The Difference Between Science and Religion: How Would You Summarize It?

[Nick227]

I don't think religion can "give us our values, our basic guiding principles" either. I think we evolved with a moral capacity (the same way we evolved a capacity for language), and the specific norms we learn are socialized by our upbringing--which need not have anything to do with religion.

For me one of the most damning things about religion is that it's clear that many of the so-called "founders" of religion - Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc - had little actual intention of setting up what later developed in their name. Religions usually developed some centuries in their wake, frequently with a lot of political or cultural shennanigans clearly present. The whole concept is riddled with nonsense and completely open to abuse and exploitation.

Nick

 

[Fnord]

Religion is self serving.
Science is self correcting.

Religion is based on lack of proof to the contrary claim.
Science is based on evidence that provides proof of claim.

Religion forces discipline on others.
Science enforces discipline in itself.

Religion is what you make of it.
Science is what makes up you.

(Hmm ... still needs work ...)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

ETA: In trying to answer the OP, that overlap shows that this isn't a sufficient point to distinguish between the two. (Remember, the OP wanted a quick and concise way of describing the differences. If your purported "difference" isn't actually different, it doesn't distinguish the two.

I said that there is overlap in ethics, but that science does not give us our guiding values, it just helps us decide how to act in most accordance with them.

I don't think religion can "give us our values, our basic guiding principles" either. I think we evolved with a moral capacity (the same way we evolved a capacity for language), and the specific norms we learn are socialized by our upbringing--which need not have anything to do with religion.

Yes, I agree that a person does not necessarily need to get their values from religion, but that is one of the major points of religion, which is different from science.

Also, as pointed out, the track record of religion for inculcating guiding principles has been spotty at best.

I think this might be what Darat was trying to get at, but just a sentence is impossible to debate. Elaborate please.

I stand by my earlier example. We can all agree that we don't like unwanted teenage pregnancy and STDs. As an educational goal, we'd like to teach kids how to avoid these things. Conventional sex ed arms them with the correct and best information. Abstinence only sex ed does not. Approaching the problem scientifically, we can test the outcomes of these programs. Religion, in this case, motivates a choice by a bogus moral dictum (not part of our basic guiding principles or underlying beliefs of right and wrong), and will cling to abstinence only programs (because, according to them teenage/premarital sex is "wrong") regardless of or in spite of the evidence at hand. So which is a better moral guide in choosing the nature of sex ed?

I find your analysis interesting because you seem to be assuming that there are universal principles that are correct and religious principles are tacked on and "bogus".

I really like this discussion. I have class now, but I will be sure to come back tonight . I have more to say about this example, but I don't have the time. I'll just try to breeze through the rest:

Also, we're learning more about the brain and human behavior all the time. I suspect the questions that you say are in the bailiwick of religion only might someday be answered by science. (There was a time, no doubt, when other questions were deemed untouchable by science--human origins, for one.)

I don't think values are only for religion, but I don't think they can be "answered" by science.

Sure, we may have evolved the capacity for morals, but we still have to choose among many different values like "Might makes right", "All life in infinitely valuable", "Those who take life deserve to have their life taken", etc. I really see how science can enter a field where you can't empirically test anything.

Finally, you're making the mistake that Skeptigirl rightly criticized: you seem to be saying that without religion there would be no values or basic guiding principles for living life. I, and plenty of other atheists and non-religionists do not live lives devoid of values. (For example, I'm a vegetarian and a pacifist--both based on moral convictions and having NOTHING to do with any religion or religious beliefs. I also have plenty of other purely secular values shared by most people--relating to family, duty, etc.)

I'm not. I'm saying that those things are one of the major points of relgion, while the major point of science is to make models as accurate as possible to physical reality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science is about the questions about the universe we can answer
Religion is about the questions about the universe we cannot answer

Like, can an omnipotent god make a rock too heavy be lifted by said god?

Your answer is the typical stuff I was referring to, a contrived category for non-evidence based beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Like I said, science can help inform us a little, but how do you empirically test values? I can't think of a situation where science by itself establishes ethical rules....

Yes, but I did not mean that religion is the only source of values, goals, etc.

