killing. Anthropology is attempting to make sense out of our thousands and thousands of years of evolution, while religions fight to control our minds from birth and to keep us in an arbitrary, contrived, worldview. A religion, a belief system, is forced upon our consciousness from birth, from our parents and educators, pastors and priests, our neighbors, and incorporated into our educations....... and for a reason.... and that is to give us a common culture, and identity so that we coalesce, strengthen, and identify as a group..... regardless of whether the belief system is true or not, it matters not..... and as such religion is a cultural tool. Science is completely the opposite, it looks forward in an attempt to discover reality, not to create reality as belief attempts to do, and as such we can view the last few hundred years as a watershed development, a completely new orientation, that of discovering reality after thousands of years of ignorance, instead of creating more belief.

 

[Jumi]

Religion does not equal creationism.

 

[Skwim]

Science has exposed the errors of some religious peoples opinions about the world, but that's a different thing entirely.

So god creating all the various plants and animals as is, is no more than an opinion.

So Noah and his ark and the great flood is no more than an opinion.

So the claim that the formation of different languages didn't occur until the Tower of Babel incident is no more than an opinion.

So the Sun stopping in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day is no more than an opinion. .

o·pin·ion
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
​

I see no competition between religion and science. For these reasons.

1. Science is a tool used to explore our physical/tangible reality.

2. Religion is used to explore spiritual/ethereal/intangible world.

Then you fail to understand the nature of competition, which in this case amounts to gaining the agreement and support of people to one side of an issue rather than the other. Creationists are continually competing for the agreement and support of people to their contention that the variety of life was created by god as is at one moment, as opposed to the contention of science that the variety of life is due to evolution. As I've mentioned, this is a one sided competition; science could hardly care less. It's like a teenage girl setting out to compete for the attention of the football captain when none of the other girls care if he gives her his attention or not--he happens to be a real jerk .

But the only way they are competitive is when people try to make it that way.

Obviously. Who/what else would compete over such a thing?

People who like to compare wrenches vs atmosphere and claim that wrenches or atmosphere wins.

This hardly amounts to competition, now does it. Comparing isn't competition.

The fact is they should not be compared at all because they are not even in the same category. It's just an exercise in futility and utter nonsense.

No one is comparing them but you. The issue is competition NOT comparison.

.

 

[Enoch07]

So god creating all the various plants and animals as is, is no more than an opinion.

So Noah and his ark and the great flood is no more than an opinion.

So the claim that the formation of different languages didn't occur until the Tower of Babel incident is no more than an opinion.

So the Sun stopping in the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day is no more than an opinion. .

o·pin·ion
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.​

​

LoL all you listed was science debunking people's opinions.

Yes it is an opinion of people that God created all life as is. It is some peoples opinion that evolution does not exist.

Yes it is an opinion that Noah built a ship to ride out a worldwide flood.

Etc

Etc

Etc


Do you even read your own post? Can you not see how desperately you grab at any straw that might prove science is better than religion? You so desperately want it to be a competition.

No one is comparing them but you. The issue is competition NOT comparison.

There is no competition.

Science is just a tool, to be used and discarded after it has served it's purpose.

 

[Augustus]

I love how all these self-congratulatory videos that talk about how we've moved beyond myths because of science present a mythical version of the evolution of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love how all these self-congratulatory videos that talk about how we've moved beyond myths because of science present a mythical version of the evolution of the sciences.

It seems much more likely that you do not understand the science involved. If you clearly state what you believe from the Bible to be true odds are that people here can explain to you why you are wrong.

 

[Augustus]

It seems much more likely that you do not understand the science involved. If you clearly state what you believe from the Bible to be true odds are that people here can explain to you why you are wrong.

If you replied to what people actually write, instead of something completely different riddled with unfounded assumptions then odds are that people here wouldn't have to explain this to you repeatedly.

 

[HonestJoe]

I see no competition between religion and science. For these reasons.

1. Science is a tool used to explore our physical/tangible reality.

2. Religion is used to explore spiritual/ethereal/intangible world.

I’d suggest that even drawing those parallels goes too far and potentially causes much of the confusion (or opens up to misinformation). Religion is practice, what people do in response to their beliefs (not even necessarily “spiritual” beliefs by conventional definition). Religion doesn’t automatically involve any form of exploration and study. It could but it just as often explicitly resists such study with assertions of unquestionable truths to be held to on faith.

Formal exploration and study of the concepts religion is based on would typically be an aspect of theology. Which is a science. A related issue is the myth that there could be (or assertion that there is) some aspects of reality that it is fundamentally impossible to apply scientific process to. That simply isn’t possible; if it exists, it can be studied (though humans at this point in time may not have the ability to do so). If someone is actively exploring the “spiritual” or “supernatural”, they are practicing science (though not necessarily very well).

 

[Polymath257]

Formal exploration and study of the concepts religion is based on would typically be an aspect of theology. Which is a science.

No, actually, it isn't.

Theology has no testability. It has no collection of observation. It has no way to check itself when wrong.

It is NOT a science. It *is* philosophy.

A related issue is the myth that there could be (or assertion that there is) some aspects of reality that it is fundamentally impossible to apply scientific process to. That simply isn’t possible; if it exists, it can be studied (though humans at this point in time may not have the ability to do so). If someone is actively exploring the “spiritual” or “supernatural”, they are practicing science (though not necessarily very well).

What testable hypotheses have been put forward? When have two different explanations been proposed and one discarded because of evidence? If none, then you don't have a science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you replied to what people actually write, instead of something completely different riddled with unfounded assumptions then odds are that people here wouldn't have to explain this to you repeatedly.

I did reply to what you wrote. That you can't defend it is clear by this attack of yours. I offered to explain your errors to you and like a typical creationist you ran away. It does not look like I made any unfounded assumptions at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, actually, it isn't.

Theology has no testability. It has no collection of observation. It has no way to check itself when wrong.

It is NOT a science. It *is* philosophy.



What testable hypotheses have been put forward? When have two different explanations been proposed and one discarded because of evidence? If none, then you don't have a science.

Religions go so far as to tell one not to test them. Perhaps the writers knew something that they did not want to pass on:

Both the New:

Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

And the Old:

Deuteronomy 6:16 Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah.

Testaments tell people not to test God. Like creationists that refuse to develop a testable model, most theists seem to know that their gods will fail any reasonable test.

 

[Polymath257]

It seems much more likely that you do not understand the science involved. If you clearly state what you believe from the Bible to be true odds are that people here can explain to you why you are wrong.

I think his point was that the video in the OP distorted how science actually developed historically (which it did).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think his point was that the video in the OP distorted how science actually developed historically (which it did).

Somewhat, but it was not trying to be an accurate history of science. And I think that you may be being too generous in this case.

 

[Jumi]

Religions go so far as to tell one not to test them.

Some do, not all give credence to literal readings of any Bible or holy book.