Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,316 members, 7,780,771 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 09:40 PM

What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? (10805 Views)

666 VS BVN: Another Clash Between Science And Religion / The Fundamental Error Of Atheists And Other Bible Unbelievers / These Are The Fundamental Beliefs For A Human Being (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 11:38pm On Feb 15, 2010
Pastor AIO:

May I refer you to these thread to answer your question.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html

And to this page on the Paul Kurtz thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.64.html
pastor it is evidently clear dat you prefer to tether on the fringes of ambiguity in almost all your statements in those threads u referred me to,
honestly i still dont know what u believe in cuz even deepsight observed the same thing and asked u direct questions which of course u hardly answered,,,,,,
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 11:43pm On Feb 15, 2010
Pastor AIO:

May I refer you to these thread to answer your question.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html

And to this page on the Paul Kurtz thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.64.html
please make my work easy,
do you belief in a personal god?heaven,hell?, just be straight forward , yes or no
if yes r u a christian/moslem?no ambiguities please,
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 11:46pm On Feb 15, 2010
blackcypha:

pastor it is evidently clear dat you prefer to tether on the fringes of ambiguity in almost all your statements in those threads u referred me to,
honestly i still dont know what u believe in cuz even deepsight observed the same thing and asked u direct questions which of course u hardly answered,,,,,,

Na wa o!  You still don't know whether I'm an atheist or theist from all that.  Okay let me see if I can summarize all of that.  

I believe that there is an Author to the universe.  I refrain from using the word 'God' because I find it to be a loaded term with too many connotations that I may not want to carry.  In believe that there is intention in existence.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 11:58pm On Feb 15, 2010
Pastor AIO:

But what are the objects of pure cognition? Why cannot meaning (the connections between events) be objects of pure cognition?

I think we are using subtly different terminology. I chose the word 'sense' to imply more than perception, yet not meaning. It is what I am calling "sense" that comprises perception of, and connection between, events. But, unlike meaning, it does not represent a constraint.

'sense' invites the observer to acknowledge that the smell reminds him of cigarette smoke. (relative)

'meaning' prompts the observer to believe that the smell is of cigarette smoke. (absolute -- a constraint)

So, while I see sense (which includes connection between events) as "objects of pure cognition," my definition of meaning goes further than yours. Meaning prompts the observer to adulterate his cognition by interposing an assumption.

Pastor AIO:
That was why I stated 3 scenarios on my 3 hands. One, that meaning is irrelevant with pure cognition. Two, that meaning can be evidence via pure cognition. And Three, that the meanings accepted are perforce anachronistic because the relationship of meanings are constantly shifting. So before you can formulate the idea that A means Alpha, A would have ceased to mean Alpha anymore. This would suggest that it is not the meanings that are the problem but the conceptualizations and codification of meanings.

I used the term "peculiar" to describe connections between events. (i.e connections are peculiar to their specific events and therefore necessarily anachronistic in the sense you have illustrated.)

Indeed, 'transient meaning' looks increasingly akin to what I am terming "sense".

It may just be that transient meaning has less value than putatively permanent meaning within the instinctive human nature to categorise, simplify and reduce events. Perhaps that instinct to simplify is intrinsically problematic, seeking permanence where there is none.

Edit: I've been spelling 'peculiar' as 'perculiar' all day today! I sensed something was wrong but I couldn't make the connection. How peculiar!
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 12:25am On Feb 16, 2010
blackcypha:

please make my work easy,
do you belief in a personal god?heaven,hell?, just be straight forward , yes or no
if yes r u a christian/moslem?no ambiguities please,

I believe that the world has an Author.  I believe that there is an intention in the creation of the world but that the world can deviate from the intention.  I believe that the purpose of religion is to re align us to that intention.

In Judaism that intention is called Tsedeq

In Islam it is called Al-Fitra

In Vedic Hinduism it is called Rita

In Buddhism it is called Dharma

Jesus called it the Kingdom of Heaven, Basileia tou theos

In China it is called Tao

In Yoruba it is called Ayanmo

So what religion does that make me?  I'm not interested in names and labels.  What I am interested in is whether you know of that intended order in the universe, and whether your being is in tune with it.  From Tsedeq come Shalom, and I don't know anybody that doesn't want peace.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 2:21pm On Feb 17, 2010
Pastor AIO:

I believe that the world has an Author.  I believe that there is an intention in the creation of the world but that the world can deviate from the intention.  I believe that the purpose of religion is to re align us to that intention.

