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

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that science changes religion
<snip>

And for the most part that "change" has been a shrinkage of the domain of religion. Again, religion has to retreat to the gaps of science (or be patently absurd, like the young-earth creationists).

 

[quarky]

True, true...

Science is winning the fight, slowly eroding religion's influence.
Which is why religion is getting more dangerous:

Its making its last stand.
We'd be wise to approach it with wisdom.

 

[Fnord]

True, true...

Science is winning the fight, slowly eroding religion's influence.
Which is why religion is getting more dangerous:

Its making its last stand.
We'd be wise to approach it with wisdom.

... or with plate armor and earplugs.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

Religion imposes why, and science proposes how.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Religion imposes why, and science proposes how.

Now you're getting somewhere

 

[Rasmus]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Religion imposes why, and science proposes how.

Nonsense. This is one of those false categories excusing god beliefs one doesn't want to confront. Why did people develop god beliefs? You can use the scientific process to answer that.


Science works, magical god beliefs don't.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

Nonsense. This is one of those false categories excusing god beliefs one doesn't want to confront. Why did people develop god beliefs? You can use the scientific process to answer that.


Science works, magical god beliefs don't.

What about identifying the precursors to a categorilla seizure and the banana pudding words in my mouth.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Evolution gave us our values. Brain structure and physiology give us our values.

Evolution and physiology give us the morals we have about prostitution, drug use, etc?

Many people obtain those values from religion. Science? Not that I know of.

Religion is merely one of many modifiers of those values.

Well, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that there are natural values and morals and religion just perverts these?

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

I believe our values are constantly changing and one of the major purposes of religion is to give us grounding values to base our lives on.

Science? Not that I know of.

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.

Pfff, evidence?

Perhaps I shall forget about the Quakers?

Anyone in full possession of the facts would agree, it is time for that to be put right; few, if any, deserve greater credit for the defeat of slavery and the slave trade than them. The campaign to abolish the slave trade was an overwhelmingly religious affair. The importance of evangelical Anglicans, like William Wilberforce and John Newton, is well known.
But Quakers were the pioneers of the movement, its brains, and much of the soul too. The more you delve into the story, the more you find Quakers under every shadow.

...

The Quakers were natural enemies of slavery, with their fundamental belief in equality in a hierarchical society where that was still highly controversial. They believed above all else that every person is made in the image of God and carries the divine light, so it is blasphemous to elevate one above another.

They refused to raise their hats to their social betters or to call them "my lord", "my lady" or even "you", insisting on the familiar "thou". Their egalitarianism was still quite scandalous in the 18th Century, but it made slavery uniquely abhorrent to the Quakers.

Linky.

The abolitionist and women's suffrage movement in America were also propelled by religious people. I don't recall reading about anthropology in Sojourner Truth's speeches.

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?

Oh, rebirth is a very messy issue. First there is the very strong cultural influence that various regions had about reincarnation before Buddhism came. And add to that the various disagreements about the exact nature of "not-self". Because the Buddha said there was no soul, there is a lot of confusion about what would actually pass on in rebirth.

And, though this might get too specific, in Buddhism one of the "sins", if you will, is clinging to doctrine. The Right View aspect of Buddhism also includes on a deeper level the idea that all views are wrong views.

Anyway, I'm sure I've just confused you more than answering your question .

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

Yes, I quite agree here. Which I think leads to another difference between the two.

That is, religion pertains to Absolute Truths about reality. Science is about using empiricism to develop models ever approaching the accurate depiction of the universe.

Religion imposes why, and science proposes how.

I still disagree with this view that there is some distinct alien entity, like "Islam", that slips into people's minds and leads them astray. For any ideas that a person encounters, it is up to them to choose how they respond to them. And they choose how they develop them.

Sure, many are indoctrinated or evangelized. But that is not a universal trait for religion.

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.

Well, I would say that those are instances of religion working very well on giving morals . They don't necessarily have to be "good" ones.

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.

Ah, well I think morals are a tad more diverse than what you think, and I don't think religion is the sole source, so we are pretty much in agreement.

And I agree that science can help in applied ethics, but I disagree that it has anything to say about guiding values.

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.

But science is about objective empiricism and is completely descriptive. Morality is proscriptive.

