Religion and science are opposites
I have also heard science being called a faith-based belief system. I disagree, because I see religion starting with it's conclusions first, and working backwards. For example: the bible says that the earth was created magically in six days, 6200 years ago, more or less, therefore the only evidence that counts is that which agrees with the bible.
Science does not start with the conclusion. Conclusions come only after all the evidence has been considered according to the scientific method. Even then, the conclusion is not asserted as a fact, and held up for peer review. This is a much more intellectually honest approach.
There is faith in science, but it comes about as a result of consistency and repeatability, not merely posited from a religious institution as an unquestionable fact.
I have also heard science being called a faith-based belief system. I disagree, because I see religion starting with it's conclusions first, and working backwards. For example: the bible says that the earth was created magically in six days, 6200 years ago, more or less, therefore the only evidence that counts is that which agrees with the bible.
Science does not start with the conclusion. Conclusions come only after all the evidence has been considered according to the scientific method. Even then, the conclusion is not asserted as a fact, and held up for peer review. This is a much more intellectually honest approach.
There is faith in science, but it comes about as a result of consistency and repeatability, not merely posited from a religious institution as an unquestionable fact.