Philosophy Discussion Forums

Science Vs Religion?

A simple question.
What do you believe in?
What do you believe to be true?
How do you believe the universe works?
How do you think the universe started?
Why do you think we exist?
How do you think we exist?
What do you think our purpose is, if there is one?
What do you think happens when we die?

Most importantly...why?

I am not about to take a poll that speaks of opposites, there is no conflict between science and religion only the conflict others raise. Science is religion today let me explain, science says infinty is a fact, they have math to show us infinty has to be, yet when a theist or religion says infinity is a fact, they get riddiculed by many. So today those who believe only in science for ultimate answers are taking the place of illogical zeolot theists and their ill considered conclusions. EG Its rare I hear a religious person tell me to not believe science, its often I hear an atheist tell me, do not believe in religion just believe in science.

If I believed in science alone I would believe nuclear weapons are logical and sane

Science does not say the anything is a fact. Science does not say that anything is true. Science says only what seems to be most likely according to empirical observation and the application of reason and logic.

Perhaps it is people's unconscious desire for certainty that leads them to believe that science makes categorical statements. It is a sad thing that science has been so mis-characterized and misunderstood.

Religion however has no qualms about making categorical statements, to exude certainty. Perhaps that is why religion appeals to so many.

You ask why?
I ask why not?
You are here, stop asking stupid questions and get on with your life.

Me, I do not bother myself anymore with the pondering of such unanswerable questions. I am content with the pondering of what is, which is also somewhat unanswerable but seems more relevant and engaging.

Unrealist42 wrote:Science does not say the anything is a fact. Science does not say that anything is true. Science says only what seems to be most likely according to empirical observation and the application of reason and logic.

I agree Science is just a 'likely story' which we have no compulsion to agree with.

Priest: God exists.
Prof: It is likely that God does not exist.

Priest: I'm certain, God exists
Prof: I'm not sure but I think it's likely that God does not exist.

Priest: You don't sound very certain?
Prof: Oh but I am certain, I'm certain that; I'm not sure and I think it's likely that God does not exist.

I sincerely (as opposed to cynically) take part in professional science and believe in God. Thus I feel your options are a little narrowly construed--that and you should define what you mean when you say, "science" and "religion."

means go ahead.. Alot many people says that there no God so tell me one thing have any one creat any atom any molecules.. they made a cell but with help of things which were already present in nature.. they only discover things not actully made them.. they only mix substances together and invent new thing but they dont knw that some where its allredy existing in this universe and God created them.. all scientists says that there is no end of this universe, is it possible? no its not.. scientists invent roborts, roborts can do any thing, they an walk on merury surface, they can swim in atlantic ocean, they can fly, they can distroy, they can do things with there programing which they have and we human made that mother board. they can perform better but can not think.. just like that only God created our mind and still we guys are using 10-15% of our brains and we have achive so and if we will use our whole power then also we will not find creater but we will be so closer and our up coming species will advanced them with high power of mind.. we havent use our full brain yet then also people are saying there is nothing like God.. i want to say that first discover your self fully then make a conclusion..

I added numbers to your question so I can address them easier:

PennyKay wrote:Science Vs Religion?
1. Do you believe in science or religion?
2. What do you believe in?
3. What do you believe to be true?
4. How do you believe the universe works?
5. How do you think the universe started?
6. Why do you think we exist?
7. How do you think we exist?
8. What do you think our purpose is, if there is one?
9. What do you think happens when we die?

Most importantly...why?

1. Science, altough I wouldn't use the word believe. It's more than that, for science has proven that it can produce results like the moon landing, the internet, CERN, theories etc..

2. Nothing in the 'faith' sense, meaning I don't hold views for there is no evidence. If by 'believe' you mean things that I consider crucially important, it's reason and compassion.

3. Whatever explanation most accurately predicts the outcome of experiments and situation.

4. According to (more or less) fixed physical laws, that have been determined at the big bang. I think there are billions of universes, each with different fundamental constants.

5. A quantum fluctuation, somehow there was more matter than anti-matter and it set off a chain reaction. I think 'nothing' doesn't exist, there's always quantum particles popping in-and-out of existence.

6. We happen to be in a (one of few) universe that permits life, simply since we're here talking about it. No deeper reason, it happened.

7. I don't understand the question.

8. No absolute purpose, only our subjective goals and views.

9. The same thing that was going on the 13.7 billion years before we were born.

Religion... Roughly 150,000 findable years of history of study, observation, and theory.

Science... Roughly 2,000 years of history of study, observation, and theory.

I tend to listen to mountain climbers about climbing, not gardners.

