Science vs Religion

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

Had people call science a delusion... So which is really the delusion?

The debate between science and religion goes on without resolve and without satisfaction for any involved. We might get somewhere if we narrowed the terms of debate a bit: on what grounds are we attempting to compare the two? There are many possible points of comparison; here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world.

Sanitation & Cleanliness:
What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Fighting Disease:
Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.

Human Longevity:
Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

Communication & Community:
People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Food Production & Distribution:
People need to eat to survive, and while religion might encourage giving food to those who need it most, it does nothing to help grow more of it and more efficiently. Humans have used basic scientific tools to improve food production for millennia, but in recent times that has increased geometrically through the use of chemical analysis, satellite records, and even genetic manipulation. Science makes it possible to feed more people more efficiently with less land.

New Materials:
Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Understanding Sexuality & Reproduction:
Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

Understanding Our Real Place in the Universe:
It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don’t know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet’s place in the solar system, and about our galaxy’s place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

Humanity Needs More Science, Not More Religion:
It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn’t nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn’t even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science’s success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn’t require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
1) Skepticism of unsupported claims
2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.
4) Requires testability
5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6) Uses descriptive language
7) Performs controlled experiments
8) Self-correcting
9) Relies on evidence and reason
10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
11) Produces useful knowledge

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:
1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism
2) Does not require critical thinking
3) Does not require experimental repeatability
4) Does not require tests
5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6) Uses vague language
7) Relies on anecdotal evidence
8) No self-correction
9) Relies on belief and faith
10) Makes absolute claims
11) Produces no useful knowledge

Last edited 14 Feb 2008 10:57 pm by Gplex

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

Both science and religion are full of contradictions and delusions.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

Really show me one from science.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 24



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1,613
OFFLINE

Evidence please.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

Scientific Contradiction - Science claims that Horses evolved from the Hyracotherium. However, not too long ago a Hyracotherium and a horse were found in the same sedimentary layer dating back to the same period. Several thousand years before the horse was supposed to exist. And before you ask, yes. The bones of the horse were dated back to the same period.

Scientific Delusion - Man evolved from apes, we’re missing a step in the evolutionary process. But we’re sure we’ll find it.

Last edited 23 Jan 2008 02:33 pm by Cid Highwind

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

And how is this a delusion, this is base off evidence, if you are correct then the evidence would have corrected science... science is great like that.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

It’s a delusion because that missing link doesn’t exist. They haven’t found it yet and they never will.

I’m not saying that we were created as a man by God. I’m saying that evolution is pretty much bullshit.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

Hyracotherium (“Hyrax-like beast” (also known as Eohippus) was once considered to be the earliest known member of the horse family[1]. Now, though, it is considered to be a palaeothere, of a perissodactyl family related to both horses and brontotheres. Hyracotherium was a dog-sized perissodactyl ungulate that lived in the Northern Hemisphere, with species ranging throughout Asia, Europe, and North America during the Early to Mid Eocene, about 60 to 45 million years ago. <- wow its already been corrected, I wonder if the story of genesis has been corrected?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 24



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1,613
OFFLINE

That’s not really a delusion then, is it?



Curious. I might take a look at that.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

so because we can no find the missing link for all animals, that means evolution didnt happen, even though we can prove it in other species, but hey god created everything, but he was so useless that 99.9% of all species became extinct right?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

Yes, it was corrected because evolution was proven to be wrong. When you’re proven wrong, it’s only natural to correct yourself.

The reason Genesis hasn’t been corrected is because you can’t disprove God no matter how hard you try. There isn’t enough evidence to support or deny his existence.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

Have you ever heard of extreme adaptation? It’s pretty much a creationist’s evolution. It means that you can adapt. For example. Man was always man, but a long time ago the world was colder. (Which is was, ice ages and the like) So mankind adapted to the climate. And now that the planet is warmer, we’ve adapted again.

I don’t believe that evolution can take one species *raptor* and turn it into another *bird*. I do however believe that Extreme adaptation can take a man, give him more body hair and slightly modify his body structure to adjust to the climate and terrain.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

Evolution was not proven wrong, what was though to be a transitional stage was proven wrong.
As for proving god wrong.. wtf, I was proving genesis wrong, your word “god” is to general. Their is plenty of evidence to deny genesis.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 24



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1,613
OFFLINE

That is evolution. Just because you can’t comprehend it occuring on a bigger scale, doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

You can’t prove Genesis wrong. Genesis says that God created everything. No type of scientific dating is accurate enough to date something that could possibly be millions of years old.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 55



Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,978
OFFLINE

“They have never will” lol creationist said this about the transtional forms of whales.. 20 years later they where found.
Extreme adaptation is super evolution, and Its extremly funn when people try to use it.. “evolution never happen... Super evolution did!!!"
Raptors did not turn into birds, raptors branched off from the same ancestors as birds..

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

No, that’s adaptation. It’s adjusting to your surroundings. Evolution ONLY goes forward. Adaptation can go back.

If another ice age occurred in our time. Over the course of a couple hundred years, man would slowly begin to become more and more like an ape. Meaning he would grow a lot more body hair. Now, we probably wouldn’t have adjusted bone structures because we’re technologically advanced now to be able to get around without having to climb like a monkey. But we would technically take a step back in the evolutionary process.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 24



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1,613
OFFLINE

No, that’s evolution at work. You’re simply giving it another name.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

*sigh*

“Adaptation is the change in organisms that allow them to live successfully in an environment. Adaptations enable living organisms to cope with environmental stresses and pressures. Adaptation can be structural or behavioral. Structural adaptations are special body parts of an organism that help it to survive in its natural habitat (e.g., skin colour, shape, body covering). Behavioural adaptations are special ways a particular organism behaves to survive in its natural habitat. Physiological adaptations are systems present in an organism that allow it to perform certain biochemical reactions (e.g., making venom, secreting slime, being able to keep a constant body temperature)."

“evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes organisms to change over time. Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift."

There is a big difference between Evolution and Adaptation. Extreme Adaption is more than Adaptation but less than evolution.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 19



Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 1,682
OFFLINE

Like I said. Evolution ONLY moves forward. It never moves back. It’s not evolution, that would be devolution.