What is the significant difference between science and religion?

[LightSun]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/735662885388069/

“I know the Big Bang is the currently accepted theory. I know that the physicists have run computer simulations that support and substantiate this view.

If I took a test and the question was what created our universe, Is it God or the Big Bang? I’d answer Big Bang.

However I would not bet my life or soul that this is the truth. I’ve seen in my own lifetime countless theories overturned.

So privately in my subconscious mind i am much more comfortable believing that the Big Bang is only a current hypothesis.

Who knows how many variables and unknowns there was 13.8 billion years ago. Also I’ve heard that the universe is actually far older than previously thought and believed.” LightSun

 

[The Cat]

Heads or tails. Perspective. Narrative Focus.

 

[Coriolis]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/735662885388069/

“I know the Big Bang is the currently accepted theory. I know that the physicists have run computer simulations that support and substantiate this view.

If I took a test and the question was what created our universe, Is it God or the Big Bang? I’d answer Big Bang.

However I would not bet my life or soul that this is the truth. I’ve seen in my own lifetime countless theories overturned.

So privately in my subconscious mind i am much more comfortable believing that the Big Bang is only a current hypothesis.

Who knows how many variables and unknowns there was 13.8 billion years ago. Also I’ve heard that the universe is actually far older than previously thought and believed.” LightSun

The big bang is an initiation of a process, not a first cause. (What caused the big bang?) Science deals with the physical world, with objective reality that will yield the same answer to everyone who inquires. Religion deals with the spiritual world, with subjective reality that will yield a different answer for each believer. I use the word believer deliberately. Belief is the acceptance of something in the absence of objective (scientific) evidence, based on subjective considerations.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I would say the Big Bang.

The difference between science and religion is as follows:

Science is about trying to figure something out, and trying to accept the answer, although I'm sure personal egos ("I've been studying this for 30 years, no way can I be wrong.") get in the way. It's about discovering what, why, and how.

Religion is about creating order to existence. It has ceremonies for birth, coming of age, marriage, and death. It also provides comfort.

Both can be subordinated to other interests. I would say religion is more dangerous when that happens, because of its power to shape minds. Science might come up with a new weapon, but it might never get used. Religion and movements that follow a similar pattern might be able to get everyone going along with the decision to use that weapon. I can answer the question of religion more definitively when I finish the book I started a few months ago.

A piece of gossip:

There was one occasion when I stayed up all night in college trying to finish some paper for tomorrow's deadline. I desperately needed a rest, so I went to watch the sunrise. Then, a thought, almost a vision occurred to me. I started thinking of truly ancient history. I pictured an emergence from the big bang, and out of the plasma arose stars and then planets. Some of the planets gave birth to life in the oceans, and life crawled out of the oceans and then became people. People, well, they evolved too. They evolved intellectually and morally; they built bigger and more impressive communities with more elaborate structures. The last part wasn't "unnatural"; it was part of a universal trend that fit in with the general overall pattern.

The pattern is complexity evolving out of simplicity. It's a natural process, but the prevalence of it suggested there was some kind of principle at work, and I didn't have an issue with calling it God at the time.

That particular vision is now closed off to me. I can't see the pattern of universal evolution as a continuous trend. When I look around, all I see is decline and decay.

Exhibit A is the emergence of a new Cold War.

Exhibit B is how the concept of space travel has developed. I'm contrasting the idea of the International Space Station with Elon Musk. The idea behind the ISS was that it was a place for cooperation between nations; in other words, it matched Gene Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek. That vision is old-fashioned; the new model for space travel is Elon Musk, a billionaire white nationalist.

Tomorrow looks less like Star Trek and more like Iron Sky. Trends that once showed promise and potential now only exist in a corrupted form.

In summary, I think we blew it and we're at the beginning of the fall. It's hard to see some transcendent beauty and order that underlies everything, given that.

 

[The Cat]

I don't really think there is one. Science, religion, philosophy three sides of the same pyramid. Some people seem to need to hold one above the others for reverence, and that fascinates me as well as leads me to consider that everyone worships or reveres something in their lives as sacred, moreover many want that same reverence to be given by others to be perceived as rational or sound. But from my personal perspective you cant build a pyramid with less than four sides so I tend to figure that respecting, religion, science, philosophy and mathematics and finding ways to harmonize them rather than fostering division over them would be the more enlightened thinking. But my understanding of humans is most tend to want to narrow everything down to one thing or another they can consider right and sound and put everything into believing in. Which I reckon I can understand that sentiment, but sometimes I think it would do folks a service to their sanity to consider the probability that just as often a lot of things add up to or expand into one thing and sometimes that one thing is many things. Now I know that a lot of folks are gonna take umbrage with what might be taken as irreverence on my part for the sacrosanct elements of the four sides, but honestly I just see more ways it adds up than it doesnt, outside of competition for recruitment and funding purposes.

