Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

[Taiga Pagan]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

My answer is simple, Religion is belief, Science is fact. Science is the weaker and more strict argumentation, because if it gets contaminated with belief, we cannot consider it science anymore. Belief on the other hand is stronger and more loose, which tends to dominate over the argumentation, and that at the expense of the truth. We see that happening with politics which resumes to thoses 4 simple equations.
B: Belief, F: Fact B+B = B......B+F = B......F+B = B......F+F = F

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind."

[MaskedOne]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

quoting Einstein?

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

quoting Einstein?

Actually, yeah. Einstein, though raised in the Jewish religion, felt religion was more a 'childish superstition'.

But the real key to "Science vs Religion"? They both have a place in a well-rounded society. They aren't and shouldn't be at odds with each other, as "versus" would indicate. I rather like the insinuation that science is pretty crippled if it doesn't include religion. It's just as accurate, to me, as religion ignoring science being blind to the real world.

I kind of think Al was being flippant, in the letter where he stated that bit I quoted, but it's nonetheless profound.

[Avior]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science is a process of thought and ideas based on critical thinking, research and methodology. Religion is a process of thought and ideas based on faith and/or doctrine.
I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. They can influence each other and one can be religious and be hip to modern science (of course many on here are).

This is essentially my view on the matter. I also agree that the two aren't mutually exclusive, as I'm both religious and a keen physicist.

[ThatKrazy]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

I had to suffer through a creationist-based nutrition class last semester. One cannot be scientific if one has blind faith that ignores fact (like evolution). For the first time I snuck alcohol into class and made a drinking game out of it. Easy A, I just had to sit there and not say anything. I still can't believe it counts toward a prerequisite for graduate school.
If you want to see the kind of bullcrap information that was presented in powerpoint form as lecture in class, check this out:

http://funpagez.webs.com/health/pharmacy/godspharmacy.htm

I know many people do a much better job of combining science and religion, but this is what it sometimes means.

[anunitu]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

I think the two can work together. Over the years in my Pagan practice,I have seen and done things that are remarkable. In my case,and I suspect most Pagans,if you could have a scientific observation to get at the why and how of the workings of rituals and they really effect our reality,most Pagans I think would not have a problem with that. Some other Religions would probably be uneasy with too much scrutiny of their Faith.

[Zathera]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

WARNING - This will be a long post.
To add fuel to the fire, I've personally come to the conclusion that science is in actuality a Religion, albeit not by strict definition.
Before I start however I would say this - Language and words aren't strictly objective. Language is a fluid, constantly evolving thing. A dictionary can dictate to you what a word "means" to those writting the dictionary - just because it is written however, that does not make it neither strictly true nor absolute fact. I would like to use an example here, it goes as follows:
most bibles have the phrase, or something similar to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." To those reading it now, we've a very clear definition of what a witch is.
Scholars argue however that in the past, when the bible was being translated to English, the true aim was to suggest that one should not suffer a poisoner to live. The closest word, in the opinions of the translators, was witch. Thus a new definition was born, that has hindered many Pagans. Language can flippantly change due to the whims of its users - I.E. Slang words.

The way I see it, there is no such thing as a constant fact, It is simply an impossible concept. Allow me to elaborate. It is percieved as common knowledge that water boils at 100 degrees. (to be completly accurate, it is not exactly 100.) We all boil kettles, we've probably all used a bunsen burner and boiled water, or seen someone else boil it. But I'll ask you this - Do you measure what temperature the water boils at? Do you KNOW that water ALWAYS boils at 100 degrees, or do you only know that at some point, water was believed to have boiled at 100 degrees? If you answered yes to "I know" then I'll ask you this - how many times have you measured water boiling at 100 degrees? Now consider how much water there is in the world. How much of that have you measured? Now consider this, what if we've not the equipment to measure any subtle changes that occur? And now consider this - what if the next time you turn on your kettle, it doesn't boil at all?

We assume that water boiling at 100 degrees is a fact. It is not. Unless you consistantly test all water at every given milisecond in every day for all existance with the same result, [an impossibility to attempt] then you cannot say it is a fact. You can only say that you've seen enough evidence to believe it to be a fact. Science is actually based on weak inductive reasoning and predictions. "Water boiled yesterday at 100 degrees, it boiled today at 100 degrees, therefore it must be a fact that water will ALWAYS boil at 100 degrees!"
If I said that about anything else, you'd scoff. It's like saying "I woke up yesterday at 7 am, i woke up today at 7 am, therefore I will ALWAYS wake up at 7 am!"
The issue here is that science claims to be objective and purely factual - that is not strictly true. By definition all theories and facts demand faith. A faith in evidence, a faith that the evidence is legitimate and true, a faith that the evidence is wholly accurate, a faith that there is enough evidence to substantiate a claim, a faith that evidence has value to others who will read the theory, a belief that evidence has any value at all. That, by definition, is not objective in the slightest. Nor factual, it changes depending on who reads it.

