I can't tell the difference between them. To me they are both philosophy.
Metaphysics are the things which come after physics.
Metaphysics are the things which come after physics.
What's the Difference Between Science and Religion?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
- Status
One is when you study, analyze, examine, experiment and form conclusive data on something that can be studied by many and the same factual conclusion can be made with evidence that supports your findings.
The other is based upon myth, beliefs and suppositions.
The other is based upon myth, beliefs and suppositions.
If you really, honestly don't know, there's no point in trying to explain them to you.:bugeye:
:spank:
:scratchin:
Science can be used to make accurate predictions.
Show me one invention made possible by religion, where people prayed and got a schematic in return.
Oh, and you're an idiot for asking the question.
Show me one invention made possible by religion, where people prayed and got a schematic in return.
Oh, and you're an idiot for asking the question.
Which is exactly what I was getting at with my response to him.
He's not looking for any answers. He wants nothing but to create more noise.:bugeye:
science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.
So can religion. And science can also be used to make inaccurate predictions.
Your statement assumes that religion requires prayer which it does not.
Ad hominem attacks do not in any way support your argument. But thank you for calling me an idiot otherwise I might develop hubris and forget.
Last edited:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The differences are that science tends to rely on empiricism and always limits its explanations to the interaction of natural forces (by which I mean forces that can be demonstrated or inferred based on empirical evidence).
The explanations developed by religion rely on supernatural forces as part of the explanation—forces that cannot be demonstrated or inferred from empirical evidence.
The explanations developed by religion rely on supernatural forces as part of the explanation—forces that cannot be demonstrated or inferred from empirical evidence.
Both are nothing more than belief systems people use to make reality fit inside a personal comfort box. However reality's scope is MUCH broader then either religion OR science, something alot of people just dont get.
People fail to realize that just because something cant be explained by science doesnt mean its impossible or doesnt exist. And the same for religion, just because its not in your holy book doesnt mean the devil did it.
People fail to realize that just because something cant be explained by science doesnt mean its impossible or doesnt exist. And the same for religion, just because its not in your holy book doesnt mean the devil did it.
Show me the prayer that gets the ballistic trajectory of a ball then.
What? I was talking about formulae. The error margins are also calculated.
In how many religions is there no prayer? I count speaking in ritual as prayer, btw.
It was a stupid question, designed with nothing more in mind than to tarnish the scientific method.
If that's true, how come science and scientists rely upon a priori theories and make claims about things which have never been observed and cannot possibly be observed, or in places where there is no observer?
"In physics as ordinarily set forth, there is much that is unverifiable: there are hypotheses as to (a) how things would appear to a spectator in a place where, as it happens, there is no spectator; (b) how things would appear to a spectator in a place when, in fact, they are not appearing to anyone; (c) things which never appear at all." -- Bertrand Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World
In other words, it imitates science.
Last edited:
Falser words have never been spoken but I agree that science SHOULD be all about empiricism.
Really? I guess you've never heard of the Catholic church which has modified their beliefs based upon scientific advancement.
Prayer and religion are too different things as I've already pointed out to you above.
Ah. I see. Going by those definitions and based upon my observations one would have to conclude that 99% of what passes for science today is actually religion. And if I reach the conclusion that God exists independently then that is science.
Last edited:
- Status