Religion is no more ridiculous than science

[moistycakes]

So you may be thinking the title of this is a ridiclous claim. Over the past couple of weeks I've been thinking about the nature of humans.

We as humans fill in the unknown with the most plausible reasoning. We piece two things together and come up with a rational conclusion that suits our personal biases. If we have a sore back one day and get a massage the next and our back pain is gone the following day, we will assume that the massage cured the pain. We put two things together and come up with a rational conclusion. However, the pain could have been eased by many other factors (muscle stretching, good sleep, good diet etc...).

Correspondingly a town is suffering from a famine, they pray to whatever god they worship. The famine ends. The conclusion is that the God(s) responded to their prayers and cured the famine. However, the soil could have been poisoned or lacking nutrients which returned, thus ending the famine or again many other things.

Just like science, religion is a way of explaining the unknown. As humans one of the most common fears is a fear of death. Death is the largest and most unavoiable unknown there is. Religion has filled this unknown with thoughts of reincarnation or heaven and hell to ease the minds of people who fear what lies beyond.

Science is constantly trying to find out what does happen after death with it's formula to solve the unknown. Many theories about this topic have been devloped throughout the years, each trying to prove what happens. Yet still, know one truly knows until they come to it? And do they even know then?

As humans we constantly ask "why" and "how" to expand our knowledge, usually these questions are accepted when they come from a source that fits in with your personal biases. (Eg. Science believer probably won't accept God as the cause for why the earth was formed and seek another answer).

I really don't have a conclusion for this, other than think before you critise a persons belief system, because science and religion don't have to be enemies. As William Lane Craig wrote in (this article) "The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century." Both science and religion have their places in this world".

Food for thought.

A couple of better sources on this exploration:
https://changingminds.org/blog/1307blog/130714blog.htm
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-is-the-relation-between-science-and-religion
https://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html
https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/05/11/richard-feynman-science-religion/

[Anonymous]

Science and religion are different spheres. Science is about discovery of new knowledge using a systematic method. Religion is about worldviews, ideals, ideas, human nature and condition, and morality.

[Waffles731]

I always find myself filled with spiritual awe when seeing the complexity of our universe.
Science is awesome

[alibaba42]

Religion does not explain the unknown. It explains nothing. If religion explains something, then any story i can create also explains something.

People praying for something and it coming true does not prove or explain anything.

Science is not trying to understand what happens after death, what science is trying to understand this?

Science does not look at what we believe, it looks at provable, testable theories and facts. You can prove science but you cannot prove religion. There is no testable hypothesis that has ever come out of religion.

A lot of scientists believe in a god because of the complexity of nature. Nature is fascinatingly and beautifully complex, and the more you know the more you realise how much there is out there that is a mystery to us. Our brains have not evolved or developed to ponder cosmological or highly complex concepts and thus has no way of thinking about these things. it is therefore a good solution to assume that a more complex being has had a hand in creating our universe. This is different from scientists being religious. They only believe that another power has played a role in creating the universe. For example it could be a super intelligent being, or the 'god' running the computer simulation that we are in.

these are all the forefronts of scientific thought but it is not a belief in any religion but a higher power.

i agree that religion can be helpful to society but i believe on the whole it causes more harm than good. When you see the hate speeches and rallies protesting against immigrants from Syria in Europe, they are mostly Christians who believe that Muslims should not be allowed to tarnish their country. they think they should not be allowed to pray there and that they do not integrate into their society. Agnostics and atheists see that they do integrate into society, only that they have different beliefs and rituals which anger individuals of opposing faiths. Most of the wars now and in the past are the result of religion

[Entity]

"Over the past couple of weeks I've been thinking about the nature of humans."

You are far too young to be thinking about the nature of humans. You lack the experience to really ascertain what is actually being said, for instance:

"Just like science, religion is a way of explaining the unknown."

This is actually backwards. If an event occurs scientific reasoning takes previously known knowledge and attempts to apply it. Faith-based thinking attempts to apply reasoning to an event a priori. Let's look at your soil example:

The scientific method says: "We know that poisoning can come from multiple sources through past history. Let's test all of these sources. If we cannot find the answer we do not know the answer."

A faith based method says: "We know that we are being poisoned or afflicted. Let us act in manner A to try and alleviate the problem, and if that does not work let us go on to B, and C..."

The difference is that science makes no claims on what is only what is observed. There is a massive difference between the two. To put it into personal perspective let's take a test:

"I studied rigorously and practiced with other people and understand the concepts of the material as well as it's application and it's value. I will most likely do well on the test."

"I studied rigorously and practiced with other people but do not understand the concepts or applications of the material though I understand the method of the material to some degree. I will most likely do well on the test."

The two conclusion have different bases. The first is based off of actual knowledge, it is something known, and something that can be genuinely produced through the person's reasoning. The latter is faith based because the material isn't actually understood so as long as there are no curveballs on the test everything should go fine but there's no rational reason to believe that the person will do well on the test.

