Religion vs. Science

Science is no better off than religion. When you examine science you find that there are at least two camps to every answer and theory science presents to us. Take physics for example you have the Newtonian and Relativist camps. Newtonian says that forces make things happen, relativists tell you that them mass of things and the bending of space makes things happen. Each completely and totally rejects the other. Even the things we seem to agree on are only conjecture that we operate under till the theory becomes out dated. The mark of science is that it's theories and proposal can be proven false. Science also operates under the causal theory of realism, which has longs since be proven to be a ludicrous system. Basically if science is your truth and that is all you believe in then you believe that science represents reality. Thus say science says the world is flat then the next day round, you as a realist must believe that over night the world expanded. There is a movement started by philosophers in science that recognizes that problem. That says science and its theories are but tool we use to interpret our world and live in it.
I am not dismissing science, just trying to put it in context for you. Science does not have the truth or the answers. It merely offer a possible causal reason for things. An we know full well that we don't understand causation at all or if its real. Scientist aren't amazing smart people they are struggling to understand the world as much as any one else.
Religion gives the answers that science can't. To quote a famous philosopher and theologian. "We don't believe because its rational, but rather because its absurd." I don't feel like writing an argument for religion and spirit. If you want one read "The Ghost In The Machine" and "Dignity and Freedom" by Descartes

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Take physics for example you have the Newtonian and Relativist camps. Newtonian says that forces make things happen, relativists tell you that them mass of things and the bending of space makes things happen. Each completely and totally rejects the other.

To the contrary, mass and the bending of spaces creates forces which makes things happen. Specifically speaking, this is precisely how gravity works.

Even the things we seem to agree on are only conjecture that we operate under till the theory becomes out dated. The mark of science is that it's theories and proposal can be proven false.

Which is why it's an infinitely better ideology than religion, which plugs its ears and says it's right no matter what. The beauty of science is that it can be proven false but hasn't.

Science also operates under the causal theory of realism, which has longs since be proven to be a ludicrous system. Basically if science is your truth and that is all you believe in then you believe that science represents reality. Thus say science says the world is flat then the next day round, you as a realist must believe that over night the world expanded.

Don't lie to the people. If the world is proven to be round, then you must admit that you were wrong in the first place, not that it magically inflated overnight. I know it's a hard thing for theists to do, but scientists have to admit they're wrong when they are. Otherwise, where would we be today? Still thinking homosexuality is a choice, I'm sure.

I am not dismissing science, just trying to put it in context for you. Science does not have the truth or the answers. It merely offer a possible causal reason for things. An we know full well that we don't understand causation at all or if its real. Scientist aren't amazing smart people they are struggling to understand the world as much as any one else.
Religion gives the answers that science can't.

To turn your own argument against you, religion does not have the truth or the answers. It merely offers a possible causal reason for things. And we know full well that we don't understand causation at all or if it's real. Prophets and theologians aren't amazingly smart people. They are struggling to understand the world as much as anyone else.
To be blunt, the only, only, only difference between science and religion is that science is objective while religion is subjective. Whether you believe that a subjective feeling outweighs objective evidence is your own choice. But most people would be able to agree that objective evidence is the clear winner.

To the contrary, mass and the bending of spaces creates forces which makes things happen. Specifically speaking, this is precisely how gravity works.

That would be the Newtonian way of looking at. (Newtonian is often the perspective taught in the west, unless you seek higher education.) Not the relativistic.

Which is why it's an infinitely better ideology than religion, which plugs its ears and says it's right no matter what. The beauty of science is that it can be proven false but hasn't.

Science has been proven false repeatedly. I mean our basis for science was set in the Middle Ages. We really haven't made any significant advances in our scientific understanding. We've made discoveries come up with ways of doing things but we still only speculate at every thing. We can't say any thing with certainty. I don't believe it a good idea to throw one's whole hearted devotion to a system that can't offer absolute answers.
Your counter will be neither can religion;
Question: Is there a god? R: Yes. S: Maybe.
You say show proof: R: Bible and eyewitness accounts. S: Nothing.
You that's subjective. I say so is metaphysics and relativity.