I question the claim that religion is the source of very many people's values. While some may consciously follow religious beliefs about morality, the vast majority make moral decisions without conscious thought. Children and primates demonstrate moral behavior. We evolved as a gregarious species and as such certain behaviors identified as 'moral' are hardwired (or not as in the case of sociopaths and other mental disorders). These hardwired behaviors are modifiable but nonetheless, come pre-installed.

What is the alternative? Morality is magically transmitted by gods? All morality is learned and if one is not taught right and wrong, the human species would cease being gregarious?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It depends what you mean by "morals come from religion". I don't think it would be bogus to say that some people get some of their morals from their religion, whereas it would be bogus to claim that religion is the only source of morality.

Are you suggesting that morals "come from" science?

I am certain the evidence supports what I said in the above post, morality, aka a sense of right and wrong, is hardwired and evolved. It is modifiable, and every brain does not inherit the same sense of morality.

Very few people's moral decisions are actually influenced by their religious beliefs but such beliefs no doubt influence some people just as other things influence our morality. The culture you grow up in influences your morality and religion is part of that.

One might make a good case for religious fanaticism influencing moral choices thus you get suicide bombers and abortion doctor murderers. I tend to think that represents a small % of the human population but I will allow for the % to be much larger under certain conditions such as occur when indoctrination is particularly effective.

 

[Wowbagger]

How about these?:

Science has such a good reputation for working, that religion tries to pretend that it is science. But, it is extremely rare for science to pretend it is a religion.

Sciences has the power to alter the course of religious beliefs. But religion is not powerful enough to influence the course of science.

Examples for the last one: Even most of the most religious of folks accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, and much of the evidence of evolution (though, they only generally accept "micro"-evolution). There was a time when most religious folks believed the opposite.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's about context - "science works" was an answer to what the difference is, therefore implying religion doesn't work. To say religion doesn't work appears to be assuming some kind of premise as to what religion is supposed to do but fails to. By the same standard, for "science works" to make sense, it needs to be established what it is supposed to do.

Science is successful where prayer and ritual are not.

If the benefits of belonging to a group is the measure, then it depends on the group not necessarily the specific god beliefs of that group.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I said that there is overlap in ethics, but that science does not give us our guiding values, it just helps us decide how to act in most accordance with them.....

Evolution gave us our values. Brain structure and physiology give us our values. Religion is merely one of many modifiers of those values.

If you disagree then please tell us, how do values get magically installed in one's thoughts and at what age does this occur?

 

[Zarathustra]

Science is method for determining naturally occurring phenomena using techniques that provide real, observable, empirically verifiable and repeatable data to describe said phenomena.

Religion is a collection of unverifiable mythical beliefs and fairy tales.

 

[juryjone]

I maybe answered more than what was asked.

Science finds the true answer--whether or not you like the answer.
Religion/Woo finds the answer you like--whether or not the answer is true.

I think this is more than a little unfair. I don't know any seriously religious people who actually like all the strictures and the thought of loved ones being condemned to eternal torture. It's just that, as they see it, those are the facts.

This would come closer to the same idea, without the component of "liking":

Or maybe better would be Mike Shermer's slide from the evolution/creationism debate I went to:

Science is about pursuing unaswered questions.
Religion is about having unquestioned answers.

 

[KeyserSoze]

This is not my summary, but it is definitely my favorite.

 

[Wowbagger]

This is not my summary, but it is definitely my favorite.

[qimg]http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2668/1208113271193wa2.png[/qimg]

Whoa! I love it!

Though, I suspect certain woos will try to disagree.

 

[FireGarden]

Interesting, I have never heard of any Buddhist even using the term, it just doesn't really come up.

But still, this is looking at religion from the view of it being based on an infallible piece of literature, that is not how all religions work.

I'm willing to give up on the infallibilty aspect, then.

Why do some Buddhists believe in reincarnation and some not? What would convince a Buddhist to change his opinion on reincarnation?

What changes scientific opinion is rather plain and obvious: a better idea to explain observed facts. I feel I understand that kind of thinking.

But religious thinking is a mystery to me. Reinterpreting evidence/sacred texts/traditions. When something in religion does change, I find it hard to understand why. It's like changing fashions.

Why is it okay to open shops on the Sabbath now? When did Gods become all knowing?

