The Difference Between Religion And Science

[hblask 1]

It can be summed up pretty much with this CNN story:

Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debateNAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics: Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human ever found.But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and popular evangelical Christian movement. The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of mankind."I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he claims have 10 million followers. "These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.

Science welcomes new evidence, wants it on display, and is happy to be disproved. Religion tries to eliminate facts that may contradict with its teachings. In this case, the argument is: "that physical object would undermine our belief system, therefore that physical object must not be displayed." As if hiding reality can change reality.Just sayin'....

[11 to 1 0]

It can be summed up pretty much with this CNN story: Science welcomes new evidence, wants it on display, and is happy to be disproved. Religion tries to eliminate facts that may contradict with its teachings. In this case, the argument is: "that physical object would undermine our belief system, therefore that physical object must not be displayed." As if hiding reality can change reality.Just sayin'....

While I am not fan of the nazilike tactics of the religious zealot, that same can ebe said for "science" when it refuses to publish researches into consciousness survival, for instance. The researchers who may have published before and held respected positions in major Universities, are fired, refused fudning and ridiculed.Let's have ALL the ideas out there. And stop implying one side is better than the other. Both have serious issues with some of their members.

[crowTrobot 2]

While I am not fan of the nazilike tactics of the religious zealot, that same can ebe said for "science" when it refuses to publish researches into consciousness survival, for instance. The researchers who may have published before and held respected positions in major Universities, are fired, refused fudning and ridiculed.

you presumably are referring to the 2-3 guys with credentials who have done NDE "research" that science doesn't take seriously - because those 2-3 guys are trying to sell books on the subject to the paranormal-craving public, and to anyone with any understanding of science it's obvious that their studies are subjective agenda-based non-science. otherwise there is lots of consciousness-related research including NDE studies that gets published. there is no scientific conspiracy to suppress evidence for survival of consciousness after death. since many scientists BELIEVE in life after death based on faith, if there were any real objective supporting evidence found it would be on page one of every newspaper in the world the next day. suggesting there is a scientific nazi-like conspiracy against the metaphysical is ludicrous - basically just the last resort of an apologist who's losing his arguments.

[Loismustdie 0]

Both sides try and suppress the other,out of ignorance, or just taking things to personal. There's no reason why the 2 can't coexist.

[Loismustdie 0]

While I am not fan of the nazilike tactics of the religious zealot, that same can ebe said for "science" when it refuses to publish researches into consciousness survival, for instance. The researchers who may have published before and held respected positions in major Universities, are fired, refused fudning and ridiculed.Let's have ALL the ideas out there. And stop implying one side is better than the other. Both have serious issues with some of their members.

For once I agree with you.

[jmkiser 0]

That doesn't make any sense.Why would scientists want to suppress discoveries? If God existed, scientists would want to be the FIRST PEOPLE TO PROVE IT!... why? BECAUSE THEY'RE SCIENTISTS!Aghhhhhhhhh, the absurdity of the thought that scientists desire to cover evidence that supports religion is INSANE!Discoveries are made because of our desire to know more!(and yes, there are individuals with hidden agendas... pointing the finger at scientists as a whole is wrong)Edit: Science acknowledges plausible possibilities. Science DOES NOT attempt to find evidence to justify pre-made up story lines.

[BuffDan 0]

Just to add my reply to this whole science covering up the truth stuff... it is true that in the past scientists have fought over discoveries and criticized theories that didn't make sense to them, for example Einstein's statements against quantum mechanics (the most famous of course "God doesn't play dice with the universe." The thing is though, Q.M. produced results that matched predictions, and guess what, we now realize that perhaps the most famous scientist of all time was dead wrong. If there was ever a motion to suppress results, surely showing Einstein wrong would have been suppressed.That is the thing. In the end results win out, just like confirming relativity helped Einstein win the day in his revolution. Reults ultimately win the day. It may take time, and their may be fierce battles, but in the end the theory that best fits the data, all of the data, is accepted. To again continue with my Q.M. example, there is agreement with theory and experiment to something like 12 decimal places. You show me your pet theory that has that kind of precision, and have it predict correctly some results that are already known and have it predict something unknown, show that it works time and time again, and guess what? Science will have to accept it.

[jmkiser 0]

That is the thing. In the end results win out, just like confirming relativity helped Einstein win the day in his revolution. Cheers to that

[Wingmaster05 0]

It can be summed up pretty much with this CNN story: Science welcomes new evidence, wants it on display, and is happy to be disproved. Religion tries to eliminate facts that may contradict with its teachings. In this case, the argument is: "that physical object would undermine our belief system, therefore that physical object must not be displayed." As if hiding reality can change reality.Just sayin'....

This reminds me of a lunch conversation with a friend of mine at a christian college. We were discussing what movies we should see this weekend and I suggested Blood Diamond. I didn't expect much from the movie, but i was aware of the whole diamond controversy and thought it might be a decent flick. She refused, and then acknowledged she has heard of this controversy before the movie and doesn't want to know about it (she recently got married AND works at a jewelry store). I said "so if someone wanted to tell you some fact or truth that would change your perception on a part of life, you would turn away from it for fear of changing your worldview?" "yes i would."(silence from my side of the table) (new subject springs up as if there were no glaring problem)

[jmkiser 0]

That's an interesting proposition, though.If you could know the absolute truth, it was to rock your view on everything... if it was to change your life in ways you don't want to think to imagine... if it would also take all of the mystery out of life... in a ways, to take away the complete and utter naivety, would you guys do it?I know people who live by the mantra of "ignorance is bliss" Somedays, I can't blame them... except when they do or say stupid ****

[semaj550 0]

Can we at least remove the assumption that "science" is necessarily benevolent and self-sacrificing? Science is just as agenda-laden as any religious group.

[jmkiser 0]

.....Define how science (we're talking as a whole) is agenda-laden as any religious group.That is a VERY large and very incorrect statement to be making... especially without having anything to back it up.

[semaj550 0]

.....Define how science (we're talking as a whole) is agenda-laden as any religious group.That is a VERY large and very incorrect statement to be making... especially without having anything to back it up.

Are you actually arguing that there has never been a scientist who fudged a couple numbers to get a result need to secure grant money? Or that scientists never go into something with a preconceived conclusion and give the data a favourable interpretation in order to support it? Or that no scientist have ever ignored a piece of evidence that didn't fit into their puzzle just the way they wanted it to?I'm only saying that science isn't necessarily benevolent and honest and it shouldn't be assumed to be so. People are no less prone to lying just because they obtained a science degree.

[jmkiser 0]

No, I'm not trying to argue that at all. You're putting those words in my mouthYOU are the one who said that SCIENCE is as agenda-laden as any religious group. YOU point out science as a whole has the issues and I'm telling you they do not.People have issues... we realize that. I find it funny that you try and discredit science by saying that people are agenda-driven when we try and get you to realize that the history of Christ you rely on is just as unreliable. Only difference is that the scientists you mention have their work on display for all of the great modern minds to see. Discoveries are checked and biased data is worked out... science that hits the ears of the people of today isn't the "fixed" data that you claim it to be. Now back to the amusing parts.. you claim that the metaphysical events that your "authors" recorded that far back in history are true. You try to deny that anything they might have experienced my be an explainable phenomenon today. You can't trash today's scientist's accuracy and then try and support an even feebler notion that your authors who experienced metaphysical events 2000 years ago are true.

[semaj550 0]

No, I'm not trying to argue that at all. You're putting those words in my mouthYOU are the one who said that SCIENCE is as agenda-laden as any religious group. YOU point out science as a whole has the issues and I'm telling you they do not.People have issues... we realize that. I find it funny that you try and discredit science by saying that people are agenda-driven when we try and get you to realize that the history of Christ you rely on is just as unreliable. Only difference is that the scientists you mention have their work on display for all of the great modern minds to see. Discoveries are checked and biased data is worked out... science that hits the ears of the people of today isn't the "fixed" data that you claim it to be. Now back to the amusing parts.. you claim that the metaphysical events that your "authors" recorded that far back in history are true. You try to deny that anything they might have experienced my be an explainable phenomenon today. You can't trash today's scientist's accuracy and then try and support an even feebler notion that your authors who experienced metaphysical events 2000 years ago are true.

I'm not trying to discredit science at all. I'm merely suggesting that if you want to discuss religion vs. science it is necessary to point out that not ever single pronoucement that comes from the scientific community is beyond question and is necessarily valid.

[jmkiser 0]

But that's the wonderful thing about it! It's always improving! Always changing... always being criticized... completely open-minded to more and more realizations, discoveries, etc.:)I love it!

[semaj550 0]

But that's the wonderful thing about it! It's always improving! Always changing... always being criticized... completely open-minded to more and more realizations, discoveries, etc.:)I love it!

No argument there. I only take exception to the assertion that science is necessarily benevolent and could never be coloured by selfish, untruthful motives. I hold religion to the same standard, you know. I am constantly testing my beliefs and completely open-minded to the truth. I realize that there are those who refuse to question but I'm not arguing in favour of them.

[jmkiser 0]

No argument there. I only take exception to the assertion that science is necessarily benevolent and could never be coloured by selfish, untruthful motives. I hold religion to the same standard, you know. I am constantly testing my beliefs and completely open-minded to the truth. I realize that there are those who refuse to question but I'm not arguing in favour of them.

I appreciate that way of thinking... but I'm bewildered that you stumbled upon Christianity as an absolute truth. Craziness :PI wouldn't go as far as to say that science can be benevolent or colored by selfish, untruthful motives. There are definitely people within the scientific community that, I'm sure, have issues with fixing data or other certain factors. The reason science is so great is that we can discover those problems and fix them. By the way, what makes you certain of an absolute truth such as the Christian God? And how do you know you're serving him in the correct way? And how do you know that your Christian God doesn't only take in Baptists... or Methodists? I'm not being a **** or anything... these are just valid questions that have no definitive answer within the Christian community. With the seriousness of all the things religion tries to answer... they don't seem to answer them very definitively. If the Christian God created the earth, then what specific belief am I supposed to be utilizing? And a very big problem is that Christians can't answer that.

[semaj550 0]

I appreciate that way of thinking... but I'm bewildered that you stumbled upon Christianity as an absolute truth. Craziness :PI wouldn't go as far as to say that science can be benevolent or colored by selfish, untruthful motives. There are definitely people within the scientific community that, I'm sure, have issues with fixing data or other certain factors. The reason science is so great is that we can discover those problems and fix them. By the way, what makes you certain of an absolute truth such as the Christian God? And how do you know you're serving him in the correct way? And how do you know that your Christian God doesn't only take in Baptists... or Methodists? I'm not being a **** or anything... these are just valid questions that have no definitive answer within the Christian community. With the seriousness of all the things religion tries to answer... they don't seem to answer them very definitively. If the Christian God created the earth, then what specific belief am I supposed to be utilizing? And a very big problem is that Christians can't answer that.

All right, I'll bite. My thought process started like this.I weighed the evidence for and against the validity of the gospels as a source of history. To my mind they pass muster. I then weighed whether what they said about Jesus was reliable or not. There is no compelling reason to believe that it is not and there is no contemporary writing that would refute their accounting of the events. So if I can rely on the gospels and can conclude that the Resurrection was an historical event which proves the divinity to Jesus I can also rely on the things Jesus says as truth.I don't know definitively that I am serving God in the correct way, there is no way for anyone to know that. I put an ernest effort into discerning the things that God has told us are important to Him and try to live my life accordingly. If what I hold to be true about Christ indeed is then the Christian God is the only deity in all of history that has both claimed divinity and proven it. This seems like the best of all places to start serving God. I have a strong belief in the fact that Jesus because told us that he is, "...the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [Him]." that He is the path I am to follow. I am Catholic because I believe it best reflects the things that Jesus teaches us. I think the Father will accept all those that come to Him through the Son.I'm a little confused as to what you were asking with your last question though. What do you mean by which belief are you to be utilizing? If you mean which religion are you to follow I think that is something you need to discover for yourself. I am very happy with the path I am on. I feel that I built my faith on a solid foundation and through prayer and reflection I come closer and closer to what God wants of me.

[jmkiser 0]

The last question was referring to all of the different Christian beliefs. Many contradict each other and many believe that are probably hell-bound by not being involved in their sect.A lot of it comes down to this with me... Christianity refers to a lot of absolute truths. For a religion to be so decisive on ideas like a God or a Heaven or a Hell ... even divinity... it has be extremely decisive, defined and probable to really even be given a chance. None of the religion is any of that.You look at me like I follow science... almost like a religion. There's where the problem is, though. I don't follow a religion. I don't follow a creed. I don't believe in any of that stuff. I live. That's what I do. I just live. Within living, there are things that make sense...follow logic, reason, etc. science does a great job of explaining the world in those definable ways. Religion does none of that.The way you looked at religion was from the inside out. You started with the ideals that Christianity makes sense and if you can prove this "one thing" about your religion, then the rest of it is valid (which the resurrection can't be proven anyway). Your influence is already dictated in favor of Christianity before you even start to question it in what you wrote above.If you stand in the position of someone pure... someone who hasn't heard anything other then what is proven and true... then religion (Christianity involved) would be insane and make no sense as to why people believe it. Of course, we know why people believe it... there's a myriad of reasons (family history, influence, pressure, psychological assistance, etc), but that's besides the point. A very relevant point that needs to be made is that no one became a Christian because they discovered its truth with proof, fact, or evidence. Everyone becomes a Christian because they have faith that what the religion says is true.... which in essence, means nothing.

[semaj550 0]

The last question was referring to all of the different Christian beliefs. Many contradict each other and many believe that are probably hell-bound by not being involved in their sect.A lot of it comes down to this with me... Christianity refers to a lot of absolute truths. For a religion to be so decisive on ideas like a God or a Heaven or a Hell ... even divinity... it has be extremely decisive, defined and probable to really even be given a chance. None of the religion is any of that.You look at me like I follow science... almost like a religion. There's where the problem is, though. I don't follow a religion. I don't follow a creed. I don't believe in any of that stuff. I live. That's what I do. I just live. Within living, there are things that make sense...follow logic, reason, etc. science does a great job of explaining the world in those definable ways. Religion does none of that.The way you looked at religion was from the inside out. You started with the ideals that Christianity makes sense and if you can prove this "one thing" about your religion, then the rest of it is valid (which the resurrection can't be proven anyway). Your influence is already dictated in favor of Christianity before you even start to question it in what you wrote above.If you stand in the position of someone pure... someone who hasn't heard anything other then what is proven and true... then religion (Christianity involved) would be insane and make no sense as to why people believe it. Of course, we know why people believe it... there's a myriad of reasons (family history, influence, pressure, psychological assistance, etc), but that's besides the point. A very relevant point that needs to be made is that no one became a Christian because they discovered its truth with proof, fact, or evidence. Everyone becomes a Christian because they have faith that what the religion says is true.... which in essence, means nothing.

You're completely incorrect about the way I look at religion. I started from the position of an atheist. Religion wasn't something that I found particularly tasteful or even wanted. It was something that, after careful examination, I felt compelled to accept based on the understanding that, at the very least, it is more probable than not that Jesus is just as the gospels say He is. If anything, I was biased against Christianity, not for it.And your last statement simply isn't true. There are many, many Christians who came to their faith through the examination of proof, fact, and evidence. There are some who became Christian because their parents are Christian and they never bothered to question a thing. There are some to just want to believe so they do. They are not all Christians.

[jmkiser 0]

There is no proof, facts, or evidence for Christianity... if there was, everyone would believe it.Everyone knows 5+5=10 Everyone does not know that Christ was divine... people even completely disagree with it. People that support that Christ was divine can't even prove that Christ was divine.I, also, don't understand how you were biased against Christianity. When you "looked" at religion, you went straight to Christianity. Then you thought (or felt) compelled to accept that Jesus and what Jesus did as the gospels explain them were true.. What?! That makes no sense at all. You're telling me you were an atheist and that you considered every possible religion and Christianity proved to you that it was fact? Or are you telling me that you were an atheist and that you looked at just Christianity and then they proved to you it was fact? I am so confused on how in the world you were an atheist and were then drawn into believing that Christianity is proven fact.

[semaj550 0]

There is no proof, facts, or evidence for Christianity... if there was, everyone would believe it.Everyone knows 5+5=10 Everyone does not know that Christ was divine... people even completely disagree with it. People that support that Christ was divine can't even prove that Christ was divine.I, also, don't understand how you were biased against Christianity. When you "looked" at religion, you went straight to Christianity. Then you thought (or felt) compelled to accept that Jesus and what Jesus did as the gospels explain them were true.. What?! That makes no sense at all. You're telling me you were an atheist and that you considered every possible religion and Christianity proved to you that it was fact? Or are you telling me that you were an atheist and that you looked at just Christianity and then they proved to you it was fact? I am so confused on how in the world you were an atheist and were then drawn into believing that Christianity is proven fact.

I looked at Islam, I looked at Hinduism, and I looked even more seriously at Buddhism. The problem is that I don't see any compelling evidence for them. I was happy to be an atheist, it looked like there was no good reason to accept that any religion was worth following.Once I accepted the evidence for Christ's divinity I was left with a lot of, "Yeah, but..."s. "Yeah, but who could be believe God loves us if He allows all this suffering?" That was the biggest one. How could there be a God in a world where innocent children starve to death due to no fault of their own. When examined as a whole, Christianity has answers that are consistent with modern science, are internally consistent, and logical. I'm not sure what your experience with it has been but it certainly doesn't seem consistent with mine.

[jmkiser 0]

My experience is that you can't prove Christ's divinity... or that divinity is possible. Or that the miracles that Christ did, actually happened.Christians can use plenty of clever logic to win theological debates, but those really aren't that important when the religion itself can't even be proved true.

[semaj550 0]

My experience is that you can't prove Christ's divinity... or that divinity is possible. Or that the miracles that Christ did, actually happened.Christians can use plenty of clever logic to win theological debates, but those really aren't that important when the religion itself can't even be proved true.

Like I say over and over again, I think one can rationally and logically conclude on either side of the fence. It's not about winning debates, it's about finding a truth which one can reconcile with one's own life and experience. Even atheism involves an element of faith based on how one reconciles the facts.