What is the real difference?

Question

The thing is that Science is not much different from religion. You have consenting and dissenting opinions in science as well as religion. Science, though people say can be proven, is based on a wide range of theories that can not really be proven. You have to have faith to believe in science as well as faith to believe in God. No one can really say that there truely is evolution or that there was a big bang. But you have faith that there was and is, right? The same goes for Christianity and any other God based religion.
I think that if there was evolution, or if there was a big bang, or that if all these theories in science is true......then God created it.
Why should we fight amongst ourselves about what we deem to be true or not, if it all requires some level of faith? Then, why should it be bad that someone just want to believe in something? That someone would want to believe that there is something better? That there is something more than this.

Oh but there is evidence. Historical Evidence. Do not deny the truth. The scientific method itself is just a theory. It can not prove all things, this is why we are still debating things like evolution, the big bang, global warming, and so on. I am not saying that I do not believe in science, but both require some level of faith. There is evidence on both halfs of the equation and there is also a need for faith on both halfs also. Why wouldn't God use science? If God created the world wouldn't that mean that God created Science? Wouldn't you say that science itself is a type of religion?

Doesn't Science require FAITH? Yes sure some of it can be tested, but there are some parts that require faith. I just want people to admit that it also requires some level of faith, that is all. If you believe in Science then you will be able to acknowledge this, don't deny it because you do not want to agree with a Christian. But, if you do not agree then all power to you but I know that it does require some level of faith. But people are still not answering my other last questions. The questions after the Science half, where I ask why is it wrong to believe?

Sorry but I am not just talking about evolution. Actually I believe in Evolution.....I just think that God did it. But it does take my faith to believe in both.

Answer 1

Well sweetie, I almost agree with you. There is one big exception, young earth creationists. There is mountains of proof that evolution took place and the world is over 4 billion years old. When actual proof is denied by illogical pseudo science it is comical.

I am with you though, God was the big bang that started the ball rolling on evolution in my opinion.

Answer 2

I disagree. Faith is acceptance without evidence. But science HAS evidence. You don't need to have faith in evolution, because there's evidence for evolution -- lots of it. Same thing with the Big Bang. But there is no evidence at all for the God of the Bible, so that's where faith comes in. They're two completely different things.

Edit: I disagree with you that there's evidence to support the Bible, but you're saying that science requires faith, and it doesn't. The scientific community ISN'T debating evolution, or the Big Bang for that matter; the only place where this debate is happening is among people who don't like evolution for religious reasons. This is from Wikipedia: "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science." -- When only .16% of the group disagrees, that pretty much ends the debate.

And no, science does not require faith. Again, these are two different things we're talking about. If something requires faith, it CAN'T be science. They're completely opposite.

Answer 3

There is a difference between science and religion (and historical analysis and philosophy and judicial review and any other system of analysis used to understand the world or a part of it). Neither is better (in my opinion). But there is a difference, and that has to do with the procedures of discourse (this is a concept from Foucault). Basically, what I mean is that the two different disciplines have different rules for what establishes truth (the criteria for chosing between one claim and another) and who is allowed to establish truth (to exert power). Furthermore, each branch of science (and each different "age" of science) has different rules and speakers, as does each different religion. For example, in science, in general, there is a rule that says that, in order to be accepted, a theory must match with observable data. Furthermore, it must "fit" within the context of other, more established theories. If a person wants to introduce a new theory, and particularly one that is in contradiction to an earlier theory, they must gather data (observational, mathematical, or experimental) that better matches the new theory than the old theory. This data gathering should be repeatable and the methods of data gathering should be open to scrutiny. Now, this is not to say that the identity of the theorist is irrelevant--it is well known that scientific truth is more readily accepted in the discipline when it originates from a previously authorized power source (a well known name, laboratory, company, etc.).

In a religion, on the other hand, it is not generally necessary to gather new data to test new theories. There is a vast difference across religions about who and how new theories are made. In some religions, a central figure (think of a Pope) is the ultimate arbiter of disputes, and can promulgate new theories/claims that believers are supposed to accept as divinely inspired. In other religions (many Protestant religions), conferences may be called, committees, formed, experts consulted, and votes taken. In still other religions, there is no centralized meaning maker (Buddhism, for example). Often, religious leaders or organizations are required to find justification within some form of rhetorical interpretation (Biblical, Koranic, etc.).

So, these two approaches to meaning-making (which is to say, these two approaches to exercising power) are different. One cannot "objectively" say one is better than the other--the very notion of "objectivism" is itself a "truth" that is part and parcel of these other theories, and may itself be criticized or altered according to the rules of discourse. One can argue that a certain approach is better than another. For example, most of us accept that when trying to cure a disease, it is more effective (in a material sense) to use scientific methods of inquiry than religious ones. However, religious methods may inform choices we make within the context of this inquiry.

So I agree with your greater sentiment, that both methods have value, and that the two methods are not as different as they appear (both are, I argue, discursive practices that are always already grounded communities of practice), but I still hold that there are significant enough differences that completely conflating the two is an oversimplication that hurts rather than helps.

Answer 4

"Science is not much different from religion". You should have stopped there as the rest of your question is based on a false premise. It becomes tiresome explaining to Creationists the validity of the scientific approach to truth. Continue with the unverifiable myths, the superstitions, and the Book of doubts, but remember , you live because of Science, NOT Scripture.

Answer 5

The difference is...

You cannot deny science, logic, reason, and observations. Even by the fact that you are trying to prove a point, you have succeeded in proving their validity. It is not faith, but acceptance.

The difference is faith and whether or not you believe it has a tie to reality.

Answer 6

Scientific pursuits lead to results. There's the difference. You don't need faith when you can actually use measurements to show that it's true.

I know you're just out to attack one theory. But leave it at that one theory, let's not waste time.

Once you actually learn something about evolution you probably won't have anything to argue about.

Answer 7

Those to whom understanding comes slowly think understanding requires slowness. Those to whom faulty knowledge comes assume all knowledge is faulty.

Science isn't a system of beliefs, it's a system of learning. It is fundamentally different from faith- in fact, the two are quite the opposite.

Answer 8

The omnipotent creator being theory is wholly illogical. Why can't it just be that all things arise due to causes and conditions... so that when "things" come together in a certain way you get this, and when they come together differently it's something else? Why this need for an illogical concept to "make" everything?

_()_

Answer 9

hypothesis are guesses. theories are things that could be right or wrong, but so far no one has proved it wrong. i agree with your last part except when the beliefs harm others. For the god created it, i would have to say maybe he did or maybe there is none

Answer 10

At the core of science is the scientific method, and repeated OBJECTIVE experience.

At the core of religion is dogma, and specialized PERSONAL experience.

These are completely different things on a very fundamental level.

Religion and science are both completely different tools created to answer completely different kinds of questions.