In Judaism that intention is called Tsedeq

In Islam it is called Al-Fitra

In Vedic Hinduism it is called Rita

In Buddhism it is called Dharma

Jesus called it the Kingdom of Heaven, Basileia tou theos

In China it is called Tao

In Yoruba it is called Ayanmo

So what religion does that make me?  I'm not interested in names and labels.  What I am interested in is whether you know of that intended order in the universe, and whether your being is in tune with it.  From Tsedeq come Shalom, and I don't know anybody that doesn't want peace.


u still didnt answer me precisely
do you beleif in heaven /hell ,jesus as the xtians do?ur still evading the question,
you sound more like a pantheist who is tolerant of EVERY RELIGION?
, ironically ur name has PASTOR all over it which presupposes me to belief ur a christian .so why the false  identity?
just answer the questions with  YES OR NO e.g
PASTOR AIO:blackcypha, do you belief in mohammed?
BLACKCYPHA: no, QED
or r u somewhat not convinced in ur beliefs and ur still searching for truth?
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sweetguy10(m): 11:26pm On Feb 18, 2010
This topic (Religion and science) has cause Great catastrophe In the World , Nations Have risen Agains nation , Millions have been Killed , Thousands of Book has been Burnt All because of this same topic , Many has been banished , Many has been Glorified , all because of this Religion and science , Theories has been theorised , Doubt-shaking Experiments Has been carried out , Even to Explain GENESIS 1 , All in the Hope to FUSE religion and science , Bible verses has been Quoted , Supernatural miracle have happened , Still the world stil knows No peace .And I can see the spell is working on Nairalanders too , Fighting each Other , Just Like Galilleo was crucified , , read dan brown's ANGELS AND DEMONS , you will know more about Always-holy RELIGION and ever convincing SCIENCE ,
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by lahips: 12:21pm On Feb 19, 2010
Science is based on HYPOTHESIS, FACTS and DISCOVERIES, while Religion has has its stronghold on just one word known as FAITH.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by CHARLESBENNY: 7:18pm On Feb 19, 2010
I rly appreaciate most responses i read here, i never knew we are this knowledgeable in this country, some ppl hv spoken greatly and others based on their shallowy religious places, by now it should be a common knowledge that religion is more or else those believes that place ppl where they neccessarily wouldn't have loved to be, taking them quite far apart from their innermost sense of harmony, freedom and peace,

the difference,

religion is merely a formation of believes, whatever believe you and your group are able to formulate becomes your religion, that is why they are so many.

science!! it is a body of knowledge and it is one and definite, it is a surer means to salvation cause is tested and proven

Reality, reality is life, it is neither religion nor science. it is that which keeps you and I connected as one, it is the source of existence, it is what you may call spirit, or enegy or life or God, the beautiful thing about it is that, it is who u are, it is who IAM
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 8:08pm On Feb 19, 2010
CHARLESBENNY:

science!! it is a body of knowledge and it is one and definite, it is a surer means to salvation cause is tested and proven

Can something that is proven later be disproved? If so, of what value is the label, "proven"?

Who told you science is "proven"? Why do you believe them?

Would you believe someone who said his religion is "proven"?
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by Iyineda(m): 12:59pm On Feb 20, 2010
Science is tested truth=falsible, but religion is untested truth

@IYINEDA U mean u will accept dat s/tin dat is not tested is the truth?do you reason before postin comments at all?

Yeah, you're right about that. I didn't read that sentence well. I agree with the definition of science, but not with the fact that religion is real truth that does not need to be tested. When I first read it, I didn't understand it that way. embarassed tongue
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 1:29pm On Feb 20, 2010
blackcypha:

u still didnt answer me precisely
do you beleif in heaven /hell ,jesus as the xtians do?your still evading the question,
you sound more like a pantheist who is tolerant of EVERY RELIGION?
, ironically your name has PASTOR all over it which presupposes me to belief your a christian .so why the false  identity?
just answer the questions with  YES OR NO e.g
PASTOR AIO:blackcypha, do you belief in mohammed?
BLACKCYPHA: no, QED
or r u somewhat not convinced in your beliefs and your still searching for truth?

So you are one of those!  Not every question merits a yes or no answer.  Why?  Well, for one, the very premise of the question could be faulty.  For instance the question could be based on a false dichotomy.   The very subject of this thread is a case in point.

