Ok - Would you go for this?

Question

Imagine I show you a coconut, and make the claim that inside the coconut there is a liquid fluid which is drinkable.

At this point you can believe me or not. We can discuss forever whether there is a drinkable liquid fluid in the coconut or not. This is the point where religion is residing, putting faith in the existance or not.

Science takes a step further, investigates, and chops the coconut on the middle and provides you with the evidence of the first claim directly into your hands.

Religion offers an thought/speculation only, which cannot be verified nor tested. (Belief/Faith)
Science offers a evidence, which can be verified and tested.(Fact/Knowledge)

Would you agree, that this is the difference between religion and science?

Would you also agree that the one making a claim, should also be the one providing the evidence to sustain the claim?

NOTE: This is NOT to bash Christians!!!!

Answer 1

yes i agree

it seems the religious dont hold the same view

i have been told by christians and muslims prove that god doesnt exist and my answer (which they see as them winning the argument) is this you claim there is a god you have t prove it not me

over all an excellent question and a great avatar as well

Answer 2

That's a good question.


I'm not a big fan of ex-secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, but he said something rather intelligent a few years back that applies here (and he caught flack for it because most of the press corps was too stupid to understand it).

He said "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

This is an important quote because it shows that just because we don't know about something does not mean it doesn't exist. (Raido waves were bouncing around the universe for millions of years before Marconi discovered a way of detecting them... germs were living and causing disease for billions of years before we came across the germ theory of disease. The Sun was undergoing fusion for billions of years before people figured out what was going on up there.)

Human knowledge has limits, but just because something lies beyond the limits of human knowledge does not mean it doesn't, or can't exist. (It just makes it an "unknown unknown".)

Science is great for "known knowns"... it is designed for things you can measure and test... (a theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific... the exact term is "falsifyability"). This is how science makes the unknown known.

However there are lots of things we know that can NOT be measured or are NOT testable or falsifyable. For exampe, how would you go about testing history? You can't KNOW who Jack the Ripper was, or what happened to the crew of the Marie Celeste, or what happened at the Roanoke Colony... you can theorize, you can guess, but it is just not something you can measure or test. The answers to these questions are not discoverable by science.

Notice however that this does not imply that the Roanoke Colony, the crew of the Marie Celeste and Jack the Ripper did not exist. We can't tell who the Zodiac killer was... but we know for a fact he existed, and we know that whoever he was he had a name and an identity... we just can't know what that name and identity is. ( I guess that would be a case of a "known unknown".)

The point is, science, as great as it is, has its limits. There are some things science simply can not, and will not, ever, be able to know.

That does not mean that those things that are not testable or measureable are not true, are not real, or do not exist (can you measure your mother's love?). It just meand that they are not testable by scientific methods.

There is plenty of evidence for miracles (look at Fatima and Lourdes for example)... but not all of it is testable. Even the miracle cures can't be "proven" to be a miracle... all science can do is say "Given what we know, it shouldn't have happened, but it did happen and we have no idea why or how."

Science can only take you so far... and when science reaches its limit, when science breaks down, you have to go with faith.

Answer 3

Yes, I agree that your take on the difference between religion and science is good. However, you have to remember man has always questioned his existence, since the beginning of time. And likewise, there has always been the element of science, why things are and how they work, etc. In regard to your comment as to the one making the claim being the one to provide evidence to sustain the claim--I don't agree. Every person should question and seek answers/solutions. This is not to imply we all can be scientists and personally study the cure for cancer. But we all can question our faith and seek answers either debunking it or strengthening it according to our own viewpoints. I pose to you, as someone who does not consider herself 'religious,' would you rather be an atheist who dies and discovers there really is a God, or a person of faith or dies and discovers there is not? With this said, I would like to mention the fact I firmly believe a person does not have to be religious or believe in any one God in order to be a good person...I personally get very upset with people who tell me I am not a good person because I do not believe a certain way. I contribute to my community through volunteering and financial contributions, I go out of my way to help others, even if it is just to bring a smile to someone's face, and I always try to put myself in the other person's 'shoes.' Just because I don't go to church every Sunday doesn't mean I am not a good person, and I do not need the bible to tell me how to treat others. :-)

Answer 4

Well I appreciate the respectful question I really do.
The thing is here is what happened with Creation for instance. We have faith we were created by God and someone else has faith we came from no where.
so both scientists cut the coconut in half and examine it.
(study the earth)
the non believing scientist says well I see some coconut milk but I examined it with my radio metric theory and I say it's not coconut milk but something else. I can't prove it's coconut milk I think it's banana milk that somehow got into the coconut. The Christian says yes I see Coconut milk here and has several people examine and they say Yes it's coconut milk. The unbelieving scientists say "you are just saying that because you already had a pre-conceived notion to believe God".......so your examination is not valid!

the christians say "well you choose not to believe God and say it's not really coconut milk because you are against God"

and there you go
headlock. standstill.
what to do?
I starred your question it's a good one. And wow it doesn't even validate me. LOL

Answer 5

ok what yo do is take the coconut milk some green curry a few bamboo shoots and some fresh shrimp. throw it all in a pot and bamm ohhh i love Thai food.

seriously. yes that is basically true however there are some things science cannot answer sometimes detecting the coconut milk can be very difficult if not impossible and now with the # of proven dimesions there are and we are only in 4 of them. mmmm very tricky.

you got past my cow you must be very good!!

Answer 6

you answered your own question. science has proof religion has faith. if you do some research you will find that most religious beliefs are found false by science this is because back then all people had was belief because science wasnt advanced enough to prove it other wise. the bible is based on aliens think about it and do some more research on that. again back then people had no idea about aliens so there you go back to belief and faith.

Answer 7

One could use that as the defining difference between religion and science, although I wouldn't. For me, the difference is that science studies the material universe while religion works on the spiritual side. Science answers questions that religion doesn't even consider. Religion answers questions that science can't address.

I do agree that the one making the claim should be the one to provide evidence. I have provided some of the evidence for my belief in God here many times. By it's nature, though, not all of the evidence for God is objective.

Answer 8

I agree, but not completely. That's ONE of the many differences between science and religion. It's not that simple.

Answer 9

You either believe or you don't. which means you either have faith in God, and even if you pray for something and don't always get it, it may be that God is wiser than you and knows better what is good for your happiness. Its ok to say you believe but ones actions proves it.

Also I agree that scientists have minds that cannot accept what cannot be proven. But the curiosity is there enough for them to spend there whole life trying to disprove or prove what cannot be explained by man's conception of what is normal. Only the actual sight in front of your eyes, unable to see anything else there, while others are granted to see and believe its in the heart and very difficult to explain but you know, because the warmth of love is there, and there is this feeling of never being alone even though you are. Its not scary more like someone you can always talk to who is there just by thinking His name. I feel it. That is my proof, I don't need to have seen the miracles He performed I believe that He did and more than can be written.


You sound like you have a scientific mind there is nothing wrong with that, but asking for proof of God's existance in the way you would like it you will never get, it is against what we believe in, this is why we call it faith.

Answer 10

This makes more sense than any other question here today in R&S. And there will still be Christians saying you're wrong.