What is the difference between Science and Religion?

Spelling?

I don't know, felt like being a smart ass... will be back later.

 

Science is belief with verifiable proof. As an ideal, science is in a constant state of revision as new information enters its accepted lexicon. Science seeks to describe our physical world through empirical review.

Science is defined by the processes it uses to clarify understanding.


'Religion' is belief without verifiable proof. As an ideal, religion functions as a guidebook for successful human behavior. It offers rewards for those who best adhere to its principles. Religion works to to offer explanation for what happens after we die, while spreading an individual philosophy for how we should live.

Religion is defined by the faithful; those who choose to conform their worldview against existing doctrine.

...

Both offer ways to understand ourselves, and our physical world.

Cultural insecurity creates friction between them; in truth, there is no competition, as they each exist to answer different questions.

Neither is absolute, nor does the existence of one render invalid the truth of the other.

...

 

Well, for starters, science is usually right, while religion is usually wrong. (Science converges on the answers, while religion tends to diverge from myths and morals.) That's not a putdown to all religions, either; it's a simple fact that there is more variation in religion than science, and we know they can't all be right.

 

Can you explain this a bit further?

What does it mean for religion to be 'usually wrong'?

Are you referring to application of religious pseudo-science (Creationism/Anti-evolution), or that religion offers incorrect models for what happens after we die/how we should live?

 

I think what he means is that religion can not be proven. It takes faith to believe it (which is the nature of religion).

The major difference that I see is that science is a way for us to broaden our understanding of the physical world. And religion is a way for us to speculate and imagine what the other-world is like.

 

This is more-or-less the position I was driving for.

When compared, it's not really a question of correct/incorrect, as each address concerns inappropriate to the former. As a result, the only way to measure truth is to cull an understanding on the basis of individual methodology -

For science, we can measure 'truth' against what we can clinically test. In religion, 'truth' is about strength of personal belief in the offered doctrine.

Different tools; different output. It's too bad that some contemporary thinkers have unfairly paired the two.

'Apples to Atoms'

 

Read this:

However,

It's not cultural insecurity, it's religious insecurity that creates friction between the two of them.
There is competition, because religion seeks to explain the world through myths, and science attempts to find out how the world was REALLY created, using evidence. That evidence proves religion wrong.

And while it's true that science doesn't invalidate the "truth" of religion... The nature of truth itself invalidates religion because religion attempted to describe the world using absolutes and not proving any of its points.

 

True. Religious anxiety has created a lot of unnecessary grief for otherwise-harmless/majestic exploration of our natural world.

See: evolution - one of the most sublime discoveries ever unearthed in our shared genetic process; makes diversity in ecological systems palpable and radically updated our understanding of 'quantum' biology/genetics as a way to assist in the creation of present-day advancements in fields like medicine; pharmacology; Germ Theory; neurology, etc -- a boundless gift.

Lately, it's been the target of faux theorists who feel threatened by the notion that we're descended from monkeys/the animal kingdom in general and have tried to extricate the teaching of evolution, as to reduce their existential angst, all the while ignoring centuries of credible data from immeasurable sources...

Truly horrible. Yet, it does not suggest that religion, as an ideal, is offered as a counterpoint to science. Only that modern religious thinkers have opted to pervert doctrine to ensure saturation of importance.

 

I like you.

Also, you're aware that Darfur is in africa right? That's the wrong continent?
Or is that a joke on the geographic knowledge of most americans?

 

Hehe - yeah, it's a geography joke.

Makes fun of flavor-of-the-day activists, while offering the wearer a living case study in general American ignorance of international geography.

 

Yeah, I don't see the reason we should save Darfur...

My harddrive is almost full as it is.

 

Plus, it's 'Read-Only'.

Most can't even remember their PIN number.

 

Heh...
Personal Identification Number Number.

 

I mean that it is wrong more often than it is right. That fact is obvious because there are more than two mutually exclusive religions in the world.

Both, and more. I do not believe that any religion is correct in terms of mythology, but even if one is, the rest are therefore incorrect. The morals touted by religions, while often consistent with our inherent (psychological) morality, also frequently contradict each other, and, as you mention, creation myths contradict science-based theories of the origins of the universe, the earth and life.

 

The difference between science and religion is that they are two completely separate spheres. One could say that they deal with two separate realities, kind of like science and art. Science and art are totally different from each other; yet there is no need to have a battle between the two, as they both can live side by side in peace, even in the same person. I think the same goes for science and religion.

 

Religion: Believing things that cannot be proved.

Science: Proving things so they can be believed.

The intersection of the two would appear to be the null set.

 

Deep down they are both an act of faith to me, just in 2 very different directions.