What's the Difference Between Science and Religion?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by OilIsMastery, Oct 9, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    As I said earlier, you're taking the philosopher's definition, which is not what the average person means when he talks about "metaphysics.'
    Huh? I have no religion. My family freed itself from that nonsense in the 1800s.
    These are my own words, but no scientist has ever disagreed with that statement, and several have asked me if I'd mind letting them use it in their classes. Science is the scientific method. And the scientific method can only work if the natural universe is a closed system.
    Why do you keep accusing me of having a religion? I consider that an insult, since religion--at least the Abrahamic variety--is arguably the greatest evil that mankind ever invented.
    It's possible for scientists to make unreasonable claims, but when they do so they're practicing bad science. It's also possible for the flaws in a theory to go undetected, which is at least a more honorable type of mistake. When that happens the scientific method eventually finds the errors and the theory is either corrected or falsified. "Science" is the entire process.
    Religionists use reason, and religious tracts are not devoid of reason. But many of the most widespread religions set up a powerful cognitive dissonance in their members that is the antithesis of reason.
    Now who's being disingenuous and misquoting people, dude? That is not what I said and I'm well known enough around here that I'm not going to bother defending myself. Most of the members are familiar with my description of science because I restate it to newbies about five or six times a year, and they know what I said as well as you do. I made clear references to the falsification of scientific theories and the effect that falsification has on science.


    Misquoting someone in order to argue dishonorably is trolling, which is a violation of the rules. So stop it immediately or I'll ban you.
    Once again, please stop insulting me and dishonoring my ancestors by pretending that the three generations it took them to free themselves from the cancer of religion didn't happen.
    Scientists may do that when they fail to do their duty, but it's not science.
    Huh? I've lost your place in the thread but I hope you're being sarcastic. Egyptian civilization was founded in, roughly, 4000BCE. By the time Abraham started making his noise 1500 years later, the Egyptians had established steady contact with the neighboring, older Mesopotamian civilization. Every Mesopotamian with a decent understanding of the world beyond his tribe knew of Egypt. Long before the time in which the life of the popular fictional character Jesus was set, there was a continuum of civilizations from Egypt, through Mesopotamia and India, to China. Educated people in any one knew of the other three. Only the Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization and the Inca civilization were outside that continuum.
    You're being disingenous again. That is not what respectable scientists say. Their answers range from, "We don't know yet," to, "We've got some of the little details but not the whole picture yet," to, "Space and time may prove to be not quite what we think they are, so the whole concept of the 'beginning' of the universe may be bogus."

    I personally graph time on a log scale. There's no reason to assume that values of time earlier than the date of the Big Bang are valid. That's a mathematical construct but every mathematical construct does not automatically map to the physical universe. We can write the words, "A temperature less than absolute zero," but they are meaningless because such a temperature is impossible. It could well be that the time during which the universe exists is all there is, so it has no beginning and questions of "why" or "how" it got here become truly metaphysical and not scientific.
    Again you're being disingenous. I have challenged that hypothesis because it relies on circular reasoning. You can say that a god created the universe within the limits that we are able to observe it, but all you have done is expand the limits of the universe to include the god. The question remains unanswered: Okay wise guy, then where did the fucking god come from? This time give a proper answer and not a circular one, or such a blatant violation of the scientific method will qualify as trolling. It's okay to say, "I don't know."

    My wife says that men invented religion so we'd never have to answer a question with, "I don't know."
    As I said earlier, religion relies on the establishment of cognitive dissonance. People are quite capable of being scientists during their working hours and superstitious cavemen on Sundays (or Saturdays or Fridays or whatever day their particular cult has chosen). As you pointed out, even Newton and Galileo fell into that category.
    Good question. Does anybody moderate this board?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    That's impossible. Anyone who has wondered where the universe came from or ever believed in anything has religion.

    So atheism is your religion?

    I had a feeling...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good one.

    "You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, 1987

    Poor kids. I feel sorry for them.

    And much much more.

    Why is that? Tell that to Bacon, Galileo, and Newton.

    Because anyone who is not a moron has a religion, whether it be atheism (the belief that magic and witchcraft caused the first motion in the universe), agnosticm (the belief of those who suspend judgement), or theism (the majority of humanity that you hate).

    Wow. It's hubris and arrogance to say moral people are evil. No wonder you can't coexist peacefully with them.

    Glad you concede that.

    Guess what? The history of science has been bad science.

    Honor is for egomaniacs. Truth is for scientists.

    Aristotle's Physics Book VIII is devoid of reason? That is absurd, ridiculous, and incredibly naive.

    So why did you say the following?

    Why did you say that?

    Where did I misquote you? I asked you questions I didn't misquote you. If my false ideology was threatened by persuasive arguments I might want to ban people for no reason too.

    Atheism is a religion. But I think it's hilarious you value honor so much. I think it speaks volumes about exactly how scientific you are. Furthermore, you have dishonored every theist in the world by calling them evil so I guess that demonstrates how you feel about honor as well.

    Religion attempts to explain the unknown. However religious people say "I don't know" all the time so it takes away from her argument.

    The atheist religion does.

    Last edited: Oct 14, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Wow, you really are a nut.

    Maury did not prove the bible true. One passage may have been relevant, but that's as far as it goes. Also, blaming the US and the theory of evolution for Hitler? That's a stretch. Vestigial organs do exist btw, you have one.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Questioning is not the same as believing. Religion requires faith, science just a curiosity. People who inquire into the origins of the Universe are not inventing their own religion therefore.