That brings us to this point:

"Death is the largest and most unavoiable unknown there is."

In science and faith death is a guarantee.
Science makes no effort whatsoever to actually find out what happens after death.
Faith focuses quite a bit on conjectures about what happens after death.

The reason why I want to point this out is because you've mistakenly taken this out of context:

"The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century." Both science and religion have their places in this world".

[moistycakes]

I really lost interest in reading this after you said "You are far too young to be thinking about the nature of humans. You lack the experience to really ascertain what is actually being said." Age doesn't determine experience nor does it determine whether or not I should be able to consider human nature. Everyone at any age often thinks about deeper things and I encourage that. That's a ridiculous statement.

[Entity]

With age comes experience. You've no experience this why what you said is completely wrong. Your reasoning follows your philosophical capability due to your sole understanding of equality as exposed as a child of this generation.

[moistycakes]

Not necessarily, I've had experiences beyond my age. My thoughts are not permenant and I may change my mind in years to come however that doesn't mean their wrong. There is no right and wrong when it comes to things like this. I'm not trying to argue between which is correct or does a better job, I'm trying to show that way back the two stemmed from trying to explain things people don't understand.

[Entity]

"Not necessarily, I've had experiences beyond my age."

That isn't even actually possible. Insight can be beyond your age (read as: your understanding of what is occurring can exist beyond your expected developmental stage of life relating to a general overview of yourself in relation to your peers) but experience cannot be. What experience offers is actual groundwork for your statements; for instance you don't sound like you've studied Scientific Method. Ever. Or Empiricism. Ever. These would be the required experienced to make the assertions you are.

Also, in this case, there is a right and wrong. Religion and Science manage things entirely differently based on their construction; as I said you've no experience in the philosophical understanding of the concepts (and it's glaringly obvious, so please stop) so you are just running with the overwhelmingly apparent understanding of equality as per your generation.

[Entity]

TL;DR:

You are wrong.

You are ignorant of the key concepts required to understand why you are wrong.

This is what I should have typed right from the get-go but I tried to explain and I can see quite well that it went over your head because you've no idea what you actually are saying.

[moistycakes]

I'm aware science and religion differ in many different ways and handle thing differently and serve a different purpose etc... However, you missed the point of this myTake and went straight to assuming things about me. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts though.

[Anonymous]

Its not people being religious i disagree with. Its when they reason with it instead of making rational decisions , or force it on other people and use it in our government and school systems, as well as unfairly judging good people because their religion doesn't accept them, and not accepting common scientific knowledge and medical help because of it. (Especially for their kids)

Im sorry but no religion's laws should be enforced in our government. The laws forced shouldn't have to do with your religious beliefs. Were not founded on Christianity were secular when it comes to our government. And every religion has an equal chance of being right, there's no proof religion is right, there's actually more evidence they aren't right. (Some facts in this mytake and actually looking at it using our times reasoning skills instead of their times irrational reasoning skills www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1740179-would-you-believe-in-god-or-any-religion-if-they-all-got-started) So if you think you can push your religious beliefs on our school system and government, then with that logic you'd think its okay other people can't push their different religions in schools and our government too? ... But thats usually not the case most of the time. If a group of muslims tried pushing a movement to enforce their beliefs in our school system and government , you wouldn't like it or want it. If its not okay for them , what makes you think you guys can do it.

Also being gay isn't morally wrong, majority of gay guys i met are honestly nicer people than straight guys usually are. And religion doesn't dictate whats normal and acceptable in our society.

there's people who will pray to God in their head whenever they dont know what to do in situations where its not even appropiate, like if a homless guy told you he talked to God and God told him to tell you to give him your car and be stranded in another city... Instead of being "No" you think " I don't know ill pray to god and see what he says, if yes ill do it" or when someone prays to God for every life decision and listens what they hear to make a decision instead of rationally narrowing down decisions to pick what to do.

Also there's no reason to let your kids suffer when they need real medical care because you dont beleive in medical care because your religion. Thats takening it too far.

Also i dont like when you try to force your beliefs on other people, dont force other to think like you if they dont want to. (Theres more)...

[Opinion Owner]

Especially if your beliefs are unproven. And dont try to disprove physics and science using no evidence , and when i question you , your reply is "God is all knowing , you dont need proof for that" , that doesn't count. Smh.

But religion can make good people sometimes, I've seen it turn gang bangers lives around, I've seen it help people get their lives back on track. As long as your not intrusive , being excessive, or causes distress its an okay thing.

[Opinion Owner]

*think its okay other people "can" push their different religion's

[asiag299]

Why isn't it fair to ostracize someone because of our religion though? Isn't that our choice who we can hang out with or what we want to be around? By medical help what do you mean? My family doesn't get flu shots or vaccinations but we're all perfectly healthy.

