Difference between science and religion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the differences between science and religion, focusing on their foundational principles, methods of investigation, and the nature of knowledge. It encompasses theoretical and conceptual perspectives, as well as some philosophical inquiries about human understanding and measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that science is based on relative truths that can be tested and disproven, while religion is characterized by absolute statements that cannot be proven or disproven.
  • Others suggest that science operates on a priori assumptions about the scientific method and statistical reasoning, which may introduce a form of faith into scientific inquiry.
  • There is a contention about the methods of investigating nature, with some asserting that objective observation is the only valid approach, while others acknowledge the role of subjective human interpretation in science.
  • Participants discuss the potential for different interpretations of measurements, especially in hypothetical scenarios involving alien perspectives on scientific concepts.
  • Some express skepticism about the complexity of scientific discourse, questioning whether it is necessary to overanalyze concepts rather than embracing a more holistic understanding.
  • There is a debate about whether science can be considered entirely objective, given that it relies on human-created instruments and interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of science and religion, the validity of different methods of investigation, and the implications of human subjectivity in scientific practice.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight limitations in the definitions and assumptions underlying both science and religion, as well as the potential for measurement errors and subjective interpretations to influence conclusions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the philosophical implications of science and religion, as well as individuals curious about the nature of knowledge and human understanding in the context of scientific inquiry.

  • #31
By "proven" (and its other variants) you mean scientifically proven, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
No. Proven by facts.
 
  • #33
(a) Facts, by themselves, do not constitute a proof by any conventional meaning of the term. Elaborate or try again.

(b) I assume by "fact" you mean a statement that has been scientifically verified? If not, please elaborate upon what justification you have for labelling a statement as a fact.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Facts do. As Marx said, the criteria of truth is comparison with fact (=reality).

Look up the definition of "truth".
 
  • #35
A fact is a fact. it's true, always true, never false.

Hurkyl, I find you are always questioning, here, the essence of things, nitpicking. Tell me, when you go to sit down in your computer desk chair, do you ever question Newton's laws as wrong, and get a bit scared you might fall right through your chair?

I didn't think so. You need some basis of fact and truth otherwise you'd be frightened at everything. I know you don't question it that heavily in real life, otherwise you'd have no time for anything else.

Facts are facts. Science proves facts. Science proves truths.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
A fact is a fact. it's true, always true, never false.
And yet the fact that two million people might go hungry in the United States today, doesn't mean they're all starving and will die tomorrow or within the next ten days. So I guess it all depends on what that fact is "related" to. Although "the fact" of the matter is, a fact is a statement of truth (perhaps the smallest?), when taking into account the fact by itself ... Got it?

Truth is the vessel (form) and good is contained within (essence).
 
  • #37
Hurkyl, I find you are always questioning, here, the essence of things, nitpicking. Tell me, when you go to sit down in your computer desk chair, do you ever question Newton's laws as wrong, and get a bit scared you might fall right through your chair?

I didn't think so. You need some basis of fact and truth otherwise you'd be frightened at everything. I know you don't question it that heavily in real life, otherwise you'd have no time for anything else.

You are right, I don't question everything that heavily. I don't question at all whether I'll fall right through my chair. However that does not mean I accept it as absolute fact that I will not fall through my chair.


I recognize that logic does not claim to give truths, it merely gives deductions from premises. Science also does not claime to give truths, it gives statistical likelihoods.

So, there is nothing within a purely logical/scientific worldview to suggest that it has any claim to truth or correctness.


I don't find anything wrong with that in itself. I find it to be highly humorous when people start claiming that logic + science yield absolute truths and start criticising other belief systems that don't conform to a pure logic + science must be incorrect, because in order to have that view you must have a belief system beyond that of pure logic + science.
 
  • #38
What's the difference between science and religion? ...

Science represents the outer Masucline form, or shell, derived from the Feminine inner essence or "spirit" -- i.e., Religion. Of course if the "life within," religion itself, dies, then it would all have kind of a hollow ringing inside now wouldn't it? Hmm ...

While I guess without science or religion, then we would all be a bunch of monkeys now wouldn't we?
 
  • #39
Perhaps you may be mistaking what people mean. For instance I would indeed say science can prove facts and truths.

The unsaid statement is that it's true enough so we can prove other truths with the implication of this one. And that it's fact enough so that it occurs as we state it to be.

It serves no purpose if we need to, for every experiment, start from scratch rather than assuming some laws and facts.

Sure plenty of scientists will tell you it's 100% absolutely true. And it is. Because remember that outside of this, you're not using science to say that it is NOT necessarily always true.

Ask a physics teacher if a reletavistic equation is 100% always true.

(assuming current thought is yes) he or she will tell you it's true without any other option, and nothing else will ever prove it false

And they're right...