    Ah, that old trolling attempt. It's lame. It's been dealt with so many times, but here it is again;

    'Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.'

    Get it yet?
    Weak. Ill thought out, showing you don't really understand the terms of debate.

    Clearly you need a dictionary, or perhaps to stop telling atheists what they believe, and just simply ask one?

    You really do need to make your points from a more informed position.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2008
  8. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Thanks but that's irrelevant because I specifically said believing.

    So does geometry.

    Wrong. Science requires faith. Want me to name the a priori concepts for you?

    I have asked them and they all say something equally stupid and absurd. So I'll ask you then.

    (1) What caused the universe?

    (2) What caused the first motion in the universe?
  9. Steve100 O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔O Valued Senior Member

    Are you fucking kidding.

    It doesn't make you moral just because you act well under threats from above.
  10. mrcg Registered Member

    One of them tries to prove there's a god up there, the other one just the opposite

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    LIAR. You said;

    The OR implies equivocation. You did not specify believing, 'wondering' counts too in your book. LIAR.

    It's not faith, it's tried and tested, and demonstrable.


    Why do I have to have an answer to those? That's absurd.
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    A geometer does not demonstrate definitions, postulates, and common notions, and were you to try to do so it would be a sign of complete and utter lack of education.

    "There are some people who expect even this to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle. But even about this there are ways to demonstrate that it is impossible by means of refutation, if only the one disputing it says something; if he says nothing, it is absurd to seek an argument to meet someone who has no argument, insofar as he has none, for such a person, insofar as he is such, is from that point on like a plant." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1006a
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Word salad, you have nothing.
  14. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    One paragraph is too long for you?
  15. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I didn't say that, did I?

    It was just wasted words, not proving your OP, nor supporting anything else you have stated on the thread. Word salad.

    You really need to focus. Perhaps re-reading what you have said, and what I have replied to, and actually answering those points?
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Oh, I'm late so just jumping in ...

    There is an aspect of science called "tentativeness". In science everything is considered "tentative" in that context, while in religion certain aspects are dogma.

    I think that is the difference between science and religion.
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Science= empirical observation that is testable
    Religion= faith based belief.
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Everything that happens in life and on a daily basis is basically science. Science is life and the two words and what they mean are interchangeable

    Religion is...not really sure but

    Science - Life - Knowledge. I think they just mean the same thing. If there is a difference between these words then i dont know what it is.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2008
  19. jpappl Valued Senior Member


    Fragglerock wrote:

    "It's possible for scientists to make unreasonable claims, but when they do so they're practicing bad science. It's also possible for the flaws in a theory to go undetected, which is at least a more honorable type of mistake. When that happens the scientific method eventually finds the errors and the theory is either corrected or falsified. "Science" is the entire process."

    You specifically passed over that statement from FraggleRock because I believe you are trying to paint all of science as being loaded with as many lies as the many religions of the world. You are being intellectually dishonest here. People who believe in science and people who believe in religion are all people, capable of being wrong and sometimes very wrong. Because we are people with egos it is hard to admit when you have made a mistake or believed in a lie. Especially if you were taught by parents and others who you trusted as a young child. How does every child feel when they learn that Santa Claus is not real.

    Just because there have been bad scientists or more specifically for me ones that don't want to believe in the greater truth just because it means they have to shift in their thinking is no reason to equate science with religion. There is no shift in religion, there is no questioning of stated beliefs, there is no need to face that moment where you have to either change your belief in how things are or believe in a lie. It's so easy, God is the answer for everything. God is the escape route for a lack of knowledge.

    I am not an athiest. However, you can no more prove to me that God exists and/or started the whole process of the universe anymore than a scientist at least at this point can prove there is no God. Fair enough. If not then prove it, and you know you can't.

    So I will take science but leave my mind wide open.

    I would also make the same deal with you that I have done with my friends who profess the belief, if you want to continue the circular argument with no end.

    You reject all of what science has brought our society, everything down to your electric toothbrush. You will still have what you claim is provided by god, water, air and land to grow food, you can create fire, shelter (wood and stone) etc. But nothing that science has provided. Deal ?

    I will continue to live in the ever changing world of science and reap it's benefits and deal with it's detriments. I am not denigrating anyones god here. I am just not placing my eggs in any religious basket.

    So yes scientists can be wrong mostly because they think their moment in time is more important than it really is, but do you really want to compare where science has gone wrong and where religion has gone wrong, keeping in mind that it is always another scientist who set the bad scientist straight.

    Science and religion are not even close to being the same thing. People however will still be people.

    Thanks for listening.
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    How do you explain dogma in the sciences?
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    In that case they are both a part of the same philosophy. A posteriori is science. A priori is religion.
  22. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    You believe correctly. I guess faith and religion work after all.

    I'm glad you have the wisdom to realize that.

    Philosophers believe truth overrides ego. And guess what? Religion is in the philosophy subforum. Get it?

    No wonder fundamentalists cling to scientific dogma.

    I imagine the same way as when children learn that plate tectonics, constant size earth, elastic rebound, and biogenic petroleum origin are not real.

    Ever heard of the Catholic church? How do you explain the fact that they have modified their views in reference to scientific advancement?

    Complete nonsense. You should pick up a history book sometime. Maybe start with Aristotle's Physics Book VIII.

    And you lie.
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Mad scientists.

    No, just kidding. I get your point. Dogma is dogma, it is not science. So if a scientist spouts dogma then you know they are not talking science. Not that there is anything wrong with dogma

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page