The Difference Between Science and Religion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Difference Between Science and Religion
in Religion

By Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts

Some say that science and religion are both belief systems. The problem with this thinking is that it is completely wrong for one very simple reason.

Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood.

Believing in something requires almost zero learning, you just believe it and that's it, you are good to go. Science on the other hand takes study to understand so it's not easy, it's hard work and it can take a long time to achieve an understanding of it.

Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it.

To illustrate this point I leave you with this question:

Do you understand how an internal combustion engine works or do you believe in it?


PlaffelvohfenAlexOlandZombieguy1987ZeusAres42AlofRIethang5



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    I would like to add something: Even if a scientist is not sure about a theory or a hypothesis but thinks there is a good chance that it might be true, they still do not say they "believe" in that idea. "Belief" means that you are sure of something. This is also a very fundamental distinction between science and religion. Science admits that there are things unknown to us while religion fills that gap with random information. This is the reason religion attracts a lot of people. The majority can't be content with not knowing so they rather accept false information.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • maxxmaxx 51 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe@Dr_Maybe i think if one went far enough back into the past one may find they were both attemps to explain the unknown, it is possible that religion was mans first attempt at science, trying to explain cause and effect; yet over time religion and science separated. it is almost obvious that religion or what led to religion came long before any ideas of science. we may never know but it is probable that science is a branch that stemmed from the original ideas of religion: trying to find what the world was about.
    AlexOlandZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 288 Pts
    On the surface, I think both religious people and scientists share a mixture of both understanding and beliefs about what they understand and believe in.

    Beneath the surface, however, there is the "why" is it that each believes what they believe and the answer I will give here is that it is because one is grounded in pure blind faith whereas the other has its roots in an accumulation of theoretical knowledge and/or practical application. 
    AlofRI

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlofRIAlofRI 212 Pts
    @AlexOland I agree with some of what you said, but, if I just "believe" a fact is a fact, I am not necessarily SURE, I just believe it to be true. 
    If I'm not SURE, religion will not fill that gap. I AM sure that religion is not fact.... I just don't believe it to be true.  
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @AlofRI You seem to be confusing two different definitions of "belief".

    "Not believe" means lacking a belief in something therefore you can indeed say that "I do not believe in religion but I am not sure." like you have explained. Because "not believe" is not the same thing as "disbelief".

     But just "believe" means "accept". You cannot say "I believe you but I am not sure." because you would be contradicting yourself. You cannot both accept what someone says and not be sure about it. 

     I think you are mixing up the two definitions of "belief": 
    1- accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
    2- hold (something) as an opinion; think.

     We use the second one in our daily speech. But we usually use the first one in philosophy. For example, if you say: "I believe that god exists." or "I believe that the holy book is true." nearly no one will think you are using the second definition. But if you say: "I believe we've already met." everyone will understand that you are using the second definition. 
    AlofRI
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe ;

    Do you understand how an internal combustion engine works or do you believe in it?
    There is nothing to believe the internal combustion engine does not always work. When working? We believe it to work. When not working? We believe it to be broken and it then needs to be fixed. Education and science are a part of religion a person simple see's as working in a state of shared beliefs open to the public. Faith does not hold this same visible state of working in a shared public principle learning faith in science is created in simple believable form of sharing.

    Example: Something that is painful to touch and burns is hot, something painful to touch and freezes is cold. However all things can be either just hot or cold and the difference is simple measurable, or beyond measurement. In truth faith is what might just define a science and religion much like a temperature does with hot and cold. Shared belief is the united state.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it.

    Tell me, did scientists "understand" blood letting? Did they "understand" the Piltdown man?

    How about the atom being the smallest unit of matter that could be divided further? Did they "understand" that too?
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts

    Here is a simpler example.

    Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?


  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @Dr_Maybe

    >Here is a simpler example.

    One which better allows you to dodge the logical error in your argument?

    >Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?

    How are those things mutually exclusive? I believe in and understand the principle that the equation is built on.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it. They believe, just like everyone else.