What is the difference between science and religion?  This is a false dichotomy.  I have pointed this out earlier in the thread.  It is like asking what is the difference between business and marketing.  
When I read responses like this:
the difference?

SCIENCE SAYS:
HERE ARE THE FACTS, WHAT CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THESE FACTS?

RELIGION SAYS:
HERE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS,WHAT FACTS CAN WE FIND TO SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS?
. . . it is obvious that the thinking here is very superficial and hardly any serious thought has gone into the matter.  Look at your first statement!  Is that how science has really been done in history?  Really?  Do you know anything about the history of science?  Can you give us examples of how science came up with conclusions after observing facts.  I have a few examples that contradict this.  In fact the evidence shows that with most human thought what comes first is the inspiration.  The idea.  And then we go looking for evidence to support or reject the idea.  It is was science calls an hypotheses.  

Remember Mendel?  He is the one that discovered hereditary traits in reproduction.  He got his facts to prove it from studying peas.  But it is known that he doctored his result.  Okay, he turned out to be right in the long run, but still he bent his results to support this strong idea that he had.  Here is a site that argues in his defense:

Mendel didn't cheat , deliberately.
Mendel's results tended to be very close to expected.  R. A. Fisher (1936) calculated pooled Chi-square for all Mendel's experiments.  Chi-square = 41.6  84 d.f. P ≈ 0.99993

P (such good results by chance) ≈ 0.00007

Mendel was scrupulously honest.  He communicated with Carl Nageli, most eminent student of heredity at the time. Nageli wasn ‘t interested in pea data, didn’t understand Mendel’s results. Urged Mendel to work with Heiracium. = hawkweed. Mendel did, but didn’t get same results. Now know is because Heiracium reproduces asexually sometimes. Nevertheless, he described his results in a letter to Nageli. If Mendel was inclined to cheat, he should have done so here, cooked results to make Heiracium obey Mendel’s laws, and maybe he could have got Nageli on his side. But he didn’t.

Most likely explanation: Mendel cheated unconsciously.

e.g.:

Count yellow and green peas from huge bowl, get tired, stop before all done , tend to stop when ratios near expected.  Must decide in advance how many to count!
Unconsciously pick peas so agree with expected ratio.  Sample blind, or use table of random numbers, etc.
Repeat or check experiments which give results that disagree with expectations, but not those that agree.  Common practice, but wrong , biases results in favor of expectations.

Another possibility: Weiling noted three later geneticists got too good agreement with results when used peas.  Suggested gamete sampling not strictly random: maybe the 4 pollen grains produced by one meiosis tend to stick together during pollination (like tetrad analysis), so gamete genotypes closer to equal frequencies than if strictly random.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NoFFPJi-GhMJ:eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/birky/ECOL320Lectures/Sect13.MendGen2Probability.ppt+mendel+genetics+cooked+results&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

Another example.  Einstein's theory of General Relativity was just an idea that he was inspired with.  A hunch, an inspiration such as all scientists have all the time and work on.  The facts and the evidence came much later on.
At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

. . . and I could go on and on and on, but if you don't get the point yet then what's the use.

We all get inspired.  Scientific tradition might require that the ideas we are inspired with are then backed up by experimental data.  Fair enough.  But you point that science starts with the facts is just such total and utter rubbish.


And as for your claims that religion starts with the conclusion etc.   I say not anymore than any other way of thinking.  Furthermore you fail to realise that a lot of what forms the backbone of religions is based on experience.  The experiences might be of a mystical nature or not, but they are ultimately experiences, hence facts like those which support the claims of scientists.  The facts might not be demonstrable facts, but they are facts all the same.  

I hope that the above adequately poo-poos your contribution to the science-religion false dichotomy nonsense.  Now let me move on to your other questions.  

blackcypha:

please Pastor AIO
r u a theist or an atheist , cos most of your statements r philosophical but tend to support neutrality,avbin asking this question and u refuse to answer let me know your stand cos most of your posts tends to support different views at the same time,

Am I a theist or an atheist, cos most of my statements are philosophical  More false dichotomies.  Philosophy is not opposed to religion or to theism.  You don't have to be an atheist to be a philosopher.  This is where your problems with understanding me lie.  In the baseless premises of your questions.  

blackcypha:

u still didnt answer me precisely
do you beleif in heaven /hell ,jesus as the xtians do?your still evading the question,
you sound more like a pantheist who is tolerant of EVERY RELIGION?
, ironically your name has PASTOR all over it which presupposes me to belief your a christian .so why the false  identity?
just answer the questions with[b]  YES OR NO[/b] e.g
PASTOR AIO:blackcypha, do you belief in mohammed?
BLACKCYPHA: no, QED
or r u somewhat not convinced in your beliefs and your still searching for truth?