[Opinion Owner]

@asiag299
No it isn't, because your thinking with your religion to judge whos morally wrong instead of having a legitamite reason for it by looking at them as a person and whether or not they have human decency thats usually commonly believed to be the okay way to be, not just in your religion.

Its a different scenerio, if you dont like someone because theyre the biggest dicks you know, thats thinking with your own judgment on whats considered acceptable in people. But if you think with religion, someone who couldve been your best friend if you werent religious, would seem like a terrible person or sinner (etc) you wouldn't like or even give a chance even if you got to know them because your thinking with your religion , while if you werent religiius you wouldve been best friends and liked them for who they are and wouldn't have a bad thought about them. Do you see the difference?

[Opinion Owner]

@asiag299

And by medical i mean surgical procedures, really needed medical intervention, like they can risk permanent and or serious damage or death if they dont get medical treatment. Or they would just be in constant pain when it can all be avoided. At that point religion is clouding your judgment on something that doesn't need a second thought to want to do.

[Opinion Owner]

Or it risks the lives of the people around you and the people you interact with

[DallasSteve]

I believe in proven science, which is the scientific way. I also believe in God and I am a Christian. What baffles me is the science point of view concerning creation. Not just humans, but everything. On Earth, we humans have many tools to help us accomplish work, solve equations, etc. (physical possessions-wheel, clothes, radio, computer, etc) Of course raw materials come from the earth. With those raw materials, we make everything we have. Everything. We don't always get it right the first time. But we rarely give up. We eventually get it right and functioning as intended. I guess the most complex device we've built so far is probably the modern computer. To build it, did we just throw some silicon, copper, gold, crude petroleum into an EZ-Bake oven and pull out a computer in half an hour? No. We meticulously processed each of the raw materials until they were in a state suitable for our intended purpose. Then we assembled them. Then we tried again, over and over until eventually the first working computer was complete. Then we updated, redesigned, rebuilt many times to arrive at what we have now. But the computer is not the most complex, complicated, functioning thing on this planet. We cannot be sure, but it's widely believed that the human body, including all its pieces fits that description. My problem with science is this: If everything from the computer, down to the toothpick was created, what is the logic behind the theory that the human, being far superior to anything we humans cave created, was not also created? We had to create the simple, unintelligent thumb tack and the "artificially intelligent" computer and everything in between using raw materials that all came from the Earth (except maybe a few things that include rocks from space.) But we were not created. We evolved from a fish? Really? Even more ridiculous... The Earth, with all its resources do build all we need/want (including the fish from which we grew) was not created either. The Earth just happened. All its resources were attracted to "Big Bang" (roflmao) and gathered around where this "Bang" occurred. Then, after the bang was over, everything fell together and formed the shape of a sphere, which started spinning for no apparent reason. Then it began to revolve around a massive ball of burning gasses, also for no apparent reason. Oh yeah, I almost forgot the fish. On this sphere, were some fish in the water. Then the fish decided to leave the water for no apparent reason. Then the grew feet and legs and they started walking. Don't forget, all this matter that fell together... It fell for no apparent reason, because there is no gravity in space. But scientists have no faith? If they believe all that, they have at least as much faith as I do, and I have a lot. They always act as if the other life forms that might be out in space have intelligence superior to ours. But they deny that there is a superior life form somewhere that actually created us. No, we are a byproduct of a big bang. (That's a scientific term- "Big Bang") My theory is that scientists are in denial as they engage in an activity they've been commanded not to. God said "Don't come looking for me."

[abzence]

I think the main problem scientific people have against the thinking of some religious people is that some religious actually claim to know the unknown.

When they say it's God that did this or that. It's actually an assumption and a belief. And when we think we know the answer to something then we also stop all further investigation. Because what point is it to search for an answer you already claim you have?

Science never stop this investigation and they don't claim to know what they don't know. Sometimes they reach the wrong conclusions and that is corrected over time, over and over again. Religious people don't want to correct anything because according to them they already know the answer. They "know" God is there, that heaven and hell awaits and all that. But once again, it's not a knowing but rather an assumption and a belief.

If we want to ever know the truth about anything then we must abandon all assumptions. But not everyone is interested in the actual truth about things. We are free to believe whatever we want but I think it becomes problematic when we claim our belief is a truth and not only a belief. And especially when we are trying to convince others that our belief is actually a truth.

And this is not a claim for or against the existence of God or anything else. This is simply a statement about the different thinking and what needs to be done to find truth. I also think it's unwise to treat a belief as a truth before we actually know that it is.