    The distinction you are trying to make is fakery.
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Here is a simpler example.

    Two plus two equals four, do you understand that or do you believe in it?

    To be fair, you can't really make a blanket statement referencing deductive proofs in mathematics as being analogous to all branches of science.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @ethang5 ;

     That is the point. Scientists do not "believe" in ideas because, as you have shown, they can turn out to be wrong. 

     Scientists understand the ideas and it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not. You can still understand Newton's laws even though they are wrong. Ideas are (scientifically) just our guess at what the universe might be, they are models. 

  • I'm pretty sure it's still currently agreed by if not all then definitely most physicists that Isaac Newton's laws from 1 to 4 are actually right; not wrong. These are well established scientific laws of physics and have been for more than the last century now.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.


  • Generally speaking, in a lot of sciences a concept is what's known as a hypothesis, and they need to understand this in order to be able to test it to see if it is either true or false. 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

     Newton's laws are approximately right. But we are absolutely sure that they are technically wrong.  

     Well, it's not really fair to call them all "wrong". The real issue is with the second one: F = ma. I know that laws one and three have some issues as well but I do not exactly remember why.
    ZeusAres42
  • AlofRIAlofRI 212 Pts
    @AlexOland ;

    I believe you believe that I am confused. I don't believe I am. I don't believe, that's MY belief, and I am not confused at all about it …. believe me.
    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfen
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @AlexOland

    You are being equivocal on the meaning of the word "understand" as used here.

    If, for example, I say I "understand" how an internal combustion engine works, it cannot be true that I think little horses prance inside the engine to give it power.

    What I understand may be my fantasy, but it is not how an internal combustion engine works.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality.

    >it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not.

    It is very relevant. Perhaps it may be irrelevant for theoretical scientists, but not others.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @AlexOland

    >That is the point. Scientists do not "believe" in ideas because, as you have shown, they can turn out to be wrong. 

    Belief is possible even when they are wrong.

    >Scientists understand the ideas and it is irrelevant if these ideas representative of reality or not.

    Untrue. You are being equivocal on the meaning of understand here.

    >You can still understand Newton's laws even though they are wrong.

    But I do not understand the reality the laws are supposed to explain. The point is to understand the reality, not just a concept.

    >Ideas are (scientifically) just our guess at what the universe might be, they are models.

    That is why for theoretical scientists, understanding the concept is enough, but for others,  no.

    If I say I understand, for example, the internal combustion engine, "understand" means I can explain the reality, not just the concept.

    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality.
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    >Generally speaking, in a lot of sciences a concept is what's known as a hypothesis, and they need to understand this in order to be able to test it to see if it is either true or false.

    I get that, but we can understand a concept or the reality it is to explain. I understand a concept only when that concept is correctly representing reality.

    For example, if I think the internal combustion engine runs because nature abhors a vacuum, I may understand my concept very well, but I do not understand internal combustion engines at all.

    Concepts are supposed to correctly define reality
    ZeusAres42
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    So do you guys think that science could exist without math?
  • The difference is primarily that Science and Religion do not share an epistemological status, and that is what the "faith in science" statements tend to suggest, in that sense these statements are wrong...

    It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

    And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life. 

    Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

    So why do so many people believe otherwise? It turns out that while science and religion are as different as can be, folk science and folk religion share deep properties. Most of us carry in our heads a hodgepodge of scientific views and religious views, and they often feel the same—because they are learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways. 

    Many religious beliefs arise from universal modes of thought that have evolved for reasoning about the social world. We are sensitive to signs of agency, which explains the animism that grounds the original religions of the world. but this perspective is incomplete...

    There are many religious views that are not the product of common-sense ways of seeing the world. Consider the story of Adam and Eve, or the virgin birth of Christ, or Muhammad ascending to heaven on a winged horse. These are not the product of innate biases. They are learned, and, more surprisingly, they are learned in a special way.

