Science verses Religion.?

Question

Quick question for every and anyone. By the definition of science, science must show 100% truth in any of it’s theories before anyone can consider it an actual fact. By definition religion is not hindered by this. Science is held to a higher standard in terms of truth than religion is, would it be safe to say that it is never really fair to compare the two? In an argument about the true nature of things science pretty much has one hand tied behind its back, when religion does not. Science needs proof, where as religion just needs faith, and faith needs no facts to exist, just people to believe in it. Do you think this is a fair assessment on the subject?

Sun Flower, I have sent a request that your new profile be deactivated. If you can not act like an adult then you shouldn't have the privileges of an adult.

d_chino_m, you are absolutely right, but the question was aimed at what people actually do with science. I wasn't speaking theoretically.

beta_fishy, you missed my point, I was speaking as to what people actually do, not the theoretical.

full gospel shirley, your statement is clearly absurd child logic, and can not be taken seriously.

Answer 1

Einstein's God
Einstein's "superior reasoning power," however, was not the God of the Bible. Though he confessed to the rabbis and priests who came to congratulate him on his discovery of God that he was convinced God brought the universe into existence and was intelligent and creative, he denied that God was personal.

Of course, those clergy had a stock response to Einstein's denial. How can a Being who is intelligent and creative not also be personal? Einstein brushed past their objections, a valid one, by raising the paradox of God's omnipotence and man's responsibility for his choices:

"If this being is omnipotent then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?"

None of the clergy Einstein encountered ever gave him a satisfactory answer to his objection. Typically, they responded by saying that God has not yet revealed the answer. They encouraged him to endure patiently and blindly trust the All-Knowing One.

Regrettably, Einstein lacked the persistence to purse an answer further. He took for granted the biblical knowledge of these religious professionals and assumed that the Bible failed to adequately address this crucially important issue. Of what value, then, could such a "revelation" be?

Lacking a solution to the paradox of God's predestination and human beings free choice, Einstein, like many other powerful intellects through the centuries, ruled out the existence of a personal God. Nevertheless, and to his credit, Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to a belief in a Creator.

I am grieved that no one ever offered Einstein the clear, biblical resolution to the paradox he posed. I am also sad that Einstein did not live long enough to see the accumulation of scientific evidence for a personal caring Creator (see chapters 14 and 15 of The Cosmos and the Creator). These might have sparked in him a willingness to reconsider his conclusion.

Another area of Hugh Ross's book deals with the accuracy of the Theory of Relativity, With measurements now extending over 20 years (1974 - 1994), general relativity is confirmed overall to an error of no more then one part in a hundred trillion. In the words of Roger Penrose, "This makes Einstein's general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science!"

Answer 2

if you were considering religious faiths in general, then yes,science is more factual. If however you single out Christianity then it is different. The bible from the Old and New Testaments teaches that every fact should be confirmed by at least 2 or three witnesses. This has become the basis for the scientific method and the legal rules for evidence in many societies. The Bible itself uses the legal historical method presenting eyewitness accounts, historical settings and recorded history to substantiate its content. Science is a limited tool where the past is not subject to experimentation and therefore gives way to the legal historical method which it lacks. The scientific observations of nature do not conflict with the Bible although some theories which are based on unprovable evidence do.

Answer 3

Yes, that is absolutely fair. Science is the study of how the world works around us. Religion dwells more in what we can not explain, mainly with matters of faith. The two are not the same. I don't think science has a disadvantage. I just think some things are meant to be understood and others not. People of faith should use science. People of science should use faith. Of course theories do this anyway. You can have both at the same time.

Answer 4

This hits the nail on the head. Religion is just made up. IT has nothing to do with truth. The definition of religion has no mention of truth. It has to be faith based and have a belief in a core of ethics. It has rituals and practices in it's cult or group.
Science is completely different. It must prove what it finds. I hear people from Christian beliefs say that the verdict is still out on Darwin. This is utter nonsense. Darwinism is science and proven while Genesis is a story told to simple minded people as an explanation when there was no science.
Science and religion never should mix. Look at what the Catholic church tried to do to Galileo. It would be like mixing journalisim up with fairy tails. If we did that we would have Fox news.

Answer 5

I agree they shouldn't be compared. I find it rather strange that some use parts of Science, such as Evolution, to state that Proves that a Higher Power does not exist. Yet, if you ask the same person who states that if Parapsychology is a True Science, they will say it isn't. So, in that sense, they pick and choose just as much as those who are Rigidly Religious. It just seems silly to me to use these as 2 sides of the same argument.

