Science and Religion

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by bricklayer, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new ideas.
    Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resisting new ideas.

    Science comes up with an idea and then seeks to disprove it.
    Religion comes up with and idea and then seeks to prove it.

    Science risks all it knows to pursue what it does not know.
    Religion risks all it doesn't know to protect what it does know.

    Science abhors contradiction.
    Religion is often contradictory, even self-contradictory.

    Science recognizes the distinction between implication and inference.
    Religion does not recognize a distinction between implication and inference.

    Science requires axiomatic foundations
    Religion requires only dogmatic foundations.
     
    fmw and Jonsa like this.
  2. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In science, the closest thing to proof positive is experimental repeatability.
    In religion, repeating the positive suffices for proof and experimentation.
     
  3. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To the scientific, it isn't that their ideas are really ever proved as much as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved. Whatever remains is what a scientist is left to believe. Then, that's tested, and so on, and so on. It's quite a process.

    To the religious, it isn't as much that their ideas are really ever disproved as it is that all of the other ideas have not been considered. Whatever is considered is what a religious is left to believe. It's not much of a process.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  4. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    9,056
    Likes Received:
    3,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No field of study has been so wrong so often as science.
     
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ..., except for religion.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  6. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    21,665
    Likes Received:
    4,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science is not a field of study...it is pretty much EVERY field of study.
     
  7. delade

    delade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2017
    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Science is the spelled S.C.I.E.N.C.E... that's a science.

    Seance is spelled S.E.A.N.C.E.. that's also a science.

    The difference between science and seance is the ci and a


    intelligence.. scientific or mysterious?

    Noone said that C.I.A. was not allowed to learn of 'other' intelligences...

    Otherwise their name might be C.BI.A. Central Base Ingelligent Agency

    And CB radio transmission is a form of 'intelligent' communications.

    CB for the scientific part and IA for the 'mysterious'. The IA can stand for Interpersonal Awareness.


    There is no God but God, said The LORD. Besides HIM, there is no other.

    These intelligences, the C.BI.A's are used for personal uses...and hopefully in a 'good' way..
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,547
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely.

    It's a methodology that may be applied everywhere.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,547
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, seance is not even SLIGHTLY science.

    There is absolutely no point of coincidence between seance and science.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  10. Equality

    Equality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Religion before subjective interpretation was the first psuedo science.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,547
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion doesn't attempt to prove OR disprove any idea. The methodology is to look it up in some document. Religion doesn't even HAVE a methodology for proving or disproving.

    In fact, religion doesn't provide a mechanism for change. Thus, change is very difficult. In fact, learning about our universe becomes difficult, as not everything in the universe conforms to what is in the various religious documents.


    One real difference is that science recognizes that humans make mistakes. So, science focuses on eliminating the mistakes that humans make. The vast majority of modern scientific process is oriented toward eliminating errors in ALL that is studied. EVERY theory, hypothesis, law, finding, whatever, is constantly under investigation and is subject to review and change.


    Another difference is that science reserves huge recognition for those who prove major ideas to be wrong. We laude Einstein forever as the one who essentially trashed physics.

    In religion, those who take directions so divergent are considered heretics and are ostracized - or worse, in earlier times.
     
  12. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    30,797
    Likes Received:
    4,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    er, that's the whole point. Its constantly revising itself based on FACTS.
     
    William Rea and bricklayer like this.
  13. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    30,797
    Likes Received:
    4,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So there isn't a methodology for determining demonic possession? how about sainthood? And one could say that testing events with religious doctrine is likewise. These methods provide proof of faith to the faithful, at least that is my understanding since i've never experienced it.


    Change is an anathema to religious doctrine. AFter all its "received", how could it be wrong?
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,547
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, someone believes someone should be a saint, makes them saints and then points to them as proof of the existance of saints - ok!

    Looking up the answer in the answer book is not a test, nor does it involve evidence.
     
  15. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    30,797
    Likes Received:
    4,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am pointing out that there is a specific methodology for assessing saint hood and demonic possession amongst others. Its as much mumbo jumbo as the rest of it, but it is a methodology. A methodology of those caught in the throes of the strongest confirmation bias possible, I'll grant you.
     
  16. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'll tell you what. In my 78 years I have seen more real saints among ordinary simple folk - religious and secular - who have quietly gone about their business without any fuss. The Church may need its supposed heroes. These ordinary folk have contributed more to society than any saint.
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  17. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    941
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion is simply a method for dealing with the mysterious. It precedes science by a lot.
     
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    30,797
    Likes Received:
    4,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have the same experience with people. Being kind, lending a helping hand, protecting the weak, sharing the load, being tolerant, and displaying moral and ethical behavior in everything they do. Some use religion as their motivation, some their basic humanity.
     
    trevorw2539 likes this.
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    19,547
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, but, that is just a method of applying imutable rules. It doesn't lead to change.

    It isn't oriented to verifying the bible for example.

    There is significant fragmentation in the religions based on the bible - numerous denominations.

    And, there is no methodology for changing that -- for identifying and removing the mistakes.

    Science focuses on preventing and removing such mistakes.

    Religion has no such methodology.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  20. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    30,797
    Likes Received:
    4,099
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I violently agree. There is no requirement for a methodology to be logical or even correct. There's millions of crappy methodologies.

    Fortunately the scientific method is codified and rigorously applied to arrive at AN answer while religious methodologies start with THE answer and mumbo jumbo a process to arrive at it.
     

Share This Page