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

[Ichneumonwasp]

Leaving aside the ethical issues inherent in religion.......

Science demonstrates willingness to examine all the available evidence irregardless of its impact on any particular theory.

Religions and other woo, as you highlight, admit only evidence that confirms their theories, ignoring facts that pose problems.

Hence, the screen name.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Um, you guys do realize that there is more to religion than making supernatural claims about how the world works, right?

I'd say that religion is more concerned with the "right" way to live ones life, what values guide your actions, what you think the goal of life is, how you view yourself in relation to others and the universe, etc.

Science is more about making models to fit reality as best as possible.

Of course, that is not to say that religions don't get involved in explaining the world supernaturally, it is just that that is not all that there is to religion.

 

[Beerina]

Religion, like any worldview, scientific or otherwise, is a mental model of reality, and thus is used to plan activities in the real world.

This model, however, contains premesis that may not be surmountable or escapable, if they are incorrect. Among them are:

1. There's an evil entity that wants to deceive you as much as possible. This includes making things seem reasonable.

2. The good guy sometimes will test you with ideas that are fake and designed to deceive you.

3. The good guy usually won't do things if you ask for help. Sometimes he does, though, although this is not discoverable as different from random chance*.

4. If the good guy doesn't help, perhaps you didn't pray hard enough, or in the proper form, not because he doesn't exist.

5. If the good guy doesn't help, perhaps he has a bigger picture he's considering, and not because he doesn't exist.

6. If the good guy doesn't help, perhaps he is teaching people a valuable lesson, and not because he doesn't exist.

7. If the good guy doesn't help, perhaps he is giving an opportunity to demonstrate character by those involved, and not because he doesn't exist.

8. Logical arguments that he doesn't exist are plants by the devil to deceive you, or are a mistake in your analysis, also probably aided by the devil to deceive you.

9. Refusing to believe in the good guy will result in eternal punishment after you die, regardless of how solid is the logic.




* Note this suggests God actively harms someone else whenever he helps someone, so that the overall statistics stay balanced.

 

[slingblade]

Religion says "Believe; don't question."
Science says "Question; don't just believe."

 

[Darat]

Um, you guys do realize that there is more to religion than making supernatural claims about how the world works, right?

Very much so.

I'd say that religion is more concerned with the "right" way to live ones life, what values guide your actions, what you think the goal of life is, how you view yourself in relation to others and the universe, etc.

...snip...

At which it has proven to be an unmitigated disaster on both an individual and a societal level.

Science is more about making models to fit reality as best as possible.

Of course, that is not to say that religions don't get involved in explaining the world supernaturally, it is just that that is not all that there is to religion.

Still the difference between religion and science is as I said: science works.

 

[quarky]

T. buddah said a mouthful. Beerina's #1 applies to scientific skepticism as well. There are Sylvia Brownes out there that want to decieve you and take your money.

Science works, but it hasn't totally worked yet. In fact, it could be said that it has caused us a lot of problems; some seemingly insurmountable, like the invention of nitrogen fertilizer, which has allowed a vast and temporary increase in the carrying capacity of the globe. Without science, no 6 billion plus people.

I'm no fan of religion. Hopefully soon, I'll shed the disclaimer.

But the case could be made that religion works too.

Does anyone here think that if the whole world was atheist, there would be no cause for war? Religion is a superficial obstacle to science. Science is a stronger obstacle to religion. religion is under threat from science, in a much larger way than the opposite.

Arrogance has no place on either side.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Very much so.

Kay.

At which it has proven to be an unmitigated disaster on both an individual and a societal level.

Hey, don't make me whip out the King .

But really, that is just a meaningless, flippant reply.

Still the difference between religion and science is as I said: science works.

Again, a meaningless, flippant reply.

How would you determine if the values by which you live your life and measure your goals "work"?

 

[Fnord]

Off the top of my pointy little head:

1. Faith is the belief in intangiable and unprovable concepts.
   
2. Religion is the socio-political expression of faith.
   
3. Philosophy is the study of intangiable, yet provable concepts.
   
4. Science is the study of tangiable and provable forces, events, objects, and principles.

 

[James Fox]

This model, however, contains premesis ..., 1. ~ 9.

Beerina,
You forgot the part where if an observed circumstance does not follow numbers one through eight, then ones problem, disease, circumstance or suffering is for the purpose of making you more like the good guy or causing others to believe in the good guy.

The religious are in need of a logic enema. (Sure I know, not very polite but that’s how I’m feeling at the moment)

 

[FireGarden]

Newton might not be the best example of a non-religious scientist.

I wasn't using him as an example of a non-religious scientist. I was illustrating that, in science, authorites are not required to be infallible. I see that as the main difference between religion and science.


btw,
Newton is one of the greatest scientists of all time. That he was religious too can't change that.

 

[Darat]

Kay.



Hey, don't make me whip out the King .

No idea what this means.

But really, that is just a meaningless, flippant reply.

Not flippant nor meaningless.

Again, a meaningless, flippant reply.

No it is simply a statement of fact.

How would you determine if the values by which you live your life and measure your goals "work"?

I can't even parse this - it doesn't seem to make any sense?

 

[Nick227]

In religion, models are built in the mind. In science, models are built independently of anyone's minds.

Well, both are built "in the mind," so to speak. But, as I see it, science asserts that the consistency between aspects of individuals' phenomenal experience points to the existence of a mathematically definable reality. It thus proceeds from this assertion and can continue to create logical explanations for perceived phenomena. Religion starts from the premise that God did it, and thus closes the door for investigation.

Science, over time, thus continuously erodes the ground on which God stands, giving him progressively less and less of a role.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

How would you determine if the values by which you live your life and measure your goals "work"?

By setting clearly definable goals and checking in later if they have been achieved. (I'm assuming that you're asking how we know if our values and goals work.)

Nick

 

[Nogbad]

If one is honestly mistaken in a point of religion it will result in your testicles being prodded with hot toasting forks for eternity.

If one is honestly mistaken in a point of science some may chuckle but that is an end of the matter.

 

[FireGarden]

Um, you guys do realize that there is more to religion than making supernatural claims about how the world works, right?

I'd say that religion is more concerned with the "right" way to live ones life, what values guide your actions, what you think the goal of life is, how you view yourself in relation to others and the universe, etc.

How about slavery, then?
Today we believe it's wrong. So slavery in the bible must be explained. Google turns up some apologetics:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/368

What was to be done with a man who was so far in debt that he could not repay his lender? These issues, and others like them, necessitated that God institute some form of humane regulations for “slavery.”

Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God.

However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would. However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered.

Science doesn't have such apologetics.

If a scientist got something wrong, then science moves on -- possibly still acknowledging the brilliance of the scientist, but in no way reinterpreting his work to say things he didn't say. Science doesn't have to split hairs in the definitions of force and motion with the aim of showing that Newton was actually spot on -- if only people had understood him.

Similarly,
people can pick and choose which of Plato's ideas they accept and which they reject. Because no-one treats Plato religiously -- he is allowed to be fallible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece#Demographics

Plato, owner of five slaves at the time of his death, describes the very rich as owning 50 slaves.

That all said, I'm not sure if Buddhists insist on Buddha being infallible. So maybe my argument needs some patching up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Um, you guys do realize that there is more to religion than making supernatural claims about how the world works, right?

I'd say that religion is more concerned with the "right" way to live ones life, what values guide your actions, what you think the goal of life is, how you view yourself in relation to others and the universe, etc.

First, as I pointed out above (and you have conceded), morality and ethics is not the only subject of religion. Everything that is now considered the realm of natural science was once the realm of religion. A lot of it still is. (If you don't think it is, then why is "creationism" even mentioned in political debates or discussions of public education?)

Second, you're assuming that science does not address (and never will) ethics and morality. I think there's at least some overlap with science. (One good example of this is the best way to deal with teenage pregnancy and STDs. The faith-based solution, abstinence-only sex "education" has been proven to be less effective than conventional sex ed that teaches about condoms and such.) Religion merely retreats into the gaps.

I don't think you can distinguish religion and science based solely on the subject matter (i.e. the natural world vs. morality & ethics). It is about the evidence or lack thereof that leads you to your conclusions.

It's about how you get at what you think is the truth.

 

[Wowbagger]

I see a lot of good answers, here. Answers that may serve well for some purposes.

I think the angle I was going for was to state the difference in such a way that the woo-woo and/or religious folks might recognize where they are "going wrong".

All those answers about science being "factual and working", while true, are not enough to cut it for them. A religious person will be convinced, no matter how ludicrous we recognize the ideas, that their model is consistent and represents the Ultimate Truth. It is my hypothesis that, in order for the religious person to recognize the real root difference, themselves, you might have to emphasize "where" the model is built.

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.

Actually, I like this one!

I disagree with that.
When people found a religion, they may well base their "truths" on the best understanding of the time.

It might be more accurate to say that cognitive dissonance, etc. are the basis of modern religion. Today, we can do better, with the scientific method we have developed. Back then the Koran was writing about embryology, there was no other option than simple observation and connecting it, as consistently as possible, with feel-good notions in the head.

Isn't it a difference between HOW and WHAT? Science tells us how things are accomplished. Religion tells us what we should accomplish.

(Snip)

I think get your point, which seems to be similar to my own, about model building. But, you are breaking it down to which questions the model can answer, better. And, I think that approach would only confuse people.

I'd say that religion is more concerned with the "right" way to live ones life, what values guide your actions, what you think the goal of life is, how you view yourself in relation to others and the universe, etc.

You say that as if science is completely incapable of doing this.

I do not think religion really has anything much to do with morality, except how they managed to be intertwined throughout much of history. Morality has always been adjusted independently of religion, based on human needs and interests.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I would do a Claus, except with different punction: Evidence.

 

[Tanstaafl]

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.

 

[FireGarden]

I think the angle I was going for was to state the difference in such a way that the woo-woo and/or religious folks might recognize where they are "going wrong".

[...] It might be more accurate to say that cognitive dissonance, etc. are the basis of modern religion.

Patching up theories is part of science. If a fact doesn't match a theory's prediction, that doesn't immediately lead to the abandoning of a theory.

Newton's laws failed to predict the orbit of Mercury. So people starting looking for explanations. It would have been silly to throw out a theory with a good track record on account of an annoying new piece of evidence. You have to consider why it might be wrong. Maybe there's a planet nobody has seen. Maybe the error is in the observation. etc.

The point is,
Holding on to the theory in spite of conflicting evidence is okay (up to a point). The aspect which makes the above science not religion is that there is no assumption that Newton has to be right. When a better theory came along, most people stopped looking for an undiscovered planet. They now understood why Newton was right so often but wrong about Mercury's orbit. It now made sense to move on -- without abandoning science itself.

Religion differs because it has infallible authorities. That means the looking for loopholes cannot stop -- unless the religion itself is abandoned.

If you're looking for something that will tell people where they are going wrong, then I think you should point to the assumption of an infallible authority.