As for science needing to be 100% correct, it's not quite that firm in it, but it does need to be able to give substantial evidence to support the theory given. Science doesn't have one hand tied behind its back, it doesn't state something as Fact unless it can offer enough evidence to support the theory given. Religion can't state it as fact, simply because it is based in Faith and not observable evidence (we can't observe "God" creating the universe).

So, I'd say it's unfair to use Religion vs Science because they are so different. One can't prove or disprove a Higher Being... hell, they're still arguing over whether or not Aliens are real. *wink*

Answer 6

I would argue that science often doesn't hold itself to 100% surety, though we would be benefited if it attempted more often.

The fairness of a comparison must be determined by the nature of the comparison. It is, therefore, difficult to speak in generalities on the subject. Additionally, a comparison which recognizes its unfairness has a type of fairness of its own.

Science and religion are often compared in many cases when it is not appropriate. Take creation for example. The Bible says that God created all species. Many scientists believe that species evolved from each other. The Bible does not specify the method by which God created these species, so these two beliefs do not conflict.

Answer 7

On the religion side you're more or less effectively correct. The blurb on science is misleading. You should think of scientific theories as a way to organize "facts" or observations. Occasionally, (even predictably), some "facts" are observed that contradict or call into question the "theory." The theory then expands to include those observations or it is superseded by another theory which explains the old and new "facts."

Even a theory whose gross effects we take for granted, e.g., gravity, is known to be missing something that will reconcile it with other scientific theories and their observations (e.g., quantum field theory).

My point? Don't worry about "perfect" theories, or theories becoming "facts." There's no need for them in science.

Answer 8

Much of science is not proof, it is still theory of somone elses. God tells us in 1 Tim 6:20 that if science is contrary to the Bible, then its false science. Its that simple. Even way back then, God knew what science and so called smart men would do.
There are many Christian scients and they laugh at all thats taught in evolution. Even Darwin himself dismissed the whole thing before he died. Its not proven, its just a bunch of pieces if info , leading to a major FALSE conclusion. So, to say scientists proove it. no they dont. much is just simple conjecture. and there is much evidence about the things in the Bible. Do you read the newspapers or hear the news at all. There is a supernatural realsm that a scientist wont ever understand, unless he Knows the Lord. and many of us Christians get to see these things, in miracles, etc. and we Know what God says is true. Watch someone suddenly healed of a terminal illness and then you know about the true God and you know what He says is true, wehter you feel it is proven or not. You are right, it does require faith, but its fair. Cuz, you have a right not to believe it. God forces noone. Faith does need facts and evidence, and yet some things are blind faith, but once you see the workings of God, its not blind at all. YOu do NOT have a fair accessment of any of this, because you dont know God. If you did, you would know. Science is not held to a higher standard. gimme a break. Science says homosexuality is normal. Yet, many have met God and been healed of it. It is mental illness caused by the devil. If they cant help it, not even one would ever be healed. So, science has proof? I think not. Just much supposition. Science says a baby isnt a baby till its born, and therefore justifies abortion. Really? Amazing, and I am a housewife, no scientist here But, we know its growing, so its alive, has human dna. not a monkey, not a frog, just a live human still needs to be in the womb longer. science as fact? Draw fluid from the baby and what do you get? HUMAN DNA. Thats just common sense even, and we need some brilliant??? scientist to tell us its not a baby yet. growing human is a human. if its dead, it wont grow. no heartbeat, none of that. It has dna, and its human, but this brilliant scientist says different and now millions are babies are being killed every day. God is a giver of live, not a baby killer. So, who do I put my faith in? Not your science? But, in the God that made us and made all we see. Rethink your position while you still have time, as Jesus is coming soon. God can forgive you, just ask..

Answer 9

The ellipses (the circle is a special case of the ellipse) are OBSERVED. What you are calling axioms are also definitions. If you define 2 as 1+1, then 3 as 2+1, and so on you define a system. 1+1 doesn't equal three because 2+1=3. Those things you call inviolable rules are not inviolable rules. In Boolean math, 1+1=1. Calling a system of critical reasoning dogma is meaningless. You are redefining the term, then treating everything under your new definition as if it were the original definition. You have just tortured the axioms (definitions) of your argument to death.

Answer 10

Religion has been used to explain natural events, which at the time, had no scientific explanation. As science expanded, however, the Church has been reluctant to relinquish it's faith based explanation. The persecution of Galileo is one example of this behavior.

In our modern times, however, science and religion shouldn't be mixed. Even the Pope has cautioned against repeating the 'Galileo' mistakes with regard to teaching evolution in schools. Since the Pope has endorsed evolution, creationists are having difficulty justifying their Intelligent Design as anything but religion.