Don't lie to the people. If the world is proven to be round, then you must admit that you were wrong in the first place, not that it magically inflated overnight. I know it's a hard thing for theists to do, but scientists have to admit they're wrong when they are. Otherwise, where would we be today? Still thinking homosexuality is a choice, I'm sure.

That's not a lie. Look up the realist view point. Based on the realist logic that is what you must conclude. I'm point out a flaw in a system of thought not saying that's how people think. Thus why I have a problem with the part of the scientific community that ascribe to it. Scientist aren't any better than theists half the time. They don't want to admit to be wrong either. They will hold out on ideas and theories as absolute and call people crazy that challenge them. Tectonic plates were pitched by a scientist who had ample proof, but the scientific community brand him a lunatic. Then some time after he died, oh would you look at that.

To turn your own argument against you, religion does not have the truth or the answers. It merely offers a possible causal reason for things. And we know full well that we don't understand causation at all or if it's real. Prophets and theologians aren't amazingly smart people. They are struggling to understand the world as much as anyone else.

I didn't claim they did. So you're arguing against nothing here.

To be blunt, the only, only, only difference between science and religion is that science is objective while religion is subjective. Whether you believe that a subjective feeling outweighs objective evidence is your own choice. But most people would be able to agree that objective evidence is the clear winner.

I'd have to agree with you on this part but our objective evidence is often bogus junk we couldn't understand and 50 years down the road we throw t out. My whole point in this argument is science shouldn't be followed blindly, nor should religion. Neither is perfect and both are often wrong about everything. Science and religion are based in a reality you can't even be certain exists. In the end I put them on the same level because neither can offer any proof they are 100% correct.

I believe in Science alot more than Religon

I believe in a combination of the two. Science gives answers to a lot of questions, but everything had to have started somewhere. It's not like the Big Bang just decided to happen, it had to have started somewhere. It just makes sense that there is something bigger than us that is in control. I mean science gives no definition as to why people have life. It gives the idea of evolution which I totally agree with and how everything was started with single celled organisms and all that stuff, but it only makes sense that something made everything happen as it did.
This is just my opinion as I am a Christian. Christians FTW

Alright religion is bullshit.

Religion was made thousands of years ago to explain why and how the earth was created. Because they had no idea and no evidence they made up shit. Now we HAVE evidence of how everything was made. And how humans were created. There is NO reason for religion anymore. Its bullshit. God isnt real. He didnt create earth or you. Jesus was a crack head that loved everyone. And mary, the 'virgin' is a dumb slut.

Also for that shit that it just cant start and it has to end. Thats BS. Your mind thinks that because thats all our simple minds can comprehend. The universe will never have an end. Its limitless. Literally.

Science has been proven false repeatedly.

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant modern scientific ideals. I know parts have been disproven, and they have been removed from the belief system as a result.

I mean our basis for science was set in the Middle Ages. We really haven't made any significant advances in our scientific understanding.

We have made countless significant advances. I'm not sure how you can even make that statement.

That's not a lie. Look up the realist view point. Based on the realist logic that is what you must conclude. I'm point out a flaw in a system of thought not saying that's how people think. Thus why I have a problem with the part of the scientific community that ascribe to it.

So all of science is absurd because a small sect of it is? You're grouping all of science with realists.

your original post wrote:

Thus say science says the world is flat then the next day round, you as a realist must believe that over night the world expanded.

Again, no it doesn't. Maybe a small sect of people that don't even make up close to the majority.

We can't say any thing with certainty. I don't believe it a good idea to throw one's whole hearted devotion to a system that can't offer absolute answers.

Honestly, this isn't a philosophical debate. Nothing offers absolute answers and nothing can, and the point of choosing between science and religion is which offers more likely answers.

