Difference between science and religion

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
1,596
0
The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones).
Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

if something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who pefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.

Science is for people that realize that in order to aquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT oif work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!

Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobovy can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.

What a comfortable position!
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
You are exaggerating somewhat. Science isn't immune from faith "problems"; it essentially assumes a priori that the scientific method and statistical reasoning are the correct foundations of a belief system, and it refuses to accept any arguments that are not based upon those principles.
 

Alexander

Hold on, there are no "scientific" and "non-scientific" methods of investigating nature.

There is only one - objective observation of facts (=measurement with independent from human senses devices and tools like meter stick, spectrometer, etc).

The less human senses and feeling mess with observations, the better (more objective). By the way, in science human messing is called "instrumental errors", or "errors of observation".
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You are exaggerating somewhat. Science isn't immune from faith "problems"; it essentially assumes a priori that the scientific method and statistical reasoning are the correct foundations of a belief system, and it refuses to accept any arguments that are not based upon those principles.
Indeed. Science isn't immune from 'faith' problems, as science is excercised by humans, which are not entirely free from 'faith'.
But science understands that, and deals with that accordingly.
It is formalised in way of making assumptions, and explicitly making assertions on under what conditions they fail or work.
 
Last edited:
1,596
0
Originally posted by Alexander
Hold on, there are no "scientific" and "non-scientific" methods of investigating nature.

There is only one - objective observation of facts (=measurement with independent from human senses devices and tools like meter stick, spectrometer, etc).

The less human senses and feeling mess with observations, the better (more objective). By the way, in science human messing is called "instrumental errors", or "errors of observation".
1. Of course there are different ways of investigating nature.

If I walk in nature and watch some natural phenomena (for instance the amound of seagulls I see) I could then claim , that the population of seaguls is diminishing each year.

Science would deal with this same issue in another way, and try to find more objective ways of calculating the seaguls.

2. Instruments also have intrinsic errors correlated to them, because no instrument can measure with infinite precission. Not all measurement errors are 'human' errors.
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
science is based on human subjective observations, religion is based on human sujbective beliefs...
 
2,224
0
What are Humans?

What the heck is a human being anyway? If it weren't for the fact that we were alive and human in the first place, we wouldn't be discussing any of this "stuff" in the second place! Which is to say, the only reference point we really have -- as "subjective" as it may be -- is the fact that we're human. So why can't we look at it from this standpoint, within context and focus on wholeness, rather than dissecting and overanalyzing things? Does life really need to be all that complicated? ... And why do we need so many "experts" to tell us otherwise?

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)
 

Alexander

Originally posted by Kerrie
science is based on human subjective observations, religion is based on human sujbective beliefs...
Science is not. It uses independent from human or alien or other animal devices. Like a meter stick, a balance, etc.

Several humans and several kind of aliens may not agree on the name of the color of He-Ne laser line, but taking a spectrometer they all get same value of its wavelength (say, 633 +/- 1 nanometers) no matter which units of length they use or what kind of device they employ to measure wavelength.
 

BoulderHead

Several humans and several kind of aliens may not agree on the name of the color of He-Ne laser line, but taking a spectrometer they all get same value of its wavelength (say, 633 +/- 1 nanometers) no matter which units of length they use or what kind of device they employ to measure wavelength.
What if the aliens define wavelength only in terms of color?
[edit]
You might say it is 1.298 meters but the aliens say; no, it is heidkuigekii778
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
Originally posted by Alexander
Science is not. It uses independent from human or alien or other animal devices. Like a meter stick, a balance, etc.
it is the human's subjective interpretation of those measurements that remains consistent among us that we then call as facts...no other creature or life form on this planet uses a meter stick thermometer to determine a measurement, so science is what human beings use to understand our world...the meter stick and other measuring devices were "invented" by humans (not by aliens or animals) as a standard way to remain consistent in communication with other people...
 

Alexander

Originally posted by BoulderHead
What if the aliens define wavelength only in terms of color?


Completely fine. Their spectrometer then is called "colormeter".


You might say it is 1.298 meters but the aliens say; no, it is heidkuigekii778

Then obviousely that 1.298 meter = heidkuigekii778
 

BoulderHead

Groovy...

Suppose we are not able to find a common ground at all. What if they don't understand wavelength except as a tingling sensation in their antennae when they traverse the galaxies?