 

[ygolo]

Consistently repeatable experimental and observational evidence.

 

[Coriolis]

In my "science for non-scientists" class I presented it as a three-legged stool: science, faith, and arts/humanities. We need all three to be stable, as a society and as individuals. Each treats different questions in different ways. Important questions require input from all of them.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In my "science for non-scientists" class I presented it as a three-legged stool: science, faith, and arts/humanities. We need all three to be stable, as a society and as individuals. Each treats different questions in different ways. Important questions require input from all of them.

What is one question requiring input from all three?

 

[Coriolis]

What is one question requiring input from all three?

What is the best way to address a pandemic like COVID 19? Obviously you need the science of how the virus is transmitted, mutates, and can be neutralized/blocked. You need an understanding of the society in which you are trying to address it, to include laws, politics, customs, social inclinations. This helps you know the best way to put what science tells you into practice, in the existing economic, social, and political climate, to include mitigating any negative side effects, e.g. business shutdowns, school closures, even handling predictable emotional reactions that could work against the scientific solutions. Much of this falls within the humanities. Finally, you need to be guided by some fundamental moral principles as you implement the identified measures in your social and cultural context. These might involve values like fairness, minimizing human suffering, even prioritizing the pandemic over other serious but less acute issues. People of faith usually find these values within their religious experiences, but even avowed atheists will inform their own moral compass from somewhere, perhaps secular humanism, one or another of the world's great philosophers, or even the practical example of whoever raised them.

Any significant question can be broken down in this way. Science usually will tell you what to do, humanities will add the social/human context, and faith/morality will give the underlying values or motivation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What is the best way to address a pandemic like COVID 19? Obviously you need the science of how the virus is transmitted, mutates, and can be neutralized/blocked. You need an understanding of the society in which you are trying to address it, to include laws, politics, customs, social inclinations. This helps you know the best way to put what science tells you into practice, in the existing economic, social, and political climate, to include mitigating any negative side effects, e.g. business shutdowns, school closures, even handling predictable emotional reactions that could work against the scientific solutions. Much of this falls within the humanities. Finally, you need to be guided by some fundamental moral principles as you implement the identified measures in your social and cultural context. These might involve values like fairness, minimizing human suffering, even prioritizing the pandemic over other serious but less acute issues. People of faith usually find these values within their religious experiences, but even avowed atheists will inform their own moral compass from somewhere, perhaps secular humanism, one or another of the world's great philosophers, or even the practical example of whoever raised them.

Any significant question can be broken down in this way. Science usually will tell you what to do, humanities will add the social/human context, and faith/morality will give the underlying values or motivation.

Are you drawing a distinction between humanities and social sciences? Where would you draw the line?

Lately, I've thought that too often (although not always) religion decides that there are those to whom moral rules do not apply. Instead of providing clear moral examples and lessons, there is instead indoctrination for political purposes.

 

[Coriolis]

Are you drawing a distinction between humanities and social sciences? Where would you draw the line?

Lately, I've thought that too often (although not always) religion decides that there are those to whom moral rules do not apply. Instead of providing clear moral examples and lessons, there is instead indoctrination for political purposes.

I draw the line where things become subjective. If we are talking about psychology, for instance, in a way that focuses on brain chemistry, relies on objective data, etc. that is more of a science. If we are looking at the subjective behavior, thought, emotion of individuals and groups, I would consider that humanities.

What you describe in terms of religion is a human-created institution being misused by humans to cater to their baser drives and instincts. This still fits the model, though, as someone holding an exclusionary religious view will have a very different moral component to their overall reasoning and action than someone who, for instance, actually follows the example of Jesus.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I draw the line where things become subjective. If we are talking about psychology, for instance, in a way that focuses on brain chemistry, relies on objective data, etc. that is more of a science. If we are looking at the subjective behavior, thought, emotion of individuals and groups, I would consider that humanities.

What you describe in terms of religion is a human-created institution being misused by humans to cater to their baser drives and instincts. This still fits the model, though, as someone holding an exclusionary religious view will have a very different moral component to their overall reasoning and action than someone who, for instance, actually follows the example of Jesus.

Oh. The humanities = the study of humans. Maybe it's obvious but I just got it.

I don't think these differences in moral reasoning are always so obvious. They can be more subtle.

