Difference between science and religion

[heusdens]

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 acquire 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]

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".

 

[heusdens]

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.

 

[heusdens]

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]

science is based on human subjective observations, religion is based on human sujbective beliefs...

 

[Iacchus32]

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

 

[Kerrie]

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]

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.

 

[heusdens]

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?

 

[heusdens]

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?

 

[heusdens]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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 believe in God?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
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?

On the contrary.

So, does an individual have right to remain poor, ill and ignorant in a rich, healthy and educated society? I think, not.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are you saying that logic is not necessary for a system of truth?

I would say that logic is a mere tool, and our set of tools is not restricted to logic only to find truth/knowledge.

So you don't have a right to disbelieve in God, since that's the absense of the right to believe in God?

I was arguing that there is a right on education and on knowledge.
That is the positive right.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
On the contrary.

So, does an individual have right to remain poor, ill and ignorant in a rich, healthy and educated society? I think, not.

There are no negative rights. There can only be the absence of rights. Humanity is still fighting for the implementation of all basic rights to all members of humanity, so that people don't have to stay poor, illeterated, ot ill, but can be provided the rights for their basic needs to sustain themselves.

 

[Hurkyl]

I was arguing that there is a right on education and on knowledge. That is the positive right.

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?

 

[Alexander]

Returning back to the subject:

Religion sides with unproven, or unprovable, or contradicting to facts claims.

Science sides with proven, or provable, or non-contradicting to facts claims.

 

[Hurkyl]

By "proven" (and its other variants) you mean scientifically proven, right?

 

[Alexander]

No. Proven by facts.

 

[Hurkyl]

(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.

 

[Alexander]

Facts do. As Marx said, the criteria of truth is comparison with fact (=reality).

Look up the definition of "truth".

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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).

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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.

 

[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.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[Astronomer107]

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.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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.

 

[Astronomer107]

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.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Shadow]

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-existance" 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

 

[Alexander]

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).

 

[BoulderHead]

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...