What I mean is that we, as humans, have come up with a certain way of looking at the universe which we think has the best chance of being universally understood by intelligent life. Is there any chance we could be mistaken?
 

Alexander

Originally posted by Kerrie
it is the human's subjective interpretation of those measurements that remains consistent among us that we then call as facts...no other creature or life form on this planet uses a meter stick thermometer to determine a measurement, so science is what human beings use to understand our world...the meter stick and other measuring devices were "invented" by humans (not by aliens or animals) as a standard way to remain consistent in communication with other people...
Do you care who invented a meter stick or a thermometer if both human and alien agree that say wavelength of, say, 2-3 transition in hydrogen is 655 nm no matter how you measure it?
 

BoulderHead

Originally posted by heusdens
Indeed. Science isn't immune from 'faith' problems, as science is excercised by humans, which are not entirely free from 'faith'.
But science understands that, and deals with that accordingly.
It is formalised in way of making assumptions, and explicitly making assertions on under what conditions they fail or work.
Heusdens,
Are you saying something along the line of;

Religion is based on the observations of a primitive society and is never tested. Science is based on the observations of an advanced society and is constantly tested.
-Michael Pain
 

LogicalAtheist

Original poster said:

"Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable."

Explain this statement further, please. Are you saying also that religious mythology can also not be disproven?

SOmething that is false is unprovable.

Something that is true must ALWAYS be provable. So I disagree completely.
 

Alexander

Originally posted by BoulderHead


Religion is based on the observations of a primitive society and is never tested. Science is based on the observations of an advanced society and is constantly tested.
-Michael Pain
This is cool. I suggest to cast these words as a flashing HTML logo for this "Religion" forum.
 

LogicalAtheist

Boulder:

Religion is based on the observations of a primitive society and is never tested. Science is based on the observations of an advanced society and is constantly tested.
-Michael Pain

While Pain said it, you brought. That is NIIIIIIIIICE.

I would also add something about mythopaths and religious idiocy, heh but that's me. good quote! maybe I put it somewhere.
 

BoulderHead

I'm glad it is appreciated...

I was going to use it as my sig quote a few weeks ago but thought it would tick too many people off...

I was 'itchen' for an opportunity to use it, haha
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Something that is true must ALWAYS be provable.
Incorrect. One of the more interesting proofs of mathematical logic is the demonstration that any sufficiently expressive (consistent) theory must contain a true statement that cannot be proven from the axioms of the theory.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Incorrect. One of the more interesting proofs of mathematical logic is the demonstration that any sufficiently expressive (consistent) theory must contain a true statement that cannot be proven from the axioms of the theory.
Yes, but since we know the theorem is true, we must know that from outside of the axiomatic logic, else our statement of it being true would not be founded on anything.

Provability is not to be limited as proof on the basis of axioms and rules, it is clearly shown here, that we can escape from such axiomatic rule schema's to test a theorem.
 

Alexander

So, if there is no Santa, why do we have "Santaclausology" forum here then?
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Alexander
So, if there is no Santa, why do we have "Santaclausology" forum here then?
Because the followers of this "santaclausology" thing, think that a very imporant human right would be denied, if they could not exercise their rights in believing such stuff.

More important as let's say.... saving a million people from hunger death, saving a hunderd thousand childrend from the aids disease....

Yeah!
 

Alexander

Does ignorant have right to remain ignorant if he lives in educated society?
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Alexander
Does ignorant have right to remain ignorant if he lives in educated society?
Pardon? You are talking about the right to remain ignorant?

Do you promote here for negative rights? Right on poverty, on poor education, poor healthcare, etc?

I see education as a right, a decent/fair salary as a right, and decent housing a right, but the absence of such rights, can not be rights, since they are the absences of rights.
 
Last edited:

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Provability is not to be limited as proof on the basis of axioms and rules, it is clearly shown here, that we can escape from such axiomatic rule schema's to test a theorem.
Are you saying that logic is not necessary for a system of truth?


I see education as a right, a decent/fair salary as a right, and decent housing a right, but the absence of such rights, can not be rights, since they are the absences of rights.
So you don't have a right to disbelieve in God, since that's the absense of the right to beleive in God? :wink:
 

Related Threads for: Difference between science and religion

Replies
66
Views
99K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Posted
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top