    To come to accept such religious narratives is not like learning that grass is green or that stoves can be hot; it is not like picking up stereotypes or customs or social rules. Instead, these narratives are acquired through the testimony of others, from parents or peers or religious authorities. Accepting them requires a leap of faith, but not a theological leap of faith. Rather, a leap in the mundane sense that you must trust the people who are testifying to their truth.

    Many religious narratives are believed without even being understood. People will often assert religious claims with confidence—there exists a God, he listens to my prayers, I will go to Heaven when I die—but with little understanding, or even interest, in the details. The sociologist Alan Wolfe observes that “evangelical believers are sometimes hard pressed to explain exactly what, doctrinally speaking, their faith is,” and goes on to note that “These are people who believe, often passionately, in God, even if they cannot tell others all that much about the God in which they believe.”

    People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious beliefs, but their meaning as well. In this article, the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states “credences,” and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe that we should accept them, and that others—at least those who belong to our family and community—should accept them as well.

    None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more than three or four of them.

    Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally improve over time.

    There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can justify their views with powerful arguments.

    But much of what’s in our heads are credences, not beliefs we can justify—and there’s nothing wrong with this. Life is too brief; there is too much to know and not enough time. We need epistemological shortcuts.

    Given my day job, I know something about psychology and associated sciences, but if you press me on the details of climate change, or the evidence about vaccines and autism, I’m at a loss. I believe that global warming is a serious problem and that vaccines do not cause autism, but this is not because I have studied these issues myself.

    It is because I trust the scientists.

    Most of those who insist that the Earth is 6000 years old and that global warming is a liberal fraud and that vaccines destroy children’s brains would also be at a loss to defend these views. Like me, they defer, just to different authorities.

    This equivalence might lead to a relativist conclusion—you have your faith; I have mine. You believe weird things on faith (virgin birth, winged horse); I believe weird things on faith (invisible particles, Big Bang), and neither of us fully understands what we’re really talking about. But there is a critical difference. Some sorts of deference are better than others.

    It’s better to get a cancer diagnosis from a radiologist than from a Ouija Board. It’s better to learn about the age of the universe from an astrophysicist than from a Rabbi. The New England Journal of Medicine is a more reliable source about vaccines than the actress Jenny McCarthy. These preferences are not ideological. We’re not talking about Fox News versus The Nation. They are rational, because the methods of science are demonstrably superior at getting at truths about the natural world.

    I don’t want to fetishize science. Sociologists and philosophers deserve a lot of credit in reminding us that scientific practice is permeated by groupthink, bias, and financial, political, and personal motivations. The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.

    But science as an institution behaves differently than particular scientists. Science establishes conditions where rational argument is able to flourish, where ideas can be tested against the world, and where individuals can work together to surpass their individual limitations. Science is not just one “faith community” among many. It has earned its epistemological stripes. And when the stakes are high, as they are with climate change and vaccines, we should appreciate its special status.

    ZeusAres42AlexOland
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    edited July 11
    @ethang5

    "If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood it if the concept is supposed to explain a phenomena in reality."

     I do not think you understand what science is. The way you come up with an "idea" in science is this:
    1- You guess how the universe might be working and make a model. 2- You try to reason out what would happen and what wouldn't happen if said model was true. 3- You make experiments.

     If the results of the experiment are the same as the idea predicted, then we say that this scientific idea is "true". And the model which this idea presents is "correct". What scientists do, is understand these models. Something does not need to be completely real for you to understand it. The rules of tetris for example, is entirely fictional. But we can understand those rules perfectly.

      Scientists do not understand reality directly. Human perception does not allow direct observation. A scientist can only understand the universe partially. But, the thing is, science is never completely wrong. 

     The best way to realize this concept is to just look at the development of the atomic theory: 1- They are little, indivisable balls. 2- They are little + charged balls. 3- They are little balls with + and - charges randomly spread all around them. (Raisin pudding) 4- They are little balls with a + at the center and have -es around them. 5- The -es must be spinning around the nucleus. 6- The -es actually exist as possibility clouds. 7- There also needs to be a chargeless particle... 