Question: Is there a god? R: Yes. S: Maybe.
You say show proof: R: Bible and eyewitness accounts. S: Nothing.
You that's subjective. I say so is metaphysics and relativity.

Firstly, metaphysics is nothing more than speculation. To say that the Bible and eyewitness accounts are 'proof' goes against metaphysics in every way, as both are physical things. Secondly, relativism is quite bluntly subjective by definition.

Not sure if I responded to everything, as the quotes fucked up when I was copy-pasting them. But whatev. I see your point on bringing up philosophy, and I understand the philsophical viewpoints. But all that crap aside, on the philosophical viewpoint that most people choose to go by in every day life, objective proof through rationale and the senses are much more influential and reliable than what some book says.

I stick to religion, but sometimes, science just makes some sense..
Can't tell actually. -.-

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant modern scientific ideals. I know parts have been disproven, and they have been removed from the belief system as a result.

We're wrong about shit all the time today. Every other year we do a 180 on things because of scientific research. One day something is good for you, the next its not.

We have made countless significant advances. I'm not sure how you can even make that statement.

We make advances, but our system. The core way we do science hasn't changed in years. To continue to make significant advances we need to push for a more complete correct system.

So all of science is absurd because a small sect of it is? You're grouping all of science with realists.Again, no it doesn't. Maybe a small sect of people that don't even make up close to the majority.

No realism is the typical belief of the scientific community the minority reject for its flaws. It is the view that was taught and is still being taught despite the fact its been show to be flawed. One of my problems with science holding to something because they haven't "broken" it. The scientific community likes to say they can be wrong but as long as their wrong works they'll use it. disillusion is no way to live.

Honestly, this isn't a philosophical debate. Nothing offers absolute answers and nothing can, and the point of choosing between science and religion is which offers more likely answers.

This is a philosophical debate. We're debating world views and the operation with in them. Also you're saying that science is more likely because religion can't offer more concert proof. The assumption something is dis proven or proven by lack of evidence is foolish.

Firstly, metaphysics is nothing more than speculation. To say that the Bible and eyewitness accounts are 'proof' goes against metaphysics in every way, as both are physical things. Secondly, relativism is quite bluntly subjective by definition.

When you talk to a meta-physicist they don't think they are speculating. Second I wasn't presenting the Bible as metaphysical evidence I was giving a concrete vs speculation.

Not sure if I responded to everything, as the quotes fucked up when I was copy-pasting them. But whatev. I see your point on bringing up philosophy, and I understand the philsophical viewpoints. But all that crap aside, on the philosophical viewpoint that most people choose to go by in every day life, objective proof through rationale and the senses are much more influential and reliable than what some book says.

*click quote then delete the original quote tags and just quote the parts*
Most people don't use a philosophical view point. Most are mindless, foolish drones who go on accepting whatever authority tells them. Be it science, government, or religion. Its idiocy and not really living. One must question everything and find the truth for themselves. Philosophy is the only means of doing this. There is no object is the point. The senses are imperfect and present you with falsities and illusions everyday and on top of that everyone that tells you something adds their viewpoint and everything you hear and say you interpret based on your view point. To believe that any thing is more reliable than any thing else is to assume, something one must never do.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

No realism is the typical belief of the scientific community the minority reject for its flaws. It is the view that was taught and is still being taught despite the fact its been show to be flawed. One of my problems with science holding to something because they haven't "broken" it. The scientific community likes to say they can be wrong but as long as their wrong works they'll use it. disillusion is no way to live.

Honestly, I've never heard of anyone using this view. Either your stretching what it actually says, or it doesn't say that. I know many science majors, and none would believe some bogus line about the Earth magically inflating over night. So I can't believe that this is the majority belief, lest you are greatly misrepresenting it.

This is a philosophical debate. We're debating world views and the operation with in them. Also you're saying that science is more likely because religion can't offer more concert proof. The assumption something is dis proven or proven by lack of evidence is foolish.