If there is any one thing that I would love to impart to you here it will be the lesson that demanding for a Yes or No answer is not always appropriate.  Because until one sorts out the premises of his questioning he will learn nothing from a yes or no answer.  It will only get you more and more tied up and convoluted in your error.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 2:34pm On Feb 20, 2010
Pastor AIO:

So you are one of those!  Not every question merits a yes or no answer.  Why?  Well, for one, the very premise of the question could be faulty.  For instance the question could be based on a false dichotomy.   The very subject of this thread is a case in point.

What is the difference between science and religion?  This is a false dichotomy.  I have pointed this out earlier in the thread.  It is like asking what is the difference between business and marketing.

A question is not a dichotomy.

In this case, the only premise is that science and religion are either fundamentally the same or they are not.

I think it is your approach that is causing your issue, not the question.

I just dug up your example. . .

Even if the OP thinks that there is no difference fundamentally that still leaves the idea that they are comparable in a manner that is unjustified. 

For example, I could be a business man and I could employ a marketing consultant.  Someone could then ask what is the fundamental difference between marketing and business?  It would be wrong to say that they are different things because business uses a lot of marketing, some businesses are even 99 percent marketing.  But then it would be wrong to say that they are fundamentally the same thing.

So it is with Science and Religion.  Their purposes are different.  Religion seeks fulfillment in life while Science merely seeks knowledge.  Science can be applied to helping Religion find it's goal.

There! Despite your own argument, you have suggested a fundamental difference.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 3:39pm On Feb 20, 2010
sinequanon:

A question is not a dichotomy.

In this case, the only premise is that science and religion are either fundamentally the same or they are not.

I think it is your approach that is causing your issue, not the question.

I just dug up your example. . .

There! Despite your own argument, you have suggested a fundamental difference.



A question is not a dichotomy, but it can be based on a dichotomy. There is a suggestion in the OP and in the responses to the OP that science and religion are in opposition to each other. So a scientist can't be religious and a religious person can't do science. At least not on the same subject.

I guess my main beef is the suggestion of mutual exclusivity between the two.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 3:45pm On Feb 20, 2010
Pastor AIO:

A question is not a dichotomy, but it can be based on a dichotomy. There is a suggestion in the OP and in the responses to the OP that science and religion are in opposition to each other. So a scientist can't be religious and a religious person can't do science. At least not on the same subject.

I guess my main beef is the suggestion of mutual exclusivity between the two.

Pastor, I do not see how the OP can suggest mutual exclusivity when I am claiming that the two are the same at a fundamental level.

Pastor, I have looked again, and you even seem to agree in post #2.

Neither does the title suggest mutual exclusivity, imo.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 3:54pm On Feb 20, 2010
sinequanon:

Pastor, I do not see how the OP can suggest mutual exclusivity when I am claiming that the two are the same at a fundamental level.

Pastor, I have looked again, and you even seem to agree in post #2.

Neither does the title suggest mutual exclusivity, imo.



I guess I was preempting the way that I knew others would read it. especially the atheists.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 4:06pm On Feb 20, 2010
Pastor AIO:

I guess I was preempting the way that I knew others would read it. especially the atheists.

I know you do not pander lightly to the conceptual limitations of others, pastor. grin

I wonder why you were doing so here.

There is only so far you can discuss sensibly with the sort of atheist who stubbornly reads "the earth is 6000 years old" into the assertion "I am not an atheist."
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 4:53pm On Feb 21, 2010
Pastor AIO:



We all get inspired.  Scientific tradition might require that the ideas we are inspired with are then backed up by experimental data.  Fair enough.  But you point that science starts with the facts is just such total and utter rubbish.

pastor I NEVER MEANT WHAT U IMPLIED CUZ AM A SCIENTIST/ENGINEERING MAJOR, maybe I shud state it properly by saying
science develops facts from tested ideas and reaches a conclusion e.g newtons experiment on gravity.
first he saw an aple fall down from a tree.second he develops an idea [HYPOTHESIS] dat a force acting on the apple  must have made it fall downwards not upwards.
third after series of tests/experiments on different objects,he gets the same effects and  results,  and  measures the force to be 9.81m/s2,"[FACT]
last, he reaches a CONCLUSION  that this force must be called the FORCE OF GRAVITY  that acts on every thing that is matter on the earth.
THIS IS WHAT THE STATEMENT, "here are the FACTS,what CONCLUSIONS can be drawn means."