Originally posted by Hurkyl
You are right, I don't question everything that heavily. I don't question at all whether I'll fall right through my chair. However that does not mean I accept it as absolute fact that I will not fall through my chair.


I recognize that logic does not claim to give truths, it merely gives deductions from premises. Science also does not claime to give truths, it gives statistical likelihoods.

So, there is nothing within a purely logical/scientific worldview to suggest that it has any claim to truth or correctness.


I don't find anything wrong with that in itself. I find it to be highly humorous when people start claiming that logic + science yield absolute truths and start criticising other belief systems that don't conform to a pure logic + science must be incorrect, because in order to have that view you must have a belief system beyond that of pure logic + science.
 
  • #40
Logical Atheist,
Hypothetically, if your beliefs were the right ones, then why do you work so hard trying to disprove something that is not even there? If you honestly didn't believe in God, wouldn't you not even go there? No one here is trying to convert you, so personal vendettas are not really needed. Everyone is entitled to his beliefs.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Astronomer107
Logical Atheist,
Hypothetically, if your beliefs were the right ones, then why do you work so hard trying to disprove something that is not even there? If you honestly didn't believe in God, wouldn't you not even go there? No one here is trying to convert you, so personal vendettas are not really needed. Everyone is entitled to his beliefs.

1. Why do I work so hard? You call disproving something that isn't there hard?

2. This is a forum. It's what people do is discuss, if you have problems with it, try a chat room or an instant messenging service.

3. "honestly didn't believe in God"? The phrase reeks of ego.

4. "trying to convert me"? What? It's a forum, this is what occurs at a forum.

5. "everyone is entitled to his beliefs"? First off, it's a sexist statement. Secondly, where in the heck did you get the idea people are entitled to beliefs?

6. People don't have rights and entitlements. I'm guessing you are religious.

7. End of story.
 
  • #42
The unsaid statement is that it's true enough so we can prove other truths with the implication of this one. And that it's fact enough so that it occurs as we state it to be.

Excellent, now it has been said!

As to the nature of the validity of this statement:

(a) Do you take this statement as an axiom? (IOW this is a statement you presume true without proof)

(b) Do you take this statement as self-validating? (IOW the scientific method has demonstrated an ability to be true enough and to be enough of a fact so that the scientific method declares it a true fact)

or

(c) Do you have some other reason to regard this statement as correct?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Why do I work so hard? You call disproving something that isn't there hard?

2. This is a forum. It's what people do is discuss, if you have problems with it, try a chat room or an instant messenging service.

3. "honestly didn't believe in God"? The phrase reeks of ego.

4. "trying to convert me"? What? It's a forum, this is what occurs at a forum.

5. "everyone is entitled to his beliefs"? First off, it's a sexist statement. Secondly, where in the heck did you get the idea people are entitled to beliefs?

6. People don't have rights and entitlements. I'm guessing you are religious.

7. End of story.

1. I'm saying that you spend so much time knocking down God when you can just say "I don't believe anything." and not worry about it.

2. Of course people discuss in a forum, I'm just making a point that beliefs should be questioned and not attacked.

3.How so?

4. I really don't think that anyone here can change other's beliefs.

5. That is not a sexist statement because it is gramatically correct to choose between using his and her. I could have just as easily said "her own beliefs," if you prefer that. Saying "his or her" is annoying to deal with all the time, so we generally pick one. Besides, I don't see the relevance of this point in regard to the topic.

6. People do have the right to believe what they want. Where in the known universe did you get the idea that no one has rights? The fact that I am or am not religious is not important here. I only wanted to ask why you try so hard to disprove God.

7. End of story? We cannot find truth unless we continue searching.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Originally posted by Astronomer107
6. People do have the right to believe what they want. Where in the known universe did you get the idea that no one has rights? The fact that I am or am not religious is not important here. I only wanted to ask why you try so hard to disprove God.

7. End of story? We cannot find truth unless we continue searching.


It's you who has the burden of proof. You proposed a claim that rights exist. The burden of an existence claim lies on the side proposing the existence. Where's your evidence?


Who is this "we" you speak of? Some people find truth, others don't. And some people find the truth and refuse it because it isn't the truth they want.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's you who has the burden of proof. You proposed a claim that rights exist. The burden of an existence claim lies on the side proposing the existence. Where's your evidence?


Who is this "we" you speak of? Some people find truth, others don't. And some people find the truth and refuse it because it isn't the truth they want.

It is I who have the burden of proof? How can one deny that there are rights. Existence is not the problem here because rights exist only if we choose them to, and we do, at least in the United States. The thing that one must realize is that if we do not respect people's rights, one group will rise over the other, leading to the ultimate destruction of both. If I have the burden of proving, then it is you who has the burden of disproving. So begin disproving. Where is YOUR evidence?

