Science vs Religion which is more correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh yes the fun debate of science vs religion and which describes how the world works correctly? So far science has been filling all the gaps of the unexplained that were explained in the Bible and the quoran. Noahs flood never really happened and the Earth has been proven to be 4.5 billion years old. There is no proof of a God but believers dissagree and some go to lengths to saying that science is of the devil.

Even among the same religion there are usually differences of interpretation and dogma between different denominations of that religion. Science is the only thing humans have that is the same worldwide, and it is based upon observable evidence.

Science is more truthful than some religions in that if EVIDENCE is found that falsifies a scientific idea, that idea is discarded. The Dalai Lama once said if scientific facts ever falsified any teachings of Buddhism, then Buddhism would have to change. That is rare for religious folks. Of course Buddhism is more a philosophy than it is a religion.

I think it was Ashley Montagu who said "The scientist believes in proof without certainty; the bigot in certainty without proof." In the same book where I found that quotation years ago another chapter's author (Montagu was the editor) pointed out that the conflict over the teaching of evolution is not really a conflict between science and religion. It is a conflict between the science of 2000 B.C. (when the stories were being told that ended up in the Bible) versus the science of 2000 A.D. Of course we humans have learned more about how the universe works in the past 4000 years. It should be no contest, but incredibly many humans refuse to let go of nonsense that has been falsified by the evidence of the physical world.

I have a problem with fundamentalists of any religion (not just Christianity) who deny demonstrable reality such as evolution. Since they are so very wrong about something like evolution that is supported by multiple lines of evidence from every branch of science all pointing to the same reality, how can I possibly trust their opinion on spiritual matters not so easily checked?

There can be great insights and psychological help from having a religion, but anyone who takes the book of Genesis literally as a science or history textbook is living in la la land. Why would God lie to us in all the evidence we can observe and measure that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis (no flood, evolution happens, etc.) Sheesh even the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other in the order of creation, so the Bible contradicts itself in addition to being contradicted by the evidence of the physical world. The God of the fundamentalists is a malicious prankster even if the fundies don't realize that is what they are claiming.

The difference is that science will and has changed when the existing hypothesis was proven wrong. But when a religious doctrine is proved wrong, religions won't change. They just put their blinders on and dig in their heals. I guess if its not an 'essential doctrine' they may change, given several hundred years. Right, Galileo?

Neither. They're both just as good (or bad, if you want to look at it that way). They are both valuable, functioning languages. When you say 'there is no proof of a God' you've already picked your side, so any judgement you make of anything is useless.



No.



That's an arbitrary distinction.



lol what? Religions change all the time. Literally all the time.

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence"

Both from wikipedia.

1- I think we can safely assume that every single person has different world view-belief, even if they share the same *religion name* such as christianity, islam, taoism etc. So, for every living person, a unique religion exists. If there can be only one truth, then only one person can be right about it. Nevertheless, he/she/it ( possible extraterrestial creatures?) has no chance if either time or space is infinite. Because if time or space is infinite, broad possibilities of the universe in either domain can provide infinite world views-beliefs for infinite number of thinking creatures, making the chance to be right practically zero.

2- Generalizations keep everything running, making our life easier. For example, by generalization we can name very different objects with the same word, such as "pencil" even if they have different color, atomic structure etc. And, science is nothing but "generalization techniques that work". Everyone can observe gravity, and since it has been proved in countless cases; one can be so sure about it. But we can never be sure about gravity. This may seem absurd, but philosophically it is that way. Yes, the chance of failure of gravity is nearly limit to zero, but it is still at the limit. It is not zero. Furthermore, our experiences may seem consistent, but consistency does not mean accuracy. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PyvjcvYfRLk/S ... ncy-02.png

We can never be philisophically sure about our knowledge. And we built our knowledge upon what we already have, so one missing brick may make the whole system fall apart. It is time to remember Socrates: ""ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" (I know that I know nothing). Hence, science is not the truth, it is merely a tool to provide technology.

From 1&2, here is the answer: We can't know which is more correct.

By the way, how can we assign a level to correctness? One thing can only be correct or wrong, I presume. And if correctness includes morality, then it should be subjective. If it is subjective, there is nothing to talk about.

I like spiritualism but religion is looking more and more rotten at the moment. I go with science.

Describing reality, science is definitely better at it. There is no way around this, other than ad hoc and weird reasoning.


You don't seem to understand the concept of not believing in things that haven't been verified, you are incorrect implying that nonbelief in something because of *lack of evidence* is permanent and the skeptic or atheist would reject anything contradicting a *provisional* conclusion. Not really the case.

Guess what would change our minds: *Evidence*.


On the contrary.


Yes, they have and they will, they have survived any challenge presented to them, they have adapted to modern times, by picking and choosing pieces of their scriptures and interpreting in a way to fit modern challenges and not die. One of the helping tools: Ad hoc reasoning.

Science is better at it for you because you function within the scientific tongue, but other models from other perspectives ascribed to other languages form equally substantial (or, again, insubstantial) pictures. We're all severely limited in our capacity for processing reality.