Pastor AIO:


And as for your claims that religion starts with the conclusion etc.   I say not anymore than any other way of thinking.  Furthermore you fail to realise that a lot of what forms the backbone of religions is based on experience.  The experiences might be of a mystical nature or not, but they are ultimately experiences, hence facts like those which support the claims of scientists.  The facts might not be demonstrable facts, but they are facts all the same. 

I hope that the above adequately poo-poos your contribution to the science-religion false dichotomy nonsense.  Now let me move on to your other questions.
HABA PASTOR !must u be so sarcastic?we r only dicussing and u need to be sure that u interpreted my statement well b/4 drawing conclusions'
MY QUESTION IS THESE MYSTICAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES CAN THEY BE TESTED scientifically?
If not how then do you call them FACTS like  those which support scientific claims?OR do they have thhei way of being tested by mystcal standards?

Pastor AIO:

Am I a theist or an atheist, cos most of my statements are philosophical   More false dichotomies.  Philosophy is not opposed to religion or to theism.  You don't have to be an atheist to be a philosopher.  This is where your problems with understanding me lie.  In the baseless premises of your questions. 
pastorrrrrrr, where did I ever suggest dat  You have to be an atheist to be a philosopher?for once
i have nver tot u were an atheist even b/4 asking u dat question , cuz i have read alot of ur posts, my satement only suggests my curiosity to know ur religious beliefs based on your postings on different threads.PERIOD
Pastor AIO:

If there is any one thing that I would love to impart to you here it will be the lesson that demanding for a Yes or No answer is not always appropriate.  Because until one sorts out the premises of his questioning he will learn nothing from a yes or no answer.  It will only get you more and more tied up and convoluted in your error. 



ok I get the lesson, but cud u now answer my questions now dat i av clearified ur PRESUMABLY wrong premises of my above statenments?
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 12:07pm On Feb 22, 2010
@BlackCypha,

You asked me if I believed in God. This was your original question.
Quote from: blackcypha on February 15, 2010, 11:59 AM
please Pastor AIO
r u a theist or an atheist
, cos most of your statements r philosophical but tend to support neutrality,avbin asking this question and u refuse to answer let me know your stand cos most of your posts tends to support different views at the same time,


I told you that I believe that creation has an Author. Do you classify that as God or not? That is up to you. I don't want to get into any arguments about the definition of God. That world has an Author and the world is imbued with the Intent of the Author.

But then you said this:
pastorrrrrrr, where did I ever suggest dat You have to be an atheist to be a philosopher?for once
i have nver tot u were an atheist even b/4 asking u dat question , cuz i have read alot of your posts, my satement only suggests my curiosity to know your religious beliefs based on your postings on different threads.PERIOD

If you never thought I were an atheist then why did you ask whether I was an atheist or a theist? Was it a rhetorical question? Was it a trick question? Or was it just an opportunity to get me to exercise my fingers on my computers keyboard?

I suspect that you have a series of neat boxes or categories in your mind and you would love to fit me into one of them. I fear that I might not fit into any of the categories you've got lined up for me and that is what is causing you so much consternation.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 6:22pm On Mar 03, 2010
@pastor AIO
just being dead curious nothing more grin grin
BUT from the look of things it seems ur a deist like me, ;
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 7:43pm On Mar 03, 2010
blackcypha:

@pastor AIO
just being dead curious nothing more grin grin
BUT from the look of things it seems your a deist like me, ;

Are you a cat that you want to be dead curious? Remember, curiosity killed the cat.

A deist doesn't believe that God is involved in history. I don't know if I think along those lines. I certainly live and act as if I can appeal to my God and he will intervene.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 3:23pm On Mar 17, 2010
Pastor AIO:

Are you a cat that you want to be dead curious? Remember, curiosity killed the cat.


LMAO grin grin ;
I am not a cat but am curious, and i certainly wont be killed by asking you for replies as the proverbial cat ,  grin
Pastor AIO:

A deist doesn't believe that God is involved in history. I don't know if I think along those lines. I certainly live and act as if I can appeal to my God and he will intervene
but you are quite funny oooooo!why do you assign PASTOR  to your name,cuz your name suggests dat you r an evangelical xtian u will agree with me, please i stand to be
corrected.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by o9999: 11:03am On Mar 18, 2010
Religion - indicates what happened
Science - puts in logic, human reasoning etc to explain the intricates of the what happened

e.g - Religion will says he was told him to move and he moved from point a to b.
science says no - his brain sent message to the nerves and the bones, (explaining what occurs in movement)

Religion - puts the initiator of the actions to a supreme being (GOD, in whatever name any religions chooses)
Science - Puts the initiator of the actions to something

e.g - Religion says, God caused the earth to move and vomited anger (volcano) ------ (explains the initiator as God but does not explain the process of the action)
Science says, the magma heated up to a certain temp and erupted , (explains the process of volcano) ---- but does not say what the initiator of the action

Religion chooses to put GOD when it gets to complicated inexplicable points
Science chooses to put "question marks" or "something" when it gets to complicated inexplicable points

To make this easier

ask religion :- when God said / did, what are the little details of the actions that took place for that to be fullfilled (i think the ans is found in science)

ask science : - what is the 1st thing that caused that action to start, what triggered something that had been in the constant state of rest to start the 1st movement or what triggered something that had been in a constant state of motion to come to rest? (i think the ans if found in religion)
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by sinequanon: 5:40pm On Mar 18, 2010
o9999:
Religion chooses to put GOD when it gets to complicated inexplicable points
Science chooses to put "question marks" or "something" when it gets to complicated inexplicable points

To make this easier

ask religion :- when God said / did, what are the little details of the actions that took place for that to be fullfilled (i think the ans is found in science)

ask science : - what is the 1st thing that caused that action to start, what triggered something that had been in the constant state of rest to start the 1st movement or what triggered something that had been in a constant state of motion to come to rest? (i think the ans if found in religion)

Both religion and science assume a primary mover. Scientists just call theirs "the fundamental laws of science." Both seek to find out more about their primary mover and, in the meantime, fill with question marks those things they cannot "explain."
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 8:51pm On Mar 19, 2010
blackcypha:


LMAO grin grin ;
I am not a cat but am curious, and i certainly wont be killed by asking you for replies as the proverbial cat ,  ;Dbut you are quite funny oooooo!why do you assign PASTOR  to your name,cuz your name suggests dat you r an evangelical xtian u will agree with me, please i stand to be
corrected.

I'm not an evangelical xtian if you mean what I think you mean. Do you think I mean what I think you think or not?

I'm 'pastor' from long before I was actually a pastor. From primary school in fact. 'Pastor elese'. In translation 'the sinful pastor', due to a combination of rascality and zeal for the bible.

Are you now corrected or you are you still thinking what I might be thinking?
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by blackcypha(m): 8:14pm On Jul 19, 2010
yes I do think you mean what you think I think and dat"s dependent on what u mean anyways .
but for wateva reason u wer ascrbed pastor b4 u became a xtian,your deep analyses on issues goes
along way to tell alot about what ur positon on such issues mean,
oh and by the way plz what was ur major?
psychology?cuz u trying to Bleep wth ma brain!LOL,
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by PastorAIO: 8:31pm On Jul 19, 2010
blackcypha:

yes I do think you mean what you think I think and dat"s dependent on what u mean anyways .
but for wateva reason u wer ascrbed pastor b4 u became a xtian,your deep analyses on issues goes
along way to tell alot about what your positon on such issues mean,
oh and by the way plz what was your major?
psychology?cuz u trying to bleep wth ma brain!LOL,

Blackcypha, welcome back to the forum. It's been a while.

I'm not a psychology major. In fact I'm totally self-educated. I no go school.
Re: What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion? by ajoguegbe(m): 8:17am On Jul 20, 2010
I am not ineterested in the difference between science and religion, but the difference btween science and Christianity: Science is a subset of the Christian faith.if it goes beyond the scriptures of truth, its only a matter of time,
Christianity is higher than science. You will enjoy this blog post: http://judewatchman..com/2010/02/once-upon-snake-serpent-science-and.html

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)

Does Fasting Really Starts By 12am? / The Face Of Jesus Appeared In The Sky In Somalia Feb 1st 1992 / Catholic Church Blasts Lagos Lawmakers Over Cremation Bill

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 103
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.