Some fundamental differences between science and religion

[Zzyzx]

.

Science (a method of study) is NOT dependent upon any particular claims or theories being correct

Religion is completely dependent upon its claims and theories about existence and actions of "gods" being correct

Science (a method of study) asks NOT that its claims be believed but that they be tested and verified or shown to be lacking evidence

Religion asks that its claims be believed but NOT tested or verified or shown to be lacking evidence

Science (a method of study) seeks verification, substantiation, (or refutation) by disconnected parties or interests

Religion ignores verification, substantiation, (outside reference to its dogma and founding documents) and is adverse to investigation by disconnected parties or interests

Science (a method of study) emphasizes change and new learning

Religion emphasizes status-quo and resists learning that contradicts its beliefs and claims

Science (a method of study) seeks ability to predict outcomes and events accurately and successfully (such as eclipses, trajectory of satellites, occurrence of hurricanes and tornadoes, etc)

Religion has demonstrated no predictive value (erroneously predicts the end of the Earth repeatedly, predicts numerous "messiahs" that have not been shown to be true, etc)

Science (a method of study) attempts to learn about the universe, its contents and relationships.

Religion claims knowledge about "something beyond" the universe (or separate from and/or in addition to) the universe.

Science (a method of study) is focused upon items and events that can be detected

Religion claims knowledge of entities and events that cannot be detected

Science (a method of study) expects its ideas and theories to be modified or discarded as new, more accurate information becomes available.

Religion resists having its ideas and theories modified or discarded and resists new information that contradicts its "knowledge"

Science (a method of study) is designed to to minimize influence of "I believe this is true" and to search for truth wherever it may lead

Religion is based upon "I believe" and purports to know truth without research beyond itself

Science (a method of study) does not attempt to use religion to verify its conclusions

Religion does attempt to use science to verify its claims (but disavows scientific findings that contradict its claims and stories)


Note: Repeating "a method of study" is to emphasize that science is NOT a body of knowledge but rather a means of acquiring knowledge.


Questions for debate:

1) Is the above an accurate and fair representation of fundamental differences between science and religion? Either way, why?

2) Are there other fundamental differences that should be included?

3) Can any of the above be shown to be in error?

[Divine Insight]

1) Is the above an accurate and fair representation of fundamental differences between science and religion? Either way, why?

Yes and no. The answer can depend upon which religion you are referring to.

I would say that your comparison is precisely true in terms of religions like Christianity and Islam. But may not be applicable to other religions.

In fact, I would suggest that none of your comparisons would apply to versions of Taoism to which I give consideration.

2) Are there other fundamental differences that should be included?

When comparing science with a religion like Taoism I would suggest that the main difference between these is that science begins with, and relies almost entirely upon the premise of an objective materialistic reality that is reducible to its parts, whereas Taoism prefers to accept a foundational premise of a holistic reality that cannot be reduced to individual materialistic entities whose existence is not dependent upon their interconnected interactions.

3) Can any of the above be shown to be in error?

Just about everything on your list is in error when it comes to Taoism. In fact, I don't see anything on your items marked "religion" that would apply to Taoism.

Religion does attempt to use science to verify its claims (but disavows scientific findings that contradict its claims and stories)

There is nothing in known science that conflicts with Taoism that I am aware of.


Note: Repeating "a method of study" is to emphasize that science is NOT a body of knowledge but rather a means of acquiring knowledge.

I think it would be fair to describe Taoism in that way as well.

Both science and Taoism are "a method of study". Neither claim to be a body of knowledge beyond the knowledge they have already claimed to have acquired.

As I had stated above, the only difference between these methods of study is that science assumes the unprovable premise of a material world "out there" existing objectively and independent of subjective experience and then builds on that.

Ironically because of this assumed premise science is pretty much stuck with the conclusion that reality is objective, because it begins with this as its foundational premise. This also leads to reductionism in the sense of materialistic "atoms" (not like chemical atoms, but atoms in the original Greek philosophical sense).

