Science And Religion: Are They The Same?

[Vini]

Whats the relationship between science and religion?

1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.

2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.

3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).

4) I have presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.

 

[BoGz]

Whats the relationship between science and religion?

1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.

2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.

3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).

4) I have presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.

If there was a God where logic and scientific laws were made as a reflection of his character. Wouldn't he be able to operate outside of His own laws....

 

Science And Religion: Are They The Same?

Well let's see. Is the refusal to accept the evidence of the senses the same as accepting the evidence of the senses?

No. In fact they (science and religion) are polar opposites on the metaphysical and epistemological scales.

Science accepts reason and evidence as its building blocks, religion accepts faith and delusion as its.

 

[Billetes]

Religion-Faith.
Science-Logic, Facts.
Sythe said it nicely, but the answer you are looking for is way too obvious.

 

[Itz Me]

Science and Religion are opposites.

Religion is built on faith and what they think true.

Science uses facts, logic, and evidence.

 

[Vini]

Well let's see. Is the refusal to accept the evidence of the senses the same as accepting the evidence of the senses?

Science accepts reason and evidence as its building blocks, religion accepts faith and delusion as its.

This is true only because science and religion inquire about different aspects of the natural world. Science can only answer the very basic, shallow questions concerning our existence while Religion takes aim to answer more deep and meaningful questions.

 

This is true only because science and religion inquire about different aspects of the natural world. Science can only answer the very basic, shallow questions concerning our existence while Religion takes aim to answer more deep and meaningful questions.

Religion answers nothing. "God did it" is not an answer.

 

[Niini]

Religion answers nothing. "God did it" is not an answer.

It's just not the correct answer.

Other unlisted differences: Among their many contradicting teachings and immoral leaders most religions provide an accissble moral code to their followers.

 

It's just not the correct answer.

No, it is not an answer.

Observe:
"god did it"
"who did god?"
"god did god"

"God did (caused) god" is a fallacy and cannot be an answer, thus, necessarily, the answer "god did it," which presupposes that "god also created himself," cannot be an answer.

Other unlisted differences: Among their many contradicting teachings and immoral leaders most religions provide an accissble moral code to their followers.

You mean mystics told their followers to sit in the mud and await the wrath of a malevolent universe? Real good teachings.

 

[Proc]

Well, everyone has described the differences, but people say science has "proof" of its claims, yet when you hear of something "proven" by science, the only proof is an explanation of what happens and how it happens. Such as: when you are told that black holes suck in everything, including light, you believe it because it is explained to you logically. But have you ever seen this happen personally? You are taking the word of your professor/teacher or whoever may have convinced you that this happens. Any resemblance to religion?

 

Well, everyone has described the differences, but people say science has "proof" of its claims, yet when you hear of something "proven" by science, the only proof is an explanation of what happens and how it happens. Such as: when you are told that black holes suck in everything, including light, you believe it because it is explained to you logically. But have you ever seen this happen personally? You are taking the word of your professor/teacher or whoever may have convinced you that this happens. Any resemblance to religion?

Blackholes - dark matter - big bang theorists, are not sciencists, they are mystics. Astronomny remains a religion today as it was in the past; It does not share the glory of the scientific method, and therefore cannot be regarded properly as science. The closest they could come to science is reasoned speculation, but all of their hypotheses remain untestable and therefore outside the realm of science.

 

[goku usa]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but it is more than private belief and has a public aspect. Most religions have organised behaviors, congregations for prayer, priestly hierarchies, holy places and scriptures.

Science is based on factual, testable and observable stance. Whereas religion is based on opinionated, non-observable, personal beliefs. I do not see any resemblance.

 

[Smellex]

Just debate here..

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=325886

>.>

Ps; Found the exact same thread/questions there..

 

[Niini]

You mean mystics told their followers to sit in the mud and await the wrath of a malevolent universe? Real good teachings.

I'm not sure what your getting at, that is exactly what Religion did. Did science do that? No.
Thats the difference I'm pointing out

 

[Kleenex]

"God did (caused) god" is a fallacy and cannot be an answer, thus, necessarily, the answer "god did it," which presupposes that "god also created himself," cannot be an answer.

Sort of off-topic, but don't Christians believe that God was just always in existence?

 

Sort of off-topic, but don't Christians believe that God was just always in existence?

Let them answer that.

 

[Smellex]

Let them answer that.

Kleenex aren't you Christian yourself?

 

[El DLo]

This is true only because science and religion inquire about different aspects of the natural world. Science can only answer the very basic, shallow questions concerning our existence while Religion takes aim to answer more deep and meaningful questions.

Science only answers the very basic, shallow questions? What year are you living in? Look up some stuff like quantum research and particle physics. Not only is science heading in a direction to explain the very fabric of our universe, but by extension, science is explaining God, or a lack thereof.

Comparing science to religion is impossible. Religion is a collection of superstitions, horror stories, and physical impossibilities to convince someone to follow something blindly and without a need to pry for details. Religion focuses around God, but God and religion are two entirely different things. Frankly, religion is what the poison is to science, not God. Looking back in history, many of the greatest minds in our recorded history acknowledged this fault with religion and identified as Deist.

If you wanted your question to be more appropriate, you would have asked if Science and God are the same. In that regard, I would have to say yes. Now don't get me wrong, I'm atheist. I don't believe in God as a conscious being or even as a concept of a creator, but the truth is, many of those things that religious people have come to believe by way of creation are now being explained through science. So in that regard things like particle physics and quantum mechanics ARE God.

They are not, however, religion.

 

[Proc]

Blackholes - dark matter - big bang theorists, are not sciencists, they are mystics. Astronomny remains a religion today as it was in the past; It does not share the glory of the scientific method, and therefore cannot be regarded properly as science. The closest they could come to science is reasoned speculation, but all of their hypotheses remain untestable and therefore outside the realm of science.

Ok, how about people whom study the earth. They tell us that the center of the earth is made of molten lava, nickel, etc. But have any of us ever confirmed this?

 

Ok, how about people whom study the earth. They tell us that the center of the earth is made of molten lava, nickel, etc. But have any of us ever confirmed this?

It depends which of their theories you are talking about.

Petroleum geologists for example, are definitely scientists. They apply the scientific method in order to discover deposits of oil under the surface of the earth.

But if you hypothesize without evidence that the center of the earth is a large ball of iron for example, then I would suggest that this isn't science, and won't be until the hypotheses are testable.