I don't think of it as a gap for science, I think they are to parallel planes.

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.)

Well, we'll have to just disagree here. Religion has no concern about "testing the models against reality" in an objective empirical sense. Many religious people have their own way of testing the teachings that don't involve double blind studies .

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

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2...3271193wa2.png

See, I think this is the problem with this discussion. I don't think this sums up the difference at all because it only shows where religion conflicts with the empirical, scientific realm.

The people I talk to are not strawmen, however, and they hardly talk about creationism or any of that stuff.

Also, I think it highlights the ethnocentrism with everyone defining religion by what they know of the Abrahamic faiths (No matter how incomplete I think that knowledge is).

 

[Trakar]

How would you summarize the fundamental difference between science and religion (and other forms of "woo"), using only a few concise sentences?

Here is my own contribution:

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

But, here is another way of saying that, with more verbiage:

What science and religion have in common is that they both attempt to build a consistent model of the universe they live in. However, the difference is where this model exists.
In religion, the model is built in the head, based on personal whims, and any evidence to the contrary will be resolved to fit that model. In other words, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias form the keys to woo.
In science, however, models are built as independently as possible from anyone's own minds. They are rigorously tested in the real world, carefully controlled, verified independently, and possible falsifications are mapped out. Only those models that succeed in helping us understand more precise information about the Universe, through their predictions, are accepted.

Anyone who wants to, can give me their feedback on this, and/or their own way of summarizing the difference.

This thread was inspired by the "Skeptics vs. Woo" debate, that took place during Dragon*Con, this year. I wanted to ask the panel what they thought of this direction, but they ran out of time before I could do so.

Why not simply stick to what history tells us?

Science as we currently know it was developed by religion to explore and understand the natural world. Whereas religion is an exploration and understanding of considerations beyond the natural world. You don't have to believe in or accept either religion or that there is anything beyond the natural world to grasp and understand this history, and it is a pretty clear explanation of the accurate relationship involved between science and religion.

 

[bronson]

Science is a process of discovering new more detailed explanations. Most importantly science is demonstrated. A concept in science like light, mass, atom, cell, DNA, thought, consciousness, is demonstratable and defined in accordence with an observable criterion. Because these things are made explicit, and always refer to something that can be demonstrated for oneself (by replicating it), a shared consensus can eventually be reached regarding the meaning of concepts between scientists.
Religion on the otherhand does not go through this process of verifying and defining meaning. What is sin? How can it be tested? The pope declares polluting the environment is sin. I'm sure all catholics will now be environmentally moral, but how does a non-catholic christian know whether it is a sin? How can they ever reach a consensus on the issue?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evolution and physiology give us the morals we have about prostitution, drug use, etc?

Many people obtain those values from religion. Science? Not that I know of.

Well, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that there are natural values and morals and religion just perverts these?

I believe our values are constantly changing and one of the major purposes of religion is to give us grounding values to base our lives on.

Science? Not that I know of.....

Well then, allow me to enlighten you.

Science does not give us our morality anymore than it gives us our eye color. But it does help us sort out just where our sense of morality comes from. Did you know that studies of young children faced with moral dilemmas indicate there is an innate sense of morality unaffected by learning but affected by abnormal brain function?

A young child will break rules if coached by an adult, for example, except certain rules. Teach a rule one cannot eat in the classroom, then tell the child it is OK to break that rule and they will have no problem eating in the classroom. Tell the same child to break the rule that says don't hit a puppy, and chances are that child will say, no, that is wrong. This behavior was observed regardless of the teaching a child had prior to being tested.

Culture of course has an impact. And it is not currently hypothesized that no moral learning takes place in infants and toddlers. But it is clear there is more than just learning going on. Remember, in each case a learned rule was changed. Empathy has to be playing a role in the child weighing how a rule of not eating in the classroom differs from not hitting a puppy.

Similar 'moral' rules are also observed in great apes. They will give up their own reward rather than cooperate if they sense something is unfair where they will cooperate otherwise to receive a reward. And recently one researcher found dogs also revealed behavior dependent on whether or not they sensed fairness.