I see the merits of science, and do not argue most of that which is found by it. However, in this topic, as the question was if we had to choose a primary concept of universal law, then it is Religion... just not a religion that you could name.

Abiathar wrote:Religion... Roughly 150,000 findable years of history of study, observation, and theory.

Science... Roughly 2,000 years of history of study, observation, and theory.

I tend to listen to mountain climbers about climbing, not gardners.

The last major religious work, if we ignore Dianethics by L. Ron Hubbard, was written around 600 CE (the Qu'ran). Why would you prefer 1400 year old 'knowledge' over what we know now?

Furthermore, religion doesn't change. How can any 'method of knowing' be worth anything if it doesn't admit mistakes? Dogma and faith (which by definition is blind) are bad 'ways of knowing'.

Science (scientific method) isn't (shouldn't be) about belief. It's about knowledge, hypotheses or theories.
Or something is "true" or not. We can try to understand anything, belief is not required nor necessary.

Belief is an added psychological (pseudo-epistemic?) layer, the one of opinion, conviction... Why do we choose to (don't) believe this or this. For what reasons, consequences? What are our motivations to close our minds to contrary or disturbing ideas/theories/hypotheses... These are interesting questions. Not "beliefs".
Nothing to do with facts or logic.
Beliefs are irrelevant to "reality".
Anyone can believe whatever they desire, "reality" doesn't care!

@Abiathar:
Religion is a form of science. A childish one.
Human-beings have always wanted to know. First (in the "childhood" of mankind) it was through what we call "religion".
Religion is the first idea that pops into the mind of one individual. It must be the truth as no one has a better, counter (scientific) interpretation, reason to give for this or this phenomenom. And he became the shaman and/or the leader of the clan.
Everything that follows is not reasoning, it's only justifications and gregarious behavior.
Once you believe, your "reality" must be explain through the prism, in accordance of this belief. Therefore, there is no inquiring mind if impaired by a belief. It's a submitted mind... To one's own idea, childishness, lazyness.

To think you can learn anything through belief is a childish and lazy misconception.
The fact that a believer decides he owns the truth doesn't make it so, it doesn't make him right.

I applause the successes in science which has made the world a better place. I think that one day science will be able to conceptualize God. Robert Einstein was on to something, when he was trying to piece together his "unfinished symphony" (the formula which binds everything).

Now, if the bible says that God is the Creator, that He is omnipresent, all powerful and all knowing; then one could only conclude that everything which is alive, living, tangible or intangible,visible or invisible, earthly or heavenly--- all of this, is a part of God.


God is not a figment, its just that some science have not evolved sufficiently enough capture his nature.


True, science can answer most questions but some scientist do not have an answer to God yet.

Creation Science is well on course.

Occam's Razor:

Science = "how" reality exists

Religion = "why" reality exists


There is no inherent conflict. The only conflict is human emotion about the two subjects.

Shane Hanley wrote: True, science can answer most questions ....

How many questions are there?

I belive partially in science, much of it are nonsens and babble like religion.

The culture has gotten it's hands on "atheism" and tied science to it...

Legitimate debate is between two specific opposing views and is based on disagreements about the interpretation of empirical facts, or logical deductions, or morals. So the idea of a debate between "religion" and "science", in itself, perhaps makes no sense because both concepts are far too big. But there are some specific ideas within particular religions that seem to conflict with the discoveries of science. I think this is why the idea that religion and science are somehow in opposition to each other exists so prominently in the public consciousness of the society I live in.

I think, if we were serious about this topic, it would be sensible to try to list some of these conflicts and see if we consider them important enough that they add up to a general rift between "science" and "religion". To be specific:

1. Origins of the Universe, the Earth, life on Earth and humanity.

This is the big one that is probably responsible, more than any other, for the idea, in our particular society and time, that religion and science are supposedly in opposition. The current scientific consensus is well known: Earth is 4.5 billion years old; humans and other life forms evolved from simpler forms, etc. I have read that many followers of Abrahamic religions think that their religion requires them to disbelieve this consensus. Don't know how true or widespread that is. But it certainly seems to be a hot modern topic and seems to be where the idea of atheism being tied to science comes from. If you believe that God created humans in their present form then clearly the scienctific consensus disputes that. Many atheists claim that the role of God keeps getting pushed back - the "God of the gaps" and all that. I read somewhere that the pope decreed that science is allowed to look back as far as the Big Bang, but everything before that is God's territory. If he did say that, I'm sure he was joking.

Err. Can't think of any others right now. Probably shouldn't have done this in the form of a list.


P.S. I love the question at the top: "Do you believe in Science or Religion? Pick just one answer". It's fantastically ridiculous. Almost as good as that comedy sketch where the question of the existence of God was settled by a wrestling match.