     I think this much is enough to explain my case. Realize how on each step the idea of an atom is not entirely "wrong" but rather incomplete? None of the ideas there might be representing our reality perfectly but they are all partially true. And that "partial truth" is slowly increasing.

     It is impossible for Newton's laws to be completely wrong. Because they are based upon proper observations. For example, his second law F = ma might not be true in the technical sense but that does not mean it doesn't hold any reality to it. The law states a relationship between force, mass and acceleration. And when we observe reality, we DO see this relationship. A law never turns out to be completely false. A) It turns out that it is incomplete  B.) The law becomes generalized into something else(meaning it wasn't actually a "law"). But in both situations, the relationship that the law states exists. 

     If there ever comes a time in which some well-constructed scientific idea turns out to be entirely false, then it is not only science that is doomed; our hope of being able to understand reality, even in the slightest, is gone as well. We understand the universe because it is consistent. If this consistency is destroyed, none of our understandings will function. But it seems that, at least for now, the universe is pretty damn consistent. And as long as this consistency exists, it would be idiotic to think that we will not gain anything by studying it. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    @AlexOland

    >I do not think you understand what science is.

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.

    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.

    I've seen no one in this thread against science, but you atheists are defending science as if someone assaulted it. Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?

    The OP said, "Religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood."

    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality. Until I understand how gasses cool when under negative pressure, I cannot say I understand the phenomena of refrigeration  whatever concept I understand.

    >Human perception does not allow direct observation.

    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.

    The fact is., the OP's comment,

    "Scientists don't believe in something like the science of evolution, they understand it."

    Is tautology. Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.

    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.

    The distinction the OP makes is imaginary. It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.

    Plaff is doing it, you're doing it, (you just happen to be more cultured than he)

    >Some say that science and religion are both belief systems.

    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
  • As I said before, science and religion both share a mixture of beliefs and understanding and an understanding of why they may believe some of the things they understand. It's not beliefs and understandings (or misunderstandings for that matter) where the differences lyes; it's what those beliefs are based upon which is where they lye.

    Now, in order to answer the question about the difference between religion and science one first needs acknowledge that there are two different kinds of religions collectively; Theistic and Non-Theistic and that there is a multitude of different branches of sciences. And a number of religions will share a mixture of differences as well as similarities with several different branches of sciences.
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    edited July 13
    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

  • Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    AlexOland

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @ethang5
    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     
     Ok. 


    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.

     You said: ' If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 
     I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong. Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.


    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?

     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind? I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)


    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.

     He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood. Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 


    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.

     Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something. How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 


    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
     This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.


    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
     Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.
     Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 


     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.

     Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science. This is literally the distinction made in the post. The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe. He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist. Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?


    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.

     Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers. Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

     No. 

    ZeusAres42
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts

    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    What she is saying is that you can not trust what you know.

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts

    Why does solipsism seem to be every religious person's argument?

    Care to elaborate on this? I myself am not a religious person but I fail to see how anything this thread is a reflection of religious people's arguments/views being solipsistic.

    What she is saying is that you can not trust what you know.


  • TKDBTKDB 187 Pts
    The difference is how the anti religious ideologists, view science, and religion on the internet, itself?

    "The Difference Between Science and Religion"

  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    TKDB said:
    The difference is how the anti religious ideologists, view science, and religion on the internet, itself?

    "The Difference Between Science and Religion"


    Why restrict it to the internet?


  • ethang5ethang5 140 Pts
    edited July 15
    @AlexOland

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     Ok. 
    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.
    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 

    >I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong.

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

    >Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.

    Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.
    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?
     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind?

    Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

    >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)

    OK.
    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.
    >He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood.

    Which is why I said "he did not mean....." Rather than "he said..."

    >Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 

    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.
    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.
    >Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something.

    Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

    >How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 

    Thank you. We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.
    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
    >This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.

    I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.
    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
    >Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.

    Thank you. As are all my "pieces" of information.

    >Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 

    Which disagrees with the OP.
     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.
    >Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science.