I'm sorry but you've completely misunderstood. I'm not saying that your denial of the existence of 'God' rules out the objectivity of your arguments, but rather that the perspective from which you approach the matter is already fundamentally firmly rooted to a particular language. It's like demanding to know when Inuits 'להשתזף'.



You're looking at this from what is essentially a fundamentalist perspective. Religion progresses, and that is part of religion. Ask anyone who isn't an American Protestant and they will tell you that. Religion adapts in exactly the same way that scientific theory, and indeed everything, does. Change does not undermine the value of religion to anyone outside of the fundamentalist world.

Not really, they are not equallly substantial, considering it has been demonstrated that science had explained phenomena far better than religion has had, in short, the epistemology of science works, religious epistemology fails at describing how the world actually works.

Your assertion implies relativism, wether you intentionally support it or not, as you put scientific knowledge in the same relative model as religious dogmas and everything else, which in itself is useless in practice.

As Dawkins puts it: "Science works. Planes fly. Magic carpets and broomsticks don't. Gravity's not a version of the truth. It *is* the truth. Anyone who doubts it is invited to jump out of a tenth floor window."

For some believers religion may be as the same as science to understand the world, but what some people prefer, feel or think, that's besides the point, the issue is which epistemology has a better standard for truth, which has better techniques for inquiry.


So? We have limitations on processing reality, should epistemic values be limited towards some sort of philosophical skepticism or going as far as solipsism? it's useless.

In science, human limitation is recognizable and it doesn't deal with absolute truths but rather falsifiability, religion however, deals with absolute truths, so we can see which works better.


False, it does not adapt in the same way scientific theory does. One example: Falsifiability.

And, non-fundamentalist religions adapting is pretty much ad hoc (ie catholics reinterpreting the bible to adopt evolution)

Not an apologist for religion, but I think its a dumb question because the two endeavors address different questions. So you cant say one is more "correct" than the other. Indeed that is where the problem arises:folks treating one as if it were the other. Like Fundies using Genisis as literal history, and as a geology textbook. That is: treating Genisis as a true story-rather than as a fictional story that may contain truths (about the human condition).

Science doesn't really handle the subjective or subjective needs necessarily. Whether we like it or not the subjective is the engine that we run on and its what we draw strength and energy from. When things go crap in the subjective areas of our lives everything suffers and it seems to show that unless in the best of times it will generally hold high hand on the pendulum.

Science will always be able to probe the outside of the subjective but there's a certain threshold that we just don't have the means to traverse quantitatively. The threshold can tell you all the chemicals and quantities ratios that give a peach its flavor but not tell you what a peach tastes like. Similarly it'll tell you what you can do with a thing, it's still on the subjective side of things where one has to determine what that individual 'should' do with it. So it can tell you how many options you have but at least right now it's got small hope of telling you how to live a rich and rewarding life. They're simply different zones - science expedites the external, spirituality and religion expedite the internal.

Agreed!
Science is about quantifiable predicates. Religion (or better, spirituality ) is about the subject. Spirituality has nothing to say about measueable quanties. Angels etc are sociology (their position in a hierarchy ) Science has nothing to say about foundations. You cannot quantify existence. Something exists or it does not, there are no degrees of existence. Consciousness is not objectively quantifiable ( you cannot feel my pain. You can only feel what you imagine my pain is). However, it is self-evident (to ourselves) that we are conscious.
As Hume pointed out you cannot get an ought from an is. The foundation of ethics cannot be quantified. There is no objective quantifiable argument why evil is wrong. However, we all know that evil is wrong.
As for the definitions in the context of the OP. Science is more accurate regarding empirical data (evolution, big bang etc).
Ironically, the foundation of the empirical is the subjectivce. If we could not subjectively feel something we could not quantify it.
It is possible to be spiritual and not believe in God ( in the scientific sense). * God is unquantifiable. Similarly, I can believe I am conscious without any objective empirical data.
PS: Sorry about any spelling errors. I am using a tablet and I have big fat fingers! LOL
* That is what the original defintion of agnostic was. Now, of course, agnosticism is defined as uncertainty regarding God's existence.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 16 Sep 2014, 7:14 am, edited 5 times in total.

Einstein: Science is faith in the laws of nature, thus, is a religion itself.

Science is arrogant
Religion is full of bigots

So neither is 'correct' as they are both subject to subjective bias

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Apart from emphasizing introspection and knowing the nature of the self, science is far superior as a method for finding things out compared to religion. Religion is fossilized thought. Science has a proven historical track record of success. Contrary to popular opinion, many aspects of religion can and are studied by science. There is no subject off limits to science, not even the supernatural.

Aside from the fact that that's pretty much tautology, you're missing the point that you can't be objective if you've already decided which approach you're going to take on the world.



I'd say it's closer to critical realism that relativism, albeit perhaps with a sprinkling of the latter.



Richard Dawkins is an absolute joke. He's little more than the 'scientistic' side of the fundamentalist coin.



We should acknowledge that there is a difference between function and fact.



Says who? It really seems to me that you've already made up your mind about both science and religion.



It adapts at the same rate with equal affect from the tides of time.



You're setting standards by which to dismiss religion. Religion itself, evidently, does not subscribe to these standards.