In other words, science, by its very nature and premise will naturally lead to a world view of nature constructed of indivual parts, be they billiard-ball-like atoms, or if those become illusive they imagine individual "strings", etc. Science will always be searching for the "Nuts and Bolts" of the mechanistic reductionistic materialistic world that it had premised must exist before it even starts looking for the answers. Science has already assumed that the world must be made of individual parts. So that's what it seeks to describe.

Taoism, on the other hand, begins with the observation "I AM". The only thing we can be certain of, which is our subjective experience. It then attempts to build a model of reality from there outward. For this reason, Taoism seeks answers that are compatible with this premise. Other than this Taoism is no different from science. Like science, Taoism doesn't say what the answers are and it is open to any inquire, suggestions, and theories that may apply to this philosophy. It is dynamic and does not claim to hold the ultimate truth. In Taoism you are more than free to question any of the philosophy of Taoism and improve upon it if you believe you can.

So Science and Taoism are sister philosophies. One assumes the world is objective and reducible to its parts, the other assumes the world is subjective and holistic. They are indeed different, yet in many ways very similar in their approach to inquiry.

To the best of my knowledge they have yet to conflict in any major way. In fact, I would actually suggest that science has been supporting the holistic nature of Taoism in terms of things like Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The idea that the world can be reduced to very well-defined individual parts seems to have eluded science actually. And so even the results of modern science seem to be supporting the holistic view of Taoism over the original reductionistic approach of science.

So not only do I see similarities between Science and Taoism but it appears that science is actually supporting Taoism more than many secularists would care to admit.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


Your post is based on a false comparison. You are not comparing like with like. You have defined science as a method of study. The equivalent in religious term is theology

From The Collins Concise Dictionary

Science: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement

Theology: 1. the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings. 2. the systematic study of Christian revelation concerning Gods nature and purpose.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Science is the systematic method of reasearching, testing and understanding our world/universe based on observations and data - complete with independently verifiable tests.
Religion is a belief system that may or may not exists based on data, and only requires 'personal tests'.

Science is typically trusted because of its methology while relgion is trusted by the honest few based on its hope.

Science is structured in such a way there are few ways to amend it and make it show something that's not true/testable/verifiable.
Religion is structure so that anyone can make almost anything 'true' by twisting 'meanings' and 'concepts' and claimed 'ideas' that aren't tactile.

Science is harder to pass lies on as truth.
Religion allows for lies to be passed on as truth with ease and little effort.

Science relishes errors and proofs
Religion shuns errors and proof

Science requires tests and peer review to be considered legitimate
Religion requires hope and at least 2 people to accept it

The similarities?
Both are created by people

Both are 'words'

Both were created as a means to understand the understandable

Um...

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


Your post is based on a false comparison. You are not comparing like with like. You have defined science as a method of study. The equivalent in religious term is theology

From The Collins Concise Dictionary

Science: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement

Theology: 1. the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings. 2. the systematic study of Christian revelation concerning Gods nature and purpose.

But Zzyzx is still perfectly correct in his comparison.

The "system" that theology uses is to study a specific dogma and make excuses for the dogma, and to treat the dogma as though it is the "Word of God".

So it's not a "systematic study" of the nature of the divine. On the contrary is a "systematic study" of specific dogma under the totally unwarranted assumption that the dogma is already "The Word of God" and this should not be brought into question.

So Zzyzx is right on the money in terms of many of his comparisons:

Religion is completely dependent upon its claims and theories about existence and actions of "gods" being correct

Check


Religion asks that its claims be believed but NOT tested or verified or shown to be lacking evidence

Check


Religion ignores verification, substantiation, (outside reference to its dogma and founding documents) and is adverse to investigation by disconnected parties or interests
Check


Religion emphasizes status-quo and resists learning that contradicts its beliefs and claims
Check


Religion has demonstrated no predictive value (erroneously predicts the end of the Earth repeatedly, predicts numerous "messiahs" that have not been shown to be true, etc)
Check


Religion claims knowledge about "something beyond" the universe (or separate from and/or in addition to) the universe.