The history of religion doesn't build to anything. The history of science does.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Science is to religion, as imax theatre is to cave paintings.
To everything there is a season.
The season of religion ended around 1859.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this might be what Darat was trying to get at, but just a sentence is impossible to debate. Elaborate please.

Inquisition, Crusades, Jihad, religious fanatics flying airplanes into skyscrapers, suicide bombers, the Creationists' believing their lies in the Dover case were justified, many of the ethical laws put forth in holy scriptures, etc.

I find your analysis interesting because you seem to be assuming that there are universal principles that are correct and religious principles are tacked on and "bogus".

You misread me then. I think the capacity for morality is nearly universal (there are sociopaths and such), just as the capacity for language is universal. The variation of the languages a human can learn is relatively small (Pinker has it down to a small handful of switches that can go one way or another). Similarly, the actual moral principles we can internalize aren't really very diverse.

What I think is bogus is claiming that religion is the sole source of these principles, and that science has nothing (and will never have anything) to say about morality and ethics.

Sure, we may have evolved the capacity for morals, but we still have to choose among many different values like "Might makes right", "All life in infinitely valuable", "Those who take life deserve to have their life taken", etc. I really see how science can enter a field where you can't empirically test anything.

I assume you mean you "really can't see" this.

And there was a time when people couldn't see how science could possibly say anything about human origins. Give the track record of the ever-shrinking realm of stuff that is exclusively the bailiwick of religion, I think it's arrogant to presume that the gaps that remain will always remain.

I'm not. I'm saying that those things are one of the major points of relgion, while the major point of science is to make models as accurate as possible to physical reality.

OK--now you're speaking the language of the OP. Couldn't you say that one of the major points of religion is also to make models of reality?

Except that with religion, there is no concern of testing those models against reality (i.e. the models aren't based on evidence). Again, I reject the notion that religion is defined by a certain content area (values, morality or whatever) because it most certainly has not been for most of its history. Also, at least some branches of science are making inroads into those topics. (You could certainly talk about "how to live your life" as having to do with behavior. Also studies of neuroscience and cognition can study MANY questions related to these topics.)

 

[quarky]

How about these?:

Science has such a good reputation for working, that religion tries to pretend that it is science. But, it is extremely rare for science to pretend it is a religion.

Sciences has the power to alter the course of religious beliefs. But religion is not powerful enough to influence the course of science.

Examples for the last one: Even most of the most religious of folks accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, and much of the evidence of evolution (though, they only generally accept "micro"-evolution). There was a time when most religious folks believed the opposite.

There was a time when most scientificly minded, non-religious people believed the opposite as well.

I strongly believe that most so-called religious people are mostly giving lip service to some ancient attempt at an explanation of the universe that they don't actually believe anymore.

Even the islamo-facist types, willing to blow themselves up for a cause, are quite possibly driven more by politics than religion. Kamikazes weren't particularly religious; didn't need to believe in the 70 virgins stuff.

Science doesn't actually address how to live your life, which is fine with me, btw. But religion does claim to do that, however poorly. Some people need that sort of guidance, evidently. In the U.S., land of scientific innovation, for some damn reason, our presidents must claim to believe in Jesus.

 

[Wowbagger]

There was a time when most scientificly minded, non-religious people believed the opposite as well.

My point is that science changes religion, as well as itself. Religion never seems to be able to change the course of science.

Scientists now know the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it was NOT religion that changed scientists' minds. It was the minds of the religious that had to change to conform to what science was demonstrating.

Science doesn't actually address how to live your life, which is fine with me, btw.

Not directly. But, it does inspire changes in morality. For example: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

In fact, I would say that scientific innovation has lead to more "improvements" in morality, however indirectly, than religions which don't try to innovate, at all.

It was, afterall, the science of anthropology that was demonstrating that all races of humans really are "created" equal, an therefore deserve and equal opportunity to freedoms and responsabilities, etc. Religion never did that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My point is that science changes religion, as well as itself. Religion never seems to be able to change the course of science.....

Not in the long run anyway. You can't pray the evidence away.

 

[quarky]

I agree. Although some religions have attempted to form dogmas of the equality of all people. Corruption is another issue.

Did you know that the Pope officially acknowledged the role of the female egg in human reproduction in the 1950's? The catholics are moving right along.