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.

  • #61
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not call the United States a primative society; no, would zi call most if not all or Euprope a primative society.
Religious faith and belief are tested thousands of times every day by thousands of people.

If I were to offer you, any of you scientific materialist, absolute proof that God or a creator exists, you would not accept it as proof of anything; you would call me at best a misguided fool and at worse a lying deceiver; thus, your precarious position would be safe and secure.

We can't even agree on the meaning of the words "fact", "truth", "proof" much less agree on the answer to any fundamental question.

We all, myself included, keep saying the same things over and over again in thread after thread and none of us will admit that the other has made a point. There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I would not call the United States a primative society; no, would zi call most if not all or Euprope a primative society.
I would call early sumeria, egypt, Israel or the indus valley cultures where most ancient scriptures are written primative societies, yes. Relative to today, of course. I was not aware that Christianity was born in the USA.

If I were to offer you, any of you scientific materialist, absolute proof that God or a creator exists, you would not accept it as proof of anything; you would call me at best a misguided fool and at worse a lying deceiver; thus, your precarious position would be safe and secure.
That is awfully presumptious of you. I suppose that if I were to offer you absolute proof that God does not exist, you would accept it then? I would think that the case with God is that no absolute proof or disproof exists, since God does not make predictions that can be tested.

There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.
Oh there is a point. There is certainly a point to all this. But not the point you think of - to preach or convert others. It is to broaden minds to possibilities, your own as well as everyone else. It's not about winning. It's about the experience of taking part.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
How can anyone know the truth (or the Truth) without an adequate definition of what the truth is?

How can the truth be defined when there is no way to know what the truth is or can be.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Royce
We all, myself included, keep saying the same things over and over again in thread after thread and none of us will admit that the other has made a point. There is no point to any of this that can be proved or disproved by anybody.

That is of course clear, and because of that we would not need to strive for stating something absolute. But there is common sense logic that makes it possible to reach a consensus on things.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by heusdens
That is of course clear, and because of that we would not need to strive for stating something absolute. But there is common sense logic that makes it possible to reach a consensus on things.

We can always hope. I try, but don't always succeed in not stating any absolutes; but, state one way or another that it is my opinion or belief.

Should and do apologize for that post. I was obviously very frustrated when I posted it. The frustration probably wasn't even with the PF's but simply a handy way to vent it.

FZ+, I think that if all there was to religion was the thousands year old observations of a long dead and no longer relevant culture that religions would have passed on with those cultures. IMO religon is still relevant and based on the "observations" of members of current modern societies as well as those of ancient cultures. I think that that is why it is still so much a part of our culture.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
106K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K