Now I am not saying science has deities, or any kind of equivilant, but deities do not encompass all of Religion, atleast not to myself. In my eyes, science is humanities desperate attempt at gaining stability. We cling to it, as humans dislike the truth that ultimately everything is random and chaotic, and our worlds could come crumbling down at any moment, however unlikely.

A counter argument against the water example could be that it is more statistically viable to "believe" that water boils, because it has done so repeatedly. Eventually this belief becomes a consolidated fact just because it appears to be a constant. One could argue that by very definition the fact that water appears to have stable characterisitics continually makes it a fact.

BUT
Statistics are constantly beaten. The chances of winning the lottery are minescule, yet people win daily. If the big bang theory is to be believed, the statistical chance that our earth was formed is tiny. Even tinier that we are all on a Pagan board debating science. Yet here we are. Statistics mean nothing, it is little more than prediction. Infact, it IS prediction. Just like inductive reasoning.

All I'll say to round it up is this : The greeks had science. The Romans had science. The Medieval peoples had science. and guess what, most of what they considered to be fact is to us wrong. How are we so arrogant as to repeat mistakes and say that we are accurate? In 500 years, if history repeats its cycle, half of our theories will be wrong partially, and the other half will be so far from the truth it's unreal.

[lorraine02]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

so long for me , but your question is worthy to discuss, and preparing for many document .:=):

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

so long for me , but your question is worthy to discuss, and preparing for many document .:=):

I don't think "document" was the word you were looking for. It might have been the word "reply" (replies) or possibly even just "writing".

-------------------------------------------------------------

I bring this up not just to help Lorraine with the language but also to support Zathera's comment about language, and words, not being strictly objective. That it is, and they are, in a constant state of flux. As are, potentially, the theories and facts set forth by science.

I'm just not sure that science is a belief system. Semantics or not.

[AL!CE]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science attempts to answer the question "How?"
Religion attempts to answer the question "Why?"

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science attempts to answer the question "How?"
Religion attempts to answer the question "Why?"

I find that way oversimplified and quite inaccurate.

Science also attempts to answer "Why" things work the way they do. Why do apples fall to the ground? What makes them fall at all?

And religion also attempts to answer "How" things came to exist. How did people come about? Where did we come from?

[AL!CE]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

No I mean the big How and the big Why. Why are we here? How are we here?

- - - Updated - - -

"God made us" doesn't really answer the how.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

No I mean the big How and the big Why. Why are we here? How are we here?

I know what you mean, Al!ce, but I think you are wrong - science actually does provide answers to the big questions, but the answers it provides do not the provide emotional or psychological security that many people seem to want.

For instance, the answer to "Why are we here?" is: because conditions were right through the history of the universe to produce us, as we are now. Then science busies itself with finding out out what those conditions were and are.

Obviously, this answer doesn't give one a lot of security - there is no big plan, everything that happens isn't "fair," if you spend your life in slavery, there is no big reward coming in the hereafter to even things out.

People use religion to give them that sense of security, and of being somehow "special" that science can't and won't and shouldn't give us.

Whether there is much validity to that religion based sense of security or not is something I can't say for sure, but my gut tells me that we're on our own...

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

We assume that water boiling at 100 degrees is a fact. It is not. Unless you consistantly test all water at every given milisecond in every day for all existance with the same result, [an impossibility to attempt] then you cannot say it is a fact. You can only say that you've seen enough evidence to believe it to be a fact. Science is actually based on weak inductive reasoning and predictions. "Water boiled yesterday at 100 degrees, it boiled today at 100 degrees, therefore it must be a fact that water will ALWAYS boil at 100 degrees!"
If I said that about anything else, you'd scoff. It's like saying "I woke up yesterday at 7 am, i woke up today at 7 am, therefore I will ALWAYS wake up at 7 am!"

This.

On the other hand, I do have to say that after enough studies have been performed that confirm that, yes, water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade, we push that probability out further.
It takes people winning the lottery to form a comparison of ideas slipping through the cracks. Guess what? There are lottery drawings where nobody wins.

But also, there are misdesigned experiments. Lets call this person an outlier, that one an outlier, and that one... they all got sick from my drug, and we'll justify it... hell, we don't even have to include their existnce in the report to the scientific journal if we don't want to! We've got money to be made from this.