    "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.

    >This is literally the distinction made in the post.

    And I called that distinction, imaginary.

    >The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?

    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.
    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
    >Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers.

    You image is very important to you isn't it?

    >Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

    >No. 

    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.

    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • Most people do not understand what religion is and is not. Religion is assumed to have or take on the meaning of any beilief.

    First and foremost most people do not have an understanding of science, as science is assumed to be purely objective.

    Any position that is theoretical in science lacks any sufficient evidence that it would determinedit to be a fact.

    When you are dealing with theory you are dealing with religion.

    I can post a logical series of an assessment. Most of what people call science is religion as most are unaware that the majority of what people call science does not even have a basis for a theory.ive realized Jesus is God, there are also two scientific reports that confirm that.


  • AlexOlandAlexOland 274 Pts
    @ethang5

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

     I did not claim any degree of understanding is "correct". I claimed that it is a fact that scientists partially understand the universe. If partial understanding would not have done it, we would not be able to use Newton's laws to do anything because they are only a partial understanding of reality (F=ma is not a complete formula). But we did. Please go back to that "wall-o-text". You still have no idea how science works. We still probably do not have the complete understanding and we will most likely never have it. 

     
     Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.

     Partially understanding the universe is still understanding the universe. If you learn one thing about a topic, even though you do not know everything about that topic, you would understand that topic better. For example, nearly no one knows everything there is to know about math. Does that mean no one understands math? Go back to that "wall-o-text".

     Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

     So you accept that you were wrong to accuse me of having a silly caricature of you in my head? Well, an apology would be better but I guess that would be asking for too much.

     
     >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)
    OK.

      Okay to what exactly? You accused me of having a caricature of you because you thought I knew you were religious. I actually did not. This should have been the part where you realize that you made a mistake. But you are not even able to admit something as simple as this. So you try to get back at me with "OK" which makes no sense as what I said has direct corralation with your accusation. 

     Learn to admit your mistakes.

     
    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.

     You still do not explain the relevance though. I agreed with what he said. Why are you bringing up your idea of what he might have meant when we are arguing? I already explained what parts I agree with. What he meant has no relevance to our debate. I would like you to admit this mistake of yours as well.

     
     Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

      It is in no way self-evident, it is wrong. This is further proof you did not read it. Partial understanding is still - by definition - understanding. And that "wall-o-text" proved that what they were doing was indeed gaining partial understanding instead of being completely wrong. 


     I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.

     Again, you connect it to atheism for no reason. Even though you just read that I exposed you for the same mistake a moment ago. This shows what kind of person you really are. There are people who value opinions and there are people who do not. That has no relevance to belief or lack of belief. 

     
     
     Which disagrees with the OP.

     Doesn't. I actually explained why it doesn't in that "wall-o-text" but you just choose to ignore it I guess. 


     "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.
     
     A thing CAN be understood and believed simultaneously. This doesn't mean that understanding implies belief. How did you even reach this conclusion?
     
     You can understand how quantum mechanics work and you can also believe that it works exactly that way in reality. You are capable of doing this. But science is not meant to be believed. You CAN believe it but it would be a mistake to do so.



    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.

      You literally wrote this:  "It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism."

     There is no way that I cannot figure out what this means. It is obvious what it means. You are literally saying that we are trying to make science the ' realm of atheism ' and leave religion out. I object to that saying "no that is not at all what we are doing" and your response is:
     
    "What atheists should do is not my concern."

     This response somehow makes sense to you?


     
    You image is very important to you isn't it?

     ... it's a joke. Believe me, I am not trying to flex on the 4 people that are reading my arguments (it might be even less than 4).

     
    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.
    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.

      You claimed that our actions prove your case. I realized that this was just an empty claim so I just said "no". What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

     Why would I think you are a pc snowflake? What does that have to do with anything? You are being really weird.

     I am giving you logic. I am not giving you "PC emotionalism" (which is obviously a different and a real branch of emotionalism, really important distinction there). It is just that you are not really good at understanding logical arguments. 

