Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

[AL!CE]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

I know what you mean, Al!ce, but I think you are wrong - science actually does provide answers to the big questions

Obviously you didn't know what I meant because what I said was: Science answers or attempts to answer the big how questions, whilst Religion answers or attempts to answer the big why questions. How is a big question.

- - - Updated - - -

If science Proves that we are here purely because of some quirk of probability and that there is no Gods, then Why and How kind of become the same question and only the deluded would remain religious.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

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...

I have to agree, but only to an extent.

Science perpetually comes up with new answers to "how" we got here. String Theory is falling down on evidence; but in the mean time, a half dozen other theories have been proposed! Science is incredibly good at discerning this.

Why? If you want to reframe "why" as another "how" or invoke a tautology as an answer, you're missing the point of asking, "why does the universe exist at all?"

Was all this happenstance? Science cannot prove such. It is beyond the evidence to demonstrate motive, as well.

However, it is interesting to note this quirky little theory - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html
That we're a computer simulation. Of course, derived from ideas of "how the universe is, and its formation." It takes some other media, and some-thing managing such to accomplish that kind of simulation. Its just an idea, formed around sparse evidence - this could be the next big bang theory, or another failed model, like the many we've had of the atom. While I am skeptical, it does seem worth bringing up.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Obviously you didn't know what I meant because what I said was: Science answers or attempts to answer the big how questions, whilst Religion answers or attempts to answer the big why questions. How is a big question.

Well, if you want to get snippy -

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote, since I used the very same "why" question you used as your example in the example with which I responded. If the example you used didn't accurately represent what you were trying to say, obviously you are the one in error.

If science Proves that we are here purely because of some quirk of probability and that there is no Gods, then Why and How kind of become the same question and only the deluded would remain religious.

Every time science is able to explain something so accurately that the results come out precise to the 40th decimal point without including a variable for God in the formula (If they did, what would that have to be? A variable of zero?), science demonstrates that God isn't involved.

And yes, only the deluded remain religious. A variable of zero isn't worthy of worship, IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? If you want to reframe "why" as another "how" or invoke a tautology as an answer, you're missing the point of asking, "why does the universe exist at all?"

The problem is this - when one rejects the idea that there is some kind of supernatural juju behind everything, some magic purpose, or whatever, the "how" of science, and the "why" of philosophical inquiry become the same thing - that they are separate is only an illusion brought about by (false) a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Was all this happenstance? Science cannot prove such. It is beyond the evidence to demonstrate motive, as well.

True, but science can demonstrate that God is not involved in pretty much anything which it is able to explain. As more and more is understood and can be explained, God is going to be forced into a tinier and tinier closet (see my notes on variables and equations in my previous post ). At some point we can probably just decide to dispense with the tiny God in it's tiny closet.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

True, but science can demonstrate that God is not involved in pretty much anything which it is able to explain. As more and more is understood and can be explained, God is going to be forced into a tinier and tinier closet (see my notes on variables and equations in my previous post ). At some point we can probably just decide to dispense with the tiny God in it's tiny closet.

Meanwhile, the more that science is able to explain, the more even perfectly rational people begin to ask, "why?" in such a way that it is beyond the scope of Science to explain. "Why are these rules set up so perfectly that life as we know it becomes possible?" is a popular one.

And when it comes to the creation of the universe, we run into a problem of infinite regression - so, what prompted this event? Oh good, that event or condition did it. What prompted that? What prompted whatever prompted that? Ad infinitum. Assuming a quasi-linear model, we have to run into an axiom somewhere. Assuming a cyclical model, we begin asking, "what started the cycle?" To even initiate this sequence of infinite questions, we have to find evidence of what things were before the Big Bang, or find an alternate theory which better explains the generation of our universe.

Science's role has always been "how". The "why" is best left to individuals to sort out for themselves. When science begins speaking to the purpose of the universe, life, and existence (or assuming a lack of such purpose) it over-extends its reach beyond evidence, as the Scientific method was never designed to examine those things. The best it can be in such circumstances is a philosophy abstracted away from evidence. The logic may hold, but its axioms are not found in nature, except by tangential association.

Such a philosophy isn't science - if it tries to abstract away from the evidence to explain more than is explainable, it becomes superstition, or even a religion - though one flavored with scientific findings. Remember "What the Bleep?" http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

It doesn't matter, at least to me, how many examples of science asking how and religion asking why, that a person comes up with. Even classifying how and why as being "big", yet another subjective adjective.

Using science to get to the heart of something, to understand it and explain it, isn't limited in any way to just asking how. Nor is religion restricted to just asking why. Big or little.

Inasmuch as the two purported Big Questions, being "why are we here" and "how are we here", are supposed to represent the ultimate curiosity of humankind there comes a point when conjecture can no longer be supported with verifiable evidence. The questions are the same. What happened? What happened to start this whole mess? God? Or an accident of birth?

Personally, I don't place the entire blame on gods. But if I get a chance to sit down and talk with any of them, I might just ask why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. Not that I'll care all that much. It's just a mental exercise for the living.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Generally, my biggest questions tend to be:

A. Where will my next meal come from?

and

B. Will there be sex afterwards?

My philosophy tends to be survival oriented, and somewhat pragmatic.

[thalassa]

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?"

Science answers "why" all the time, and religions answer "how" as well...the difference is in what sort of answers they can give for the same questions rather than a difference in the questions as they are asked.

Edited to add:

I disagree with Steven Jay Gould's idea that there is a strict and absolute lack of overlap between the magesteria of "science" and "religion" (unlike him, I also broaden the idea of religion to include the arts, etc), but overall, I agree with the concept that they each have their own "respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. "

Also from him...the real difference between the two: "The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man's land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult. To cite just two broad questions involving both evolutionary facts and moral arguments: Since evolution made us the only earthly creatures with advanced consciousness, what responsibilities are so entailed for our relations with other species? What do our genealogical ties with other organisms imply about the meaning of human life?"

Regardless of my interpretation of his take on things, I think a consideration of his ideas are essential in this discussion.

[Medusa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Religion is like magic
Science is like the magician's secret.

[XIII]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Personally, I think that Science is here to prove what Religion can't.

Religious beliefs are based on feelings and what we believe is real.
Science is based on facts and what is discovered to be true.

With Religion it's hard to really prove what you believe that you felt or saw, unless you're speaking to someone who has had the same experience.
I like to think that Science is working it's way to show who REALLY felt what they felt or saw what they saw.
Or in a manner of speaking, show who's really right about everything.

I am a strong with my belief, but if one day I were completely proven wrong with plenty concrete evidence then I guess that would be the end of it.
I'll always be faithful until proven wrong.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Religion is like magic
Science is like the magician's secret.

This.

Science has created life. In a laboratory. Does that detract from the magic of new life? No. It is still a wonder, a joy and a mystery to behold.

In that sense, I certainly don't buy into the 'there's no overlap' theory. Certain religions not only accept science as a part of the human experience but also promote that exploration of the world around us.

Pity, really, that there can be so much bickering over which is right, which does what, and who's an idiot for not belonging to whichever camp. Mental masturbation meets mob mentality on a scale never before quantified. How very, very sad.

[Immersion]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

The difference between science and religion is that science is concerned with solving empirical questions. On the other hands, religion, like ethics and philosophy, is concerned with solving essential questions. Two entirely different kinds of questions and trying to use one to solve for the other is impossible, ie- you cannot scientifically prove God exists, or prove that any ethical dilemma is right/wrong. However, just because science and religion are answering different questions doesn't mean they are incompatible. They are both quite compatible but it's knowing how to use them together. You can, however, use science to support a particular stance involving an ethical dilemma.

[Gleb]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Both of them support each other in some way, but it is hard to explain it.

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

Martin Luther King

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

Martin Luther King

LOVE that minister.

Another of his, regarding beliefs and studies:

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."