These behaviors result from genetic hard-wiring. They can be affected by subsequent learning and conditioning. But one does not purely 'learn' one's sense of morality. And when certain parts of the brain are damaged, moral inhibitions can be greatly affected. You've perhaps heard of Phineas Gage? While that example is not one carefully studied, subsequent research indicates there are many brain disorders that affect moral behavior such as sociopaths.

Do people learn their morality based on religious rules and identified 'sins'? Of course. But the young children tested who knew a rule about hitting differed substantially from a rule about eating in the classroom did not learn that in Bible school.

In fact, the argument people learn morality from their religion is absurd since we atheists are certainly not immoral. Do you think people really fear hell when they decide murder is wrong? Maybe the heavily indoctrinated, but certainly the average person is not a murderer because of fear of consequences. We fear how awful that would feel.

I can't find all the sources I've read that I spoke of above but here are a number of other sources for related information:

Study sheds light on neurological basis of moral decision-making

The researchers observed that the subjects overwhelmingly chose to preserve equity at the expense of efficiency.

They were all quite inequity averse, said Hsu, adding that the findings support other studies that show that most people are fairly intolerant of inequity.

When the researchers analysed the data they gathered through the fMRI, they found that different brain regionsthe insula, putamen and caudatewere activated differently, and at different points in the process....

...(Together, the results) show how the brain encodes two considerations central to the distributive justice calculus and shed light on the cognitivist/sentimentalist debate regarding the psychological underpinnings of distributive justice, the authors wrote. (ANI)

Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong

Is Taking off Your Hat Indoors a Moral Issue? ...Even children as young as three years have been able to distinguish between moral and conventional issues (Nucci, 1981; Nucci & Nucci, 1982).

How Boys and Girls Differ in Moral Decision-Making...Gilligan’s point can be seen in children’s free play. When boys are confronted with a conflict involving fairness they tend to argue it out or take their ball and go home. On the other hand, girls faced with conflict over fairness will try to resolve the issue through compromise. But if compromise fails, girls will generally change the activity rather than disband the group (Cyrus, 1993).

Piaget’s View of Moral Development ...Children in the Morality of Constraint stage are convinced of the sacred nature of rules. Rules must not be changed, even if they are simply rules for playing a game. However, it is right and fair to ignore rules if they interfere with one’s individual benefit. This egocentric focus is termed relativistic hedonism and is evident when Ernie says, “I can’t share the blocks. I need them!” However, Ernie would be incensed by the injustice of another child’s hoarding of the blocks. Relativistic hedonism enables the child to take from others without feeling guilt because, “I need it.” The child is not being bad or immoral. He is simply demonstrating normal moral development.

Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior

This review summarizes key findings from brain imaging research on both antisocial behavior and moral reasoning, and integrates these findings into a neural moral model of antisocial behavior. Key areas found to be functionally or structurally impaired in antisocial populations include dorsal and ventral regions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), amygdala, hippocampus, angular gyrus, anterior cingulate and temporal cortex.

The Evolution of Morality; Richard Joyce - Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

He carefully examines both the evolutionary "vindication of morality" and the evolutionary "debunking of morality," considering the skeptical view more seriously than have others who have treated the subject.

Chapter 1: The Natural Selection of Helping...

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well then, allow me to enlighten you.

(snip)

Excellent, comprehensive set of responses, there! I may find myself referring back to that post, a bunch of times, in this and other forums.

 

[arthwollipot]

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but here's my (pithy) answer to the question of the title:

Religion has certainty and no questions.
Science has questions and no certainty.

 

[Wowbagger]

Why not simply stick to what history tells us?

That's an interesting approach. I'll have to think more about it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well then, allow me to enlighten you.

Science does not give us our morality anymore than it gives us our eye color. But it does help us sort out just where our sense of morality comes from.

Well, we agree then; case closed.





...



Wait, there's more.

Did you know that studies of young children faced with moral dilemmas indicate there is an innate sense of morality unaffected by learning but affected by abnormal brain function?

A young child will break rules if coached by an adult, for example, except certain rules. Teach a rule one cannot eat in the classroom, then tell the child it is OK to break that rule and they will have no problem eating in the classroom. Tell the same child to break the rule that says don't hit a puppy, and chances are that child will say, no, that is wrong. This behavior was observed regardless of the teaching a child had prior to being tested.