I didn't say it was disproven. I said there's no reason to believe it. The belief that you should believe nothing until something is proven (which you are arguing with your philosophies; I just took it a step further and assumed that the world we experience is real) is much greater than believing everything until something is disproven.

*click quote then delete the original quote tags and just quote the parts*

I know how to do it.
I was apparently trying to quote the same section in parts while multitasking, and it ended up with a lot of the same quotes. I blame multitasking, as I had company and must have lost track of what I'd quoted already.

Most people don't use a philosophical view point. Most are mindless, foolish drones who go on accepting whatever authority tells them. Be it science, government, or religion. Its idiocy and not really living. One must question everything and find the truth for themselves. Philosophy is the only means of doing this.

Yes, philosophy is great. But nihilism will get you nowhere in life. There's a difference between what you believe to be possible and what you believe as you live. I, for one, am absolutely in love with the solipsist point of view. But at the same time, I don't go around pretending no one else exists or matters. I believe it's possible, even likely, but I don't base my everyday judgement off of it. The point of the topic, imo, is which do you base your judgement off of - objective scientific evidence, even if it does chance, or subjective religious evidence that science often contradicts [and quite powerfully contradicts in many cases; e.g. evolution, depending on your belief, and homosexuality being a choice]. Now, if your religion is accepting of these scientific advancements, and you believe evolution exists and homosexuality isn't a choice, etc., then it doesn't matter which you choose. I can't think of any other meaning of "Which would you choose?" besides "Which would you choose if they were to contradict?" Since science doesn't say there is no god, and at most "there's no reason to believe in a god," it's not really a religious view, and one is perfectly capable of believing in both.

Honestly, I've never heard of anyone using this view. Either your stretching what it actually says, or it doesn't say that. I know many science majors, and none would believe some bogus line about the Earth magically inflating over night. So I can't believe that this is the majority belief, lest you are greatly misrepresenting it.

You're still miss the point. Stop for two seconds and listen(read). Its irrational to think this way and no one does. However the way the system of thought is constructed demands that kind of conclusion you get when you follow it to the letter. Science likes to interpret the world in terms of that system when it works and then when it doesn't explain it differently but still pretend its realism. That's my problem. You can't use the system to explain the world and say that's how it is and then go do something different when it doesn't work. That reduces credibility, which is my only real problem with science itself.

I didn't say it was disproven. I said there's no reason to believe it. The belief that you should believe nothing until something is proven (which you are arguing with your philosophies; I just took it a step further and assumed that the world we experience is real) is much greater than believing everything until something is disproven.

You've missed the point. To assume the world is real is no different than to assume there is a god. I mean there's no reason to believe there is a world for science to explain. Even if you make the assumption there is a world. What is reality? What is true? We're far from even having a working concept and definition of either. It would seem to to me that for science to come forth and say this or that is true and real. They ought to define it better than "cause it works and can be repeated." What if tomorrow it doesn't work?

Yes, philosophy is great. But nihilism will get you nowhere in life. There's a difference between what you believe to be possible and what you believe as you live. I, for one, am absolutely in love with the solipsist point of view. But at the same time, I don't go around pretending no one else exists or matters. I believe it's possible, even likely, but I don't base my everyday judgement off of it. The point of the topic, imo, is which do you base your judgement off of - objective scientific evidence, even if it does chance, or subjective religious evidence that science often contradicts [and quite powerfully contradicts in many cases; e.g. evolution, depending on your belief, and homosexuality being a choice]. Now, if your religion is accepting of these scientific advancements, and you believe evolution exists and homosexuality isn't a choice, etc., then it doesn't matter which you choose. I can't think of any other meaning of "Which would you choose?" besides "Which would you choose if they were to contradict?" Since science doesn't say there is no god, and at most "there's no reason to believe in a god," it's not really a religious view, and one is perfectly capable of believing in both.

