Science vs Religion which is more correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Religion is dumb. End of story.

because science actively searches for answers while trying to steer clear of bias and willing to accept outcomes that challenge the hypothesis, science is by definition more correct.
most religions follow books in which "god did it" was the default response to any question asked that had no apparent answer, also, many of religions' claims have been proven wrong, while most others have explanations that do not require a god (but don't rule one out), also, translations have changed a lot of the wordings.

simply the fact that (fundamental) religion refuses to update their respective holy books to what we currently know about the world makes them inaccurate at best, and wrong on many accounts.

i am not claiming that science has, or even will ever have, all the answers, but neither does religion. at least science tries to find out

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDYxUHtYB4g[/youtube]Bible thumpers logic when it comes to science.

I don't even know where to start with all the errors in that video. They redefine evolution and science itself. If anyone believes that crap I would be happy to answer specific questions.

Provide empirical proof of string theory and/or empirical proof of matter/energy coming from nothing, and I will provide empirical proof of God.

The best passover song:

Science encourages curiosity, and allows for correction or elimination of previously accepted theories. One demonstration trumps invalid belief.

Religion requires obedience, and makes no allowances for correction or elimination of dogmatic beliefs that have been proven invalid.

If I want to be cured of a life-threatening disease, I will trust one science-minded physician over any number of muttering and wailing religionists.

To be honest, I think you are giving Science more credit than it actually has. I am not saying that it is wrong, but you are assigning traits to it that Science actually doesn't possess. Religion is useful, Science is useful, and both have a place, as long as it encourages people/individuals to be better today than yesterday.

This doesn't actually apply to Science currently. Bias still plays major part and anything that challenges that bias is opposed. Look at the effort taken to finally have scientists accept the norse/Viking voyages that occurred before Columbus. Look at the effort regarding studies over the Bering land bridge and how carbon-dating of sites in the Americas show arrivals before the land bridge. Despite this science, there is still strong opposition among scientists to accept anything information that challenges the Bering Land Bridge theory.



Science has been shown to be unwilling to find out. There were entire sections of our current sciences that were not only denied by past scientists but those scientists refused to accept any testing regarding those theories.



Scientists have been shown to be unwilling to accept challenges to theories. Many of our current science was originally opposed, sometimes violently, by past scientists.

For a long while once the theory was made, the Bering Land-bridge had a crushing grip on how the peopling of the Americas took place. Despite evidence demonstrating that humans were present before the land-bridge, scientists absolutely to take seriously anything uncovered and regarded all information contrary as being fakes or hoaxes.

Much of our current mainstream science exists because of struggles waged between different groups of scientists about whether it was true or not. In some cases, the only reason the science even exists today is due to the fact that those opposed died or lost their support. The existence of lead poisoning was denied despite scientific proof. Other scientific proofs we take for granted were denied by scientists before.

Science has only recently been willing to accept new information regardless of bias and pre-conceived notions. That is recent, not further back and science still struggles with Bias.

Science is also limited in being able to measure only the perceivable to us world. Until microscopes, atoms couldn't be observed. Anything that cannot be observed directly cannot be determined by science. Science can measure the measurable, but beyond that, it breaks down. Yes, we mathematically guess about things/materials/science, but we haven't been able to test it yet.

Given how immature Science still is, I wouldn't put much faith in it being able to answer religious questions that aren't directly measurable by instruments.

Like how the others on this thread are actually real people and not cut-outs/etc produced by simulation of real existence being experienced by someone. Science is even debating whether we exist in a simulation or if we are real.

The biggest problem we have with this kind of discussion on most forums is that too few of the participants are actual scientists or even science historians. We're like first-aiders arguing over how to do brain surgery.

Many things are reported about science that are either untrue or lacking facts or context. For example, proof against a theory needs to be confirmed as truly contradicting the established theory before people will incorporate it. Yet all we hear about is the assertion of contradiction and an unwillingness of science to yield. Tabloid journalism makes us skeptical of the reporting, except when they're reporting on science, and then people are willing to accept it uncritically.

At best, we who are not scientists will make assertions, have a battle of links, and then all go home, each to our own invested beliefs.

Climate Change: A little over a decade ago, I was a firm believer that man was causing climate change. Then I watched a video that showed exactly how we were being duped into believing that. It shocked me. I was angry that we were being made to believe something that was nothing more than a cyclic thing to do with the sun. The science behind the video showed undeniably how climate scientists were fooling the world, and why.

Months later, as a followup, I read a critique of the video. At first I was skeptical of the critique because it was debunking the video. The more I read, the more I saw how the video had made false allegations, presented the protagonist's projected data as fact and plain lied. It made me angry, for three reasons. 1. The video lied using false data and false assertions. 2. Millions would not see the debunk of the video. 3. That false video could affect how we tackle climate change.

But there is also a fourth reason I was angry. I had been duped. It made me realize that I needed to be more skeptical about things, especially on the fringe.

don't hold your breath.

a) We are not theoretical physicists.
b) We can only point to things like the recent CERN experiment, per the Higgs boson.

But even the CERN scientists were not quick to declare it conclusive proof of string theory - that declaration was made by the media. Such is the ultra conservative nature of science regarding proof.

That flux is part of the process and it isn't new. Fierce debates over what constitutes evidence and what that evidence means are a positive part of science. That scientists divide up into camps, with some camps shrinking as member scientists die, is a positive thing which keeps people always looking at evidence with fresh eyes. The Lamarck camp of inheritance was considered over until the emerging field of epigenetics made us take a look at that with fesh eyes.

Science is like that parable of the blind men and the elephant. The blind men are all touching an elephant and trying to figure out what it is like. One of them is touching its side and declares the elephant broad and flat, another touches its leg and declares the elephant broad and cylindrical while a third touches its trunk and says it is narrow and cylindrical. They all have part of the truth but are working with different bits of the elephant and interpreting it in different ways. As thousands more touch the elephant, a more complete picture emerges- but not without fights between the "broad and flat" camp and the "narrow and cylindrical" camp.

To continue the metaphor, religion would have you believe that they know everything about the elephant because it's obvious and self evident. But they never even touched the elephant. They just decided that it is self evident that the elephant is feathered with wings.

Science tries to figure things out and this is a fractious process with much debate. But it is debate about the actual evidence. Religion just declares something to be true. When a sufficient number of people declare something different to be true, they start their own sect or religion. But there is no discovery or investigation. There is only decision. This makes religion arbitrary so that what you believe is down to your geographic(and temporal) location and cultural milieu. There is just decision, no investigation.


That's a feature not a bug. It keeps currently immeasurable things in the realm of conjecture rather than declaring them to be self evidently true.


I don't look to science to answer religious questions. But I personally don't look to religion either. The anwers given will be based on whatever values a particular religion happens to hold dear so the only question that can really be answered is "what does this religion value?"

If you ask science "why are we here?" you get an answer that is actually just an explanation of the natural processes that led up to humans. If you ask religion "why are we here?" you get a very different answer but it will be based on what a specific religion values and to my mind, hasn't actualy answered the question other than to say 'this is what we value'. The answer might be 'so we can help each other' or ' we are God contemplating Himself' or 'so that we can worship God' or any number of other highly divergent answers. All you actually find out is what the answerer values. It's arbitrary because it's based on values, not on discoveries.

^^ Well said Janissy.

I'm sorry but finding empirical evidence for theory should not be up to theoretical scientists of any kind.
Things like evolution are supported my multiple schools of science and have literal tons of evidence in the forms of fossilized plant life and animal life. Things like string theory only have the words of over hyped scientists like Hawking.
There is a limit to what can be proven, and many times theoretical science crosses that line, and is actually accepted by a lot of people. While I love science, knowing things like the inevitable collision of the andromeda galaxy and the milky way galaxy are not at the top of my list.

I agree with nearly everything you have said, but will point out that some people will do with science what you state with religion, that: Believe they know everything about... and...Just declares something to be true. All because it is Science and Science is infallible.

The answer you give for "why are we here?" Is really the answer to "How did we get here?" if you really look at.

Science is based on values assigned to discoveries. Granted, those discoveries were tested repeatedly to determine if they were true or right.

Of the two, I would say that Science is more correct, but I wouldn't say that makes religion wrong. It may need work to remove more human bias from it, but Science experienced the same effort at removing human bias and it was difficult.



Highlighting the bolded statement, in that I agree with that, but that science and scientists are taught to still try to challenge or test the knowledge before accepting it as gospel. That fact might be ignored by some in that what is taken by Science as gospel had to go through a process to reach that point. It was not automatic.

Here's some heavy food for thought for anyone who thinks that it has to be science OR religion. Seriously, that is one of the most damaging things to happen to both science and religion throughout history - the idea that we have to choose between science and religion. And I think religious folk as well as atheists, particularly those of the anti theist stripe, are responsible for it. Anyway, here it is, and maybe it will give you second thoughts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lecFYZHXEqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxxFh0Kn5Tk