And why does the child draw the line at dogs and not other animals?

And yes, I agree that science can describe how we got our capability of morals, or describe the emotions at play in a decision, or describe the neurobiology that is going on. But none of this is prescriptive.

It doesn't say, "Kicking puppies is wrong." We just used science to observe that the evolution of empathy has a large role in human moral systems as children.

Culture of course has an impact. And it is not currently hypothesized that no moral learning takes place in infants and toddlers. But it is clear there is more than just learning going on. Remember, in each case a learned rule was changed. Empathy has to be playing a role in the child weighing how a rule of not eating in the classroom differs from not hitting a puppy.

Yes, I agree. And? Do we gain prescriptions about how we should act or what the good life is or the goal of humanity by such observations? Not really.

Similar 'moral' rules are also observed in great apes. They will give up their own reward rather than cooperate if they sense something is unfair where they will cooperate otherwise to receive a reward. And recently one researcher found dogs also revealed behavior dependent on whether or not they sensed fairness.

Again, observation of an evolved pattern in certain organisms. They have a moral capacity for "fairness". There is no prescriptive property.

These behaviors result from genetic hard-wiring. They can be affected by subsequent learning and conditioning. But one does not purely 'learn' one's sense of morality. And when certain parts of the brain are damaged, moral inhibitions can be greatly affected. You've perhaps heard of Phineas Gage? While that example is not one carefully studied, subsequent research indicates there are many brain disorders that affect moral behavior such as sociopaths.

Do people learn their morality based on religious rules and identified 'sins'? Of course. But the young children tested who knew a rule about hitting differed substantially from a rule about eating in the classroom did not learn that in Bible school.

In fact, the argument people learn morality from their religion is absurd since we atheists are certainly not immoral. Do you think people really fear hell when they decide murder is wrong? Maybe the heavily indoctrinated, but certainly the average person is not a murderer because of fear of consequences. We fear how awful that would feel.

I can't find all the sources I've read that I spoke of above but here are a number of other sources for related information:

Study sheds light on neurological basis of moral decision-making



Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong



Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior



The Evolution of Morality; Richard Joyce - Table of Contents and Sample Chapters



Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

I think you've missed when I said:

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 don't see how science can enter a field where you can't empirically test anything.

 

[bronson]

I once did six weeks of an ethics course as a part of a fourth year in Psychology. The lecturer was a mega catholic and had a PhD in ethics. You would think that a person of her position would argue for the naturalistic fallacy, that no factual statement like "our morals are embodied in the brain" or "evolution tells us moral X is innate" can actually prescribe which morals we should live by. But no, she absolutely rejected the naturalistic fallacy (there are philosophers that argue against the naturalistic fallacy), and was a firm believer that scientific research should inform morals. In fact, she argued that it is the scientists’ responsibility to become an advocate for your data/theory, and to push for changes in public policy.

Keep in mind I don't think she would support any notion like "our morals are embodied in the brain" or "evolution tells us moral X is innate". She was an extreme relativist (and only had a very weak view of what constituted science, read: Lakatosh) and thought any developmental and social research showing that if policy or practice x (like locking refugees up in prison for a couple of years, childcare etc) causes bad developmental outcomes (depression, anxiety, antisocial personality, poor learning outcomes) then it should be abandoned. By the same token she argued that any policy that promotes good developmental outcomes (such as paid maternity leave, childcare yes its controversial, bilingual teaching) should be advocated. Her chief piece of evidence for how science informs what we should do is the climate change debate where science has had a clear impact on social policy and what people think is wrong and right. Now we have a pope calling pollution of the environment one of the 7 modern sins. Go figure. Science has informed what constitutes a sin (according to the Catholic Church). I'm not too sure I believe this story, but it's what she thought.

 

[Darat]

Why not simply stick to what history tells us?

Science as we currently know it was developed by religion to explore and understand the natural world. Whereas religion is an exploration and understanding of considerations beyond the natural world. You don't have to believe in or accept either religion or that there is anything beyond the natural world to grasp and understand this history, and it is a pretty clear explanation of the accurate relationship involved between science and religion.

I have to disagree: if you look at the older religions they were an exploration of the natural world and an attempt to understand the natural world, they failed at this because the tools they used didn't work to explain or explore the world.