Is it okay to compare and contrast science and religion?

ClaZig · Post by **ClaZig** » 18 Dec 2020, 18:36

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 07:37
ClaZig wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 20:04
jokinyo wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 10:41 As far as i know religion is not to be compared to science because in religion there is to believe in a supreme being but since just a theory to be proved
But isn't science exactly that? We believe certain ideas until someone else comes up and proves them wrong. I would actually say the opposite: religion promises certainty and stability, while science is constantly changing and being refuted.
But in a way, isn't religion beginning to be refuted? Beliefs are changing within religion, it's just the Church, in this context, that is refusing to adapt to that, which to an extent is causing more uncertainty and instability. Just a thought!

Well, you do have a point... But oftentimes when this happens a new religious branch appears, right? That's why there are so many different Christian religions, like Lutherans, protestants, Catholics, anglicans, etc... I wonder why we don't see that happen very often in science. What are your thoughts on that?

María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda · 18 Dec 2020, 20:10

Sushan wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 00:40 The author uses her knowledge regarding quantum physics and other philosophical studies to challenge and see the true meaning of the religious teachings that the world has known and believed for decades.

But as far as we know, religious teachings are a set of beliefs that are based on various historical events, cultural values and even mythical stories. Some of these things cannot be either proved or neglected by either science or philosophy.

Considering that argument, is this okay to compare religions with science as the author has done via this book?

I think it's ok because knowledge is ok and can enrich our lives. But some of us (at least me) choose to separate them. I view religion as something faith-based, and no amount of research can change that. But, on the other hand, if some scientists managed to prove that only one religion is true, we would be looking at some serious sociopolitical conflict.

Post by **Atieno Magero** » 19 Dec 2020, 01:40

I don't think it's fair to compare science and religions because they're two separate things. I feel like they can both coexist without discrediting one or the other.

Maddie Atkinson · Post by **Maddie Atkinson** » 19 Dec 2020, 08:50

ClaZig wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 18:36
Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 07:37
ClaZig wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 20:04

But isn't science exactly that? We believe certain ideas until someone else comes up and proves them wrong. I would actually say the opposite: religion promises certainty and stability, while science is constantly changing and being refuted.
But in a way, isn't religion beginning to be refuted? Beliefs are changing within religion, it's just the Church, in this context, that is refusing to adapt to that, which to an extent is causing more uncertainty and instability. Just a thought!
Well, you do have a point... But oftentimes when this happens a new religious branch appears, right? That's why there are so many different Christian religions, like Lutherans, protestants, Catholics, anglicans, etc... I wonder why we don't see that happen very often in science. What are your thoughts on that?

You're right, sects do appear when people don't agree with their Church's rules and break away to create one that fits their values more. I guess each denomination is a result of a refute? I think we do see that in science, but they don't have different names for each different belief. Unlike religion, science is supposed to be unbiased, so when something gets refuted and proved wrong, the new theory is welcomed. So I guess there are similarities between science and religion that allows them to be compared, but they are not the same, if that makes sense?

Shahina C A · Post by **Shahina C A** » 19 Dec 2020, 22:44

I think it's ok for some extent. Religion is someone's personal faith. But if you want the proof for what your religion says, then you can definitely go for science.

Post by **Alys Sterk** » 19 Dec 2020, 23:14

Sushan wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 00:40 The author uses her knowledge regarding quantum physics and other philosophical studies to challenge and see the true meaning of the religious teachings that the world has known and believed for decades.

But as far as we know, religious teachings are a set of beliefs that are based on various historical events, cultural values and even mythical stories. Some of these things cannot be either proved or neglected by either science or philosophy.

Considering that argument, is this okay to compare religions with science as the author has done via this book?

This discussion reminds me of another book on the site called The Biblical Clock. That book made a very good case for both religion and science. I think it's perfectly ok to compare the two, as it may even create a stronger argument for both if there is intergration.

Pearl Hijabi · Post by **Pearl Hijabi** » 20 Dec 2020, 03:15

According to me religion is a belief and science is theory. Comparing these two is a little tricky because it depends on the person who is comparing. Science can be used either way to prove the religious beliefs or to deny them.

ClaZig · Post by **ClaZig** » 20 Dec 2020, 07:27

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑19 Dec 2020, 08:50
ClaZig wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 18:36
Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 07:37

But in a way, isn't religion beginning to be refuted? Beliefs are changing within religion, it's just the Church, in this context, that is refusing to adapt to that, which to an extent is causing more uncertainty and instability. Just a thought!
Well, you do have a point... But oftentimes when this happens a new religious branch appears, right? That's why there are so many different Christian religions, like Lutherans, protestants, Catholics, anglicans, etc... I wonder why we don't see that happen very often in science. What are your thoughts on that?
You're right, sects do appear when people don't agree with their Church's rules and break away to create one that fits their values more. I guess each denomination is a result of a refute? I think we do see that in science, but they don't have different names for each different belief. Unlike religion, science is supposed to be unbiased, so when something gets refuted and proved wrong, the new theory is welcomed. So I guess there are similarities between science and religion that allows them to be compared, but they are not the same, if that makes sense?