     Science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. But science is not meant to be believed as it is a process. Science is literally the process BY WHICH you get closer to truth. Believing in what science says does not make sense and goes against what science is. Believing in it means that you think it will stay the same, it means that you think it is stationary. But science is dynamic and changing by definition. 

     You seem to understand not a single thing that is being said.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    ethang5 said:
    @AlexOland

    Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.
     Ok. 
    I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.
    If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 

    >I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong.

    You did not show it to be wrong, you claimed that any degree of understanding is correct. That is untrue. A scientist cannot make a refrigerator for example until he correctly understands the concept. Partial understanding will not do.

    >Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.

    Partially understanding a single concept is different. The universe cannot be understood, a concept can. And until you understand the concept, you cannot understand the part of the universe it explains.
    Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?
     Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind?

    Not every atheist does, but most of the ones that troll religion boards do. I judged from the things you said in your posts. It was not an attempt to insult you.

    >I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)

    OK.
    He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.
    >He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood.

    Which is why I said "he did not mean....." Rather than "he said..."

    >Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 

    And I disagree with what he said too, but base my disagreement on what he meant.
    Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.
    >Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something.

    Please be precise. A scientist needs to know the complete concept to say he understands the reality it describes. This is self-evident.

    >How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 

    Thank you. We can never know the complete reality, but we can sometimes know the complete concept.
    Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.
    >This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.

    I read it. And I know you think it was relevant and needed. Atheists like you tend to believe that others who disagree with you must be doing so out of a lack of understanding. Evolution seems to be a trigger for your type.
    Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.
    >Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.

    Thank you. As are all my "pieces" of information.

    >Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 

    Which disagrees with the OP.
     It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.
    >Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science.

    "A thing [like science or religion] can be believed and understood simultaneously"
    You may be contradicting yourself.

    >This is literally the distinction made in the post.

    And I called that distinction, imaginary.

    >The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist.

    I know. I did not say he did.

    >Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?

    You can't figure out what I wrote, but know what's in my mind? What atheists should do is not my concern.
    They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.
    >Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers.

    You image is very important to you isn't it?

    >Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

    >No. 

    I don't know what you think you're "refuting" or how the word "no" refutes it, but if you haven't guessed by now, I'm not one of your pc snowflakes.

    Give me logic, not PC emotionalism. Even you agreed that science and religion can be understood and believed simultaneously. You seem to have lost track of your argument.

    Your biggest failure here is that the fact remains, religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood. That will be true whether you believe it or not.
  • Dr_MaybeDr_Maybe 46 Pts
    Most people do not understand what religion is and is not. Religion is assumed to have or take on the meaning of any beilief.

    First and foremost most people do not have an understanding of science, as science is assumed to be purely objective.

    Any position that is theoretical in science lacks any sufficient evidence that it would determinedit to be a fact.

    When you are dealing with theory you are dealing with religion.

    I can post a logical series of an assessment. Most of what people call science is religion as most are unaware that the majority of what people call science does not even have a basis for a theory.ive realized Jesus is God, there are also two scientific reports that confirm that.


    I'm not addressing your post because it's just more religious solipsism, I'm addressing your username:

    If Jesus is god wouldn't that mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant?


  • religion is meant to be believed, science is meant to be understood. That will be true whether you believe it or not.

    Your statement seems very generic. However, this is how I like to try and approach this issue: Religion is meant to be followed, and religion will involve beliefs about things relative to that religion which will rest on pure faith alone.

    Science, on the other hand, will also be followed but also studied, and entail beliefs based on probability and/or based on an accumulation of theoretical knowledge and/or practical application.  A scientist will or at least they should understand what it is they're studying or practicing. A Medical Physician, for example, is a medical scientist, and Medical Physicians do not make diagnoses based on a whim! A Medical Physician may say something like "I believe this is the most likely case" but of course further tests will need to confirm a diagnosis. Their beliefs, however, will not be based on faith; they will rest upon good reasons, a degree of evidence and understanding. 


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch