Generic Religion - Science vs Religion

[When the two are in direct conflict, which do you believe?]

When the two are in direct conflict, which do you believe?

Science

 51 (52.6%)

Religion

 21 (21.6%)

Depends

 18 (18.6%)

i have no beliefs.

 7 (7.2%)

Total Members Voted: 90

[bruin]

Yay! I reinstated the tie.

[corbabe]

Um, I am not sure what to say this argument seems to be very confused. however I would like to agree with some of the above posters science is not faith.

[corbabe]

I think the most logical argument would be that neither put evidence of evolution here.  It just happened!

[milkman83]

In the sense you'd like me to accept it, there is no alternative to faith; everything we could ever say or believe is 'faith' in your sense.

well of course it is.  that's the point.  you acknowledge what you choose to take on faith and proceed from there.

this is true.  however, we can take a lot of different things on faith, all the untestable hypotheses and whatnot.  it's important to look at "why" we'd take something on faith versus something else, and the balance of justification tips towards science, but that doesn't mean science wins.

[Thou]

Science presupposes induction which Hume proved is a problem (theoretically).

[Thou]

Yes, my belief in empiricism constitutes a choice on my part.

Would you identify yourself as a logical positivist?

[Stephon Devante]

Religion just enables "but God is on our side, drop the bombs." It's impossible to be wrong. And a system in which it's impossible to be wrong is... clearly not the right one.

To say God is on your side...and to truly have God on your side, is two different things... Claiming God to be on your side may justify your actions to yourself, but ultimately, it is God who will justify your actions... or not. The problem is that too many people take their "faith", based on misunderstanding and lack of true effort to learn what God really wants, and use it as a weapon against other people. This does not discredit true faith, imo.

And as to the evolution argument... just because animals evolve and change does not necessarily mean that humans evolved from monkeys... Everyone makes this into an either/or argument, when I firmly believe that God designed the world to change... since day one, mountains shifted, islands drifted, animal species changed... This does not conflict with "evolution" as such... but believers and scientists differ on the "starting point", I suppose.

[Thou]

science is empirical and universal

religion is internal and individual

there's overlap but the differences overshadow the similarities.

someone else probably said this

im trying to adopt a new style of posting   

The meaning of your statement is not empirical. 

[Thou]

Science beats religion because science tastes like chocolate, and religion is purple. Chocolate beats purple everytime.

Science, or the scientific method, is a set of beliefs; religion is too. Althouth it may seem that science is better because it is based on the observation of 'facts', it can easily be shown that if you eliminate the basic rules of logic, science looses much of its appeals. Understand me ...that's not my view. But I have once heard someone use such an argument when confronted with gross contradictions in his holy text: "truth is not so much a reality as a state of mind". Thus, if proposition A can be true and false at the same time, science can no longer said to be better than religion. The belief that traditional aristotelean logic is valid is part of the axioms of science.

So, if logic cannot be used, you can't settle arguments with facts and deductions, and the concept of truth takes on a new definition. And maybe Q is running the universe after all. And then, you can use the argument at the beginning of this post ... and it all makes sense. Sort of.

Now this is a better example of a strawman. (without the bolded part)

[Thou]

actually, you can prove anything.  you know, the stick in the corner and all that.