Right, my point exactly, some people do not accept the truth because it is not the truth they want, so they simply give up and say, "I believe nothing." Tell me, if "nothing" created the universe, then the universe would be nothing. Plus, how can a "cosmic accident" produce something so perfect, from the arrangement of the galaxies down to the perfection of an atom? It requires planning.
 
  • #46
Uh-oh. We got "another one of them".

Mentat et al, read this and laugh!

Originally posted by Astronomer107
It is I who have the burden of proof? How can one deny that there are rights.

How can one propose an existence claim with no proof and expect another to listen?

Originally posted by Astronomer107
Existence is not the problem here because rights exist only if we choose them to, and we do, at least in the United States. The thing that one must realize is that if we do not respect people's rights, one group will rise over the other, leading to the ultimate destruction of both.

The thing one should realize is rights don't exist. In your head you believe rights exist that are different than everyone elses beliefs of rights. So how should this one who needs to realize go about "respecting" these non-existant rights when no two people believe in the same non-existant right? You opened a can of worms!

Originally posted by Astronomer107
If I have the burden of proving, then it is you who has the burden of disproving. So begin disproving. Where is YOUR evidence?

Anyone else ever heard that? Me go first? No you go first, no YOU go first?

There is no burden to disprove. Not only have you invented rights you've invented a new logic!

Originally posted by Astronomer107
Right, my point exactly, some people do not accept the truth because it is not the truth they want, so they simply give up and say, "I believe nothing."

Heh, I knew you were a mythopath. I could hear it in your type.


Originally posted by Astronomer107
Tell me, if "nothing" created the universe, then the universe would be nothing. Plus, how can a "cosmic accident" produce something so perfect, from the arrangement of the galaxies down to the perfection of an atom? It requires planning.

Haha - I'll leave this open for everyone else to rip apart. Haha, you make me LOL.
 
  • #47
You're not just being skeptical about the existence of rights, you are denying their existence. You too have the burden to prove your claim.
 
  • #48
I feel I should join this discussion...


How can one propose an existence claim with no proof and expect another to listen?

Well if this is true Logical Atheist, how can you propose a "non-existence" claim with no proof and expect others to listen?


The thing one should realize is rights don't exist. In your head you believe rights exist that are different than everyone elses beliefs of rights. So how should this one who needs to realize go about "respecting" these non-existant rights when no two people believe in the same non-existant right? You opened a can of worms!


Everyone has rights and I find it shocking that you think they don't have rights or entitlements.

Anyone else ever heard that? Me go first? No you go first, no YOU go first?

With all due respect LA you did cause that argument.

Haha - I'll leave this open for everyone else to rip apart

I don't see anyone ripping this apart. And people on this forum seem kind so I doubt they will rip it apart.

You're not just being skeptical about the existence of rights, you are denying their existence. You too have the burden to prove your claim.

I agree
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Astronomer107
I only wanted to ask why you try so hard to disprove God.

This one is easy. Just identify the object of discussion (tell what you mean by this word to make sure we both will talk of SAME animal).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Originally posted by Alexander
This one is easy. Just identify the object (tell exactly what you mean by this word to make sure we both will talk of SAME animal).
Alexander,
I think he was asking what it is that motivates you, not whether or not you could actually do it...
 
  • #51
Just facts and logic.
 
  • #52
sorry i am busy so i can't really debate this now but Astronomer107 is a she just so you know :smile:
 
  • #53
You say facts and logic but how about truth?
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Every positive right can be reformulated as a negative right.


And I suppose you mean to say there's a right on education and on knowledge that you sanction?

What is the use for reformulating a positive right as a negative right?

Why would I or anybody else sanction rights?

When I claim that people are entitled positive rights (right on healtcare, education, housing, income, safety, etc) then you say that when reformulating these rights as negative righst, I sanction these negative rights?).

This is clearly nonsense. A right is a right, not a duty.
I would not force someone to have education in university.
This is quite something different then dispermitting or disallowing them the right for that education.

If allow you to do or get something, it does not mean I am forcing you to do or get something.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Shadow
You say facts and logic but how about truth?

Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

Same as Marx said "The criteria of truth is observed fact (reality)".
 
  • #56
Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

Which begs the question: "What to you mean by fact?"
 
  • #57
From a dictionary:

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
 
  • #58
Truth? Truth is defined as "what complies with facts".

How can one define truth when no one knows the truth?
 
  • #59
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

How do you base knowledge and information on real occurrences? How does one identify a real occurrence anyways? (And what is a real occurrence? Though I suppose you'll answer this question if you can answer my second question)
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Shadow
How can one define truth when no one knows the truth?
How can anyone know the truth (or the Truth) without an adequate definition of what the truth is?
 

Similar threads

Difference between science and religion
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
106K
Can Science Disprove the Existence of God and End Religion?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
The notion of progress in the social sciences
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Is Reality Just a Construct of Our Beliefs?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Strict forum rules vs learning science
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Can Einstein's View on Science and Religion Be Justified?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K