Quantum physics tell us that everything you experience and see is merely the condensing of ever possibility to that second of time that you're there experiencing it, or rather measuring. Bounce a ball freeze time for a moment while its in the air just about to come back down. The ball is literally everywhere in the universe at that second until it condenses to that movement. That is science on the highest level and it establishes that reality is possibility. That everything that is possible is happening and exist to some extent some how.

Good show, man. We seem to have argued this till the end. It was fun playing devil's advocate though while it lasted. Its not often I get to argue with someone who's worth arguing with.

Good show, man. We seem to have argued this till the end. It was fun playing devil's advocate though while it lasted. Its not often I get to argue with someone who's worth arguing with.

Yes, well, I still have to get it through to you that science is more reliable than religion.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

However the way the system of thought is constructed demands that kind of conclusion you get when you follow it to the letter. Science likes to interpret the world in terms of that system when it works and then when it doesn't explain it differently but still pretend its realism. That's my problem. You can't use the system to explain the world and say that's how it is and then go do something different when it doesn't work. That reduces credibility, which is my only real problem with science itself.

I think it's all a misunderstanding of how science works on your half. Science does not claim to be absolutely true with no alternatives (e.g. if it says the earth is flat, it doesn't say that there is no way the earth is round). What science decides to be true is whatever theory so happens to have the most supporting evidence at the time. That doesn't mean there are no alternatives and that it's the absolute truth, and if tomorrow something else is found to be true, than it must have changed overnight. It means science is open to being wrong. When something else is found to have more evidence, or the current theory is found to be disproven, then it is scrapped and concluded as being wrong and having always been wrong. It doesn't work on a "whatever we say now is the absolute truth" basis, but a "whatever we say now happens to have the most evidence to support it but may be proven wrong in the future."
And the point being, when science, wrong or not, has more objective evidence than any religious ideal, then science is the better of the two to base one's decisions on.

To assume the world is real is no different than to assume there is a god. I mean there's no reason to believe there is a world for science to explain. Even if you make the assumption there is a world. What is reality? What is true? We're far from even having a working concept and definition of either. It would seem to to me that for science to come forth and say this or that is true and real. They ought to define it better than "cause it works and can be repeated." What if tomorrow it doesn't work?

If tomorrow it doesn't work, then they scrap the theory and come up with something that does work in both tomorrow's rules of the universe and today's.
There's quite a large difference between assuming the world exists and assuming god exists. One of them affects your day to day life, your decisions, and your mind. Jump off a bridge. It's not going to hurt you. Physics will stop working, and you'll land safely in another dimensions full of candy and naked women. Or, since we know what will happen when you do dangerous things, don't do dangerous things.
I assume you've been burnt before, via one method or another. It really doesn't matter whether or not you, your body, or the heat actually exists. What does matter is that what you felt as a result was real. The only provable thing in the universe, à la Descartes, is yourself. You exist. You and your thoughts change as a result of interactions with this world, whether or not it exists. So, you and your thoughts need to determine how to interact with this world, real or not, in such a way that is beneficial to you and your thoughts. It's a pretty egocentric view, but it's the one you seem to want to focus on, not willing to take a step without absolute certainty. Regardless, science offers the best view as to what will happen as a result of two interactions in this world. Maybe tomorrow, heat will stop existing, or make you orgasm when you touch it. But something tells me you aren't going to want to get burnt again to find out. Because you and your mind learn through patterns. If it happened once, it will happen again. And even if it doesn't, there's no need to take the risk, and no reason to assume that it won't have the same affect on you and your mind as it did last time.
That's the pattern of science and human nature. If it keeps happening, it will likely keep happening, real or not. Science merely tells us what is happening and why, based on other things that have kept happening. Denying them is as silly as touching fire in hopes of achieving orgasm, and I'm certain you aren't that silly in real life.

I think we need a little of both.
Science is needed to state the hardcore facts
Religion is needed because we all need something to believe in if the facts arent given

Religion .

When it comes to matter like this i'am neutral...i grew up in a religious household and donm not know what to think...I dont believe we were evolved from monkeys though...theres to many theorys and not enough answears