 

[Coriolis]

Oh. The humanities = the study of humans. Maybe it's obvious but I just got it.

I don't think these differences in moral reasoning are always so obvious. They can be more subtle.

Humanities is the subjective side of human life and creativity. As such it includes not only psychology and sociology, but also history, economics, literature, and the arts. Some people may argue that psychology and sociology are closer to science. Depends on what aspects you are studying and how. History is especially important in providing context for any decision. It shows us how things came to be as they are now, and suggests how various changes or actions might affect the future, including/especially outside the intended sphere.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Humanities is the subjective side of human life and creativity. As such it includes not only psychology and sociology, but also history, economics, literature, and the arts. Some people may argue that psychology and sociology are closer to science. Depends on what aspects you are studying and how. History is especially important in providing context for any decision. It shows us how things came to be as they are now, and suggests how various changes or actions might affect the future, including/especially outside the intended sphere.

History and it's cousin archaeology are extremely important, the main difference not being the amount time but essentially whether or not written records are studied. What comes across better for me with archaeology is the concept of time. Suppose you see these pieces of jewelry made for a king and queen, so that they can show everyone how great they were. Nothing is remembered about them now, and only the jewelry remains (the names may even be lost entirely); it's almost like a Twilight Zone episode. They had those things made to show everyone how great they were, and now they are entirely forgotten except for those things; they've become eclipsed by those things for which they hoped to be known and everything else has vanished. That kind of perspective is important; to bolster your point, better decisions would be made if more kept that perspective in mind. People who put their names on to the front of skyscrapers most assuredly do not have that perspective.

 

[LightSun]

I shared two posts on Neil deGrasse Tyson page. I’ll give Part I. and then afterward Part II.

Part Two:
“I’m not being facetious. It’s just everybody is repeating the same thing over and over. It’s a waste of life, energy and time.

"Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves

believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” Joseph Campbell

"A believer will not in any way convince a non-believer with using reason, for it is felt. I am of the belief that it is incorrectly labeled as coming from a higher power.

A nonbeliever will conversely be unable to convince a devout believer to ascribe with a view they hold.

Let's live, love each other and leave every one alone. This is just my feelings plus thinking on the matter. It's just happens to be my stance when religion arises.

One can label that God. There is no direct truth. There are inferences and suppositions. However one can feel that there is a god, and therefore there is a God.

I will humbly make this statement, what I think, feel, believe passionately may be wrong. I may be wrong and not know it. Now the reverse is true. Those that believe may be wrong."

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.” Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 A.D.) (Roman Emperor and Stoic Philosopher)

“Be a good (gentleman or man of virtue) and heaven will take care of itself." Confucius

Marcus Aurelius and similar in nature to a quote of Confucius both reasoned statements without being derogatory. Too me this is sensible. Let those who believe, continue to have belief.

Let those who don’t believe, allow them to have the right to continue not believing. What people insensitively don’t grasp if they use attacking statements of the other side, is this fact.

The other person’s perception of reality and truth is just as real as the position you hold. I have a saying, “I don’t care what you believe or don’t believe. As long as you have positive energy and seek to be the best person you can.

Let’s focus on our similarities. Let’s not be judgmental and castigate a person who holds a different view. Instead let’s work together to make this a better world.” LightSun

 

[LightSun]

I shared two posts on Neil deGrasse Tyson page. I’ll give Part I. and then afterward Part II.

Page One:

Quotation
“The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.” Carl Sagan

Quotation
“The more I look at the universe, the more I am convinced there’s no God.” Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quotation
“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.” Stephen Hawking (1942-2018).

“The universe (God) is neither kind nor unkind. The universe is neither loving nor unloving. The universe is neither fair nor unfair. The universe is neither just nor unjust. The universe is impartial and indifferent.” LightSun

“I’m with Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking. Much of the turmoil of the human race is the cognitive distortion called “Emotional Reasoning.”

No sane, rational creator, or a cosmic overlord would create such a fallible species. This is how I describe Emotional Reasoning.

“Just because I passionately think, feel and believe in something does not necessitate that it is true. Not unless it is proven by hard science research methodology.

Then have those results replicated in the here and now.” Otherwise it is your opinion unsubstantiated. It is a belief with no validity. It is in the person’s unconscious belief system which is projected unto others.” Paul Johnson

“What is death?”

“We each have one chance in life to do the best we can. Once we invariably die, we will not survive in a heaven that lasts trillions of years. We are supposed to work together and make this a better world.

That’s how it’s designed, we live, and try making this a better world than the one we ourselves grew up in.

Then it’s the next generations turn to build upon what we in this generation accomplished.” LightSun