In that sense, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Both are different ways to explain what happens around us and is often out of our control. So I think there is a lot of convergence and it's not only possible but also necessary to compare them to understand our society.

Ldpuff · Post by **Ldpuff** » 20 Dec 2020, 08:16

I believe the answer to this question is purely opinion based, as there is no incorrect or correct answer. I feel confident that a believer of either side would find arguments to refute the other side. Personally, I do not believe it is ok to compare and contrast science and religion as they are vastly different. Science is based on facts and truth, while religion is based solely on belief. It is not a seeing is believing sort of thing.

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 20 Dec 2020, 08:28

Wekesa Namuyonga wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 14:57 Science and religion can never agree on the same this so comparing them can be somehow difficult. Let someone believe on either but he can't believe in both it is incompatible.

That is quite correct. Many religious marvels have been scientifically explained, and as a result the marvellous effect has vanished. That has not been received well by the devouts. On the other hand there are religious things that science cannot yet study or experiment about, but the science people just disagree with those facts. So a comparison between these two is not a very pleasant thing

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 20 Dec 2020, 08:31

InStoree wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 03:31 I thought it was more of plaiting of the two than a separation and comparison. Isn't God a scientist too? How else could He create such a fascinating Universe? How can He compare with Him? "Each entity in existence is created with the basic nature (essence) of God," as Dr. Hunt expressed.

That part is quite biased. It is true that the book tries to prove the presence of God. Yet being in that belief, and while thinking that the God has created everything, then there is nothing called a comparison between science and religion, because then science will be a God's creation too. If so those two have to go hand in hand and there won't be anything to compare and contrast

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 20 Dec 2020, 08:34

jokinyo wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 10:41 As far as i know religion is not to be compared to science because in religion there is to believe in a supreme being but since just a theory to be proved

That is quite true. To be religious, you have to believe in some things. If you question them, you will be penalized. But science is not so. Any scientific fact can be questioned, and if enough evidence is present, any theory can be either changed or totally rejected. In that context, these two components are totally different. So there is nothing to be compared

Post by **Sushan Ekanayake** » 20 Dec 2020, 08:38

ClaZig wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 20:04
jokinyo wrote: ↑17 Dec 2020, 10:41 As far as i know religion is not to be compared to science because in religion there is to believe in a supreme being but since just a theory to be proved
But isn't science exactly that? We believe certain ideas until someone else comes up and proves them wrong. I would actually say the opposite: religion promises certainty and stability, while science is constantly changing and being refuted.

Religion might have promised on certainty and stability, but based on what? Purely on beliefs. The moment you question your beliefs, that stability will be cracked. And the one who questions the religion won't be tolerated by the devouts or the superiors in the religion. On contrast, science allows questions. And being based on these questions, new experiments will be done and new theories will be proven while old ones being changed or disproved. So the two are totally different, and there is no way to compare them

Maddie Atkinson · Post by **Maddie Atkinson** » 20 Dec 2020, 09:12

ClaZig wrote: ↑20 Dec 2020, 07:27
Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑19 Dec 2020, 08:50
ClaZig wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 18:36

Well, you do have a point... But oftentimes when this happens a new religious branch appears, right? That's why there are so many different Christian religions, like Lutherans, protestants, Catholics, anglicans, etc... I wonder why we don't see that happen very often in science. What are your thoughts on that?
You're right, sects do appear when people don't agree with their Church's rules and break away to create one that fits their values more. I guess each denomination is a result of a refute? I think we do see that in science, but they don't have different names for each different belief. Unlike religion, science is supposed to be unbiased, so when something gets refuted and proved wrong, the new theory is welcomed. So I guess there are similarities between science and religion that allows them to be compared, but they are not the same, if that makes sense?
In that sense, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Both are different ways to explain what happens around us and is often out of our control. So I think there is a lot of convergence and it's not only possible but also necessary to compare them to understand our society.

I am glad you agree! I think in modern day society it is nearly impossible not to compare them, even if it is in the simplest of ways. To understand religion, science is needed, it can help explain and even prove some of the events that happened in the Bible, creating more theories!

Miller56 · Post by **Miller56** » 20 Dec 2020, 11:06

Sushan wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 00:40 The author uses her knowledge regarding quantum physics and other philosophical studies to challenge and see the true meaning of the religious teachings that the world has known and believed for decades.

But as far as we know, religious teachings are a set of beliefs that are based on various historical events, cultural values and even mythical stories. Some of these things cannot be either proved or neglected by either science or philosophy.

Considering that argument, is this okay to compare religions with science as the author has done via this book?

I think people spend a lot of time trying to apply science to religious beliefs to explain what is unexplainable. I think it is difficult for many people to just accept religious teachings and so they try to use science to explain all things. I am not sure that there is really a comparison between the two.