Check


Religion claims knowledge of entities and events that cannot be detected

Check


Religion resists having its ideas and theories modified or discarded and resists new information that contradicts its "knowledge"

Check


Religion is based upon "I believe" and purports to know truth without research beyond itself
Check


Religion does attempt to use science to verify its claims (but disavows scientific findings that contradict its claims and stories)

Check

Yep, Zzyzx's analysis appears to be sound, at least for religions like Christianity and Islam.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]


Your post is based on a false comparison. You are not comparing like with like. You have defined science as a method of study. The equivalent in religious term is theology

From The Collins Concise Dictionary

Science: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment and measurement

Theology: 1. the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings. 2. the systematic study of Christian revelation concerning Gods nature and purpose.

But Zzyzx is still perfectly correct in his comparison.

The "system" that theology uses is to study a specific dogma and make excuses for the dogma, and to treat the dogma as though it is the "Word of God".

So it's not a "systematic study" of the nature of the divine. On the contrary is a "systematic study" of specific dogma under the totally unwarranted assumption that the dogma is already "The Word of God" and this should not be brought into question.

The definition is a the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings....

You can invent your own definition but then discussion becomes meaningless.

I like Lewis Caroll's take on this:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'?" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'?"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less."
(Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll)

[Divine Insight]

The definition is a the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings....

You can invent your own definition but then discussion becomes meaningless.

But I haven't changed the definition you have offered.

I simply pointed out the way in which religions like Christianity and Islam apply it to the study of specific dogma that they proclaim to be "The Word of God".

Thus vindicating Zzyzx's observations with respect to Christianity and Islam.

[bluethread]

The definition is a the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to other beings....

You can invent your own definition but then discussion becomes meaningless.

But I haven't changed the definition you have offered.

I simply pointed out the way in which religions like Christianity and Islam apply it to the study of specific dogma that they proclaim to be "The Word of God".

Thus vindicating Zzyzx's observations with respect to Christianity and Islam.

No, Bebe pointed out that theistic study is not religion, it is theology. Without refuting that, you insist on using the term "religion" to refer to a course of study. I propose that the proper order of terms is christianity(philosophy), theology(study), hermeneutics(evaluation of documentation), religion(practice). An example of a similar order of terms that includes science would be humanism(philosophy), science(study), replication(evaluation of documentation), medicine(practice). These are not by any means exclusive lists. I am just presenting them to show the proper levels to compare. There are those who use humanism(philosophy), sociology(study), textual criticism(evaluation of documentation), community organizing(practice). This order of philosophy, study, evaluation of documentation and practice are often conflated and/or misapplied. This is often at the root of much misunderstanding and/or deception.

[Bede]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]



Very well put.

[Divine Insight]

No, Bebe pointed out that theistic study is not religion, it is theology. Without refuting that, you insist on using the term "religion" to refer to a course of study. I propose that the proper order of terms is christianity(philosophy), theology(study), hermeneutics(evaluation of documentation), religion(practice). An example of a similar order of terms that includes science would be humanism(philosophy), science(study), replication(evaluation of documentation), medicine(practice). These are not by any means exclusive lists. I am just presenting them to show the proper levels to compare. There are those who use humanism(philosophy), sociology(study), textual criticism(evaluation of documentation), community organizing(practice). This order of philosophy, study, evaluation of documentation and practice are often conflated and/or misapplied. This is often at the root of much misunderstanding and/or deception.

But that is just an empty argument of semantics, especially in the case of religions like Christianity and Islam.

What do these religions "practice"? They practice and more importantly preach to others the teachings of their respective theologies (i.e. studies of their religious dogmas)

So the semantic arguments that you and Bede are attempting to put forth have no significance. Even if we accept your semantic arguments the end result is that Islam and Christianity are doing nothing other than practicing what their respective theologies teach.

So nothing has changed by making these arguments of semantics.