Difference between science and religion

Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the fundamental differences between science and religion, emphasizing that religion makes absolute claims that cannot be proven or disproven, while science is based on relative truths that can evolve and be tested. Science is characterized by its disprovability and the necessity for continuous validation, whereas religion is seen as unprovable and thus less rigorous. Participants argue that science relies on objective measurements and observations, while religion is rooted in subjective beliefs. The conversation also touches on the idea that both science and religion are influenced by human interpretation, but science actively addresses its limitations and biases. Ultimately, the debate underscores the contrasting methodologies and epistemologies of science and religion.
  • #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
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
10K