[Skyrion]

I am shocked, shocked at the ignorance of the people on this thread. By comparing two different ways of thinking you have forgotten in which these are applied. Science is the principle of gathering evidence to prove earlier concepts or come up with new ones, religion is a tried and tested way for how to live our lives moraly and with understanding and acceptance. As Karl Marx said; "Religion is the opium of the masses, the heart in a heartless world" say you want but science never us how to treat our fellow human beings, religion is a way to pass down morals and ways of life throughout all cultures. When you look at our law system even that is based on relgion. Besides, if god did not create the universe then what did?, also as stated by the people on the side of science, science is a process of observation to understand existing concepts as well as new ones, when they speak about science, they speak about newtonic science, the science that governs 99.9% of the universe, nobody can understand quantum science even it is the underlying foundation of the universe. Is it so hard to accept that mankind may not have all the facts required for the explanation of an omnipotent being? Because if we are discussing an omnipotent being then isn't it possible that it knows a fact that we don't that proves it's existence? Due to the magnitude of the issue there is no way that we will be able to collect enough evidence to judge it. How can you take a sample of infinitity and judge it off that? You would have no idea whether your sample is an outlier or not therefore making this argument invalid.
I rest my case.



I rest my case.

[candyaurora]

Best answer!

[Mesonfielde]

1.) It is quite obvious that as everything we perceive is perceived by our brain and retained by our brain, and at death our brain activity stops; death means it is like shutting down a PC. No, it doesn't do anything afterwards.

2.) Religion doesn't have much to show for what it actually does throughout the years. You cannot say that about electronics, bioengineering, genetics, etc.

[bjjk067]

The brain and the mind are different. They actually can affect each other. The physical make up if the brain and its nueral connections effect how we think, but our mind can actually influence and change our physical brain. I think its called neuroplasticity. Its been proven, i think thats what our free will and consiousness is. But what happens to it when we die we dont know. Maybe we experience some other stuff we couldnt with a brain, (if that made sense) or just something different. But we could very likely see nothing and experience nothing like a lot of people with death exerperiences felt, i had a near death experience and actually saw death for what it was, and what i saw and experienced was exactly what all these people claiming to have experienced when they died. So most likely nothing happens and you experience nothing when you die. Sucks but is probably true

[Mesonfielde]

@bjjk067 Isn't our mind essentially a result of our frontal lobe and neocortex?

[moistycakes]

It wasn't my intention to make a judgement on the reliability of religion. Rather appreciate where they both came from and how they both fit in with human nature and each individuals personal biases. I'm a believer in science although I do think it's okay to have faith.

[ObscuredBeyond]

You're confusing religion with human nature. Human nature is cursed, and therefore, cannot overcome its own social ills. It was Franklin questioning extra-Biblical assumptions about the nature of lightning, pointing out that assumptions of his day were not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, that led to electricity. Did the Greeks ever figure that out? Not before Franklin.

Modern bioengineering would be impossible without Mendel, who was a monk. Genetics would have remained a mystery without him too.

[Phoenix98]

O really? what about art, music or architecture, some of the worlds wonders and greatest creations were inspired by religion.

[Mesonfielde]

@Phoenix98 Inspired doesn't mean it's responsible for it. Those people were great artists of great talent with or without religion. I do admit they made quite some pretty buildings and paintings though

[Entity]

This is inaccurate as well. #2

Many intangibles such as ethics, law, economics, and philosophy are born of religion. It's historical values are immeasurable.

[Mesonfielde]

@Entity The real question is whether you NEED religion for improvement in those areas.

Religion is just codified culture. And culture, along with its laws, existed without religions.

[Phoenix98]

Well actually they were kind of, as in they were created for the gods they worshiped, a lot of art and ancient architecture was a result of that.

[Amplify]

According to anthropology, the mantis shrimp has 15 different color detection "cones" in its eyes; one for each base color. Humans only have 3; red, blue, and yellow. That means there could be 12 more base colors we don't even know about. Everyone already knows dogs and other mammals can have vastly more powerful noses and ears.

Human senses aren't even close to the best out there, so we shouldn't assume we know everything about an object just because we've looked at, listened to, smelled, tasted, and felt a lot. There could be things before our very faces that we will never know about because we can't detect them.

I'm an atheist, by the way.

[sketchy]

Nope - the huge difference is that science has predictive power, while religion has only (very dubious) explanatory power.

Take your example of a famine which stops after people pray.
Suppose there's another famine the next year, and people pray as before, but this time nothing happens.
The religious people will come up with a new explanation of why God has forsaken them this time, and then another the following year, and so on...
On the other hand, scientists could study how the soil chemistry contributed to the famine, and they could use that knowledge to prevent famines from occurring in future. Science is what allows progress.

That chart comes from a pretty biased source too. It's like a bunch of religious people have realized that if they keep on trying to make people choose between religion and science, they're going to lose - so now they're desperately trying to convince people they can have both.

[IamNuts]

Science is the quest to satisfy human curiosity through rational methods of gathering information. It demands that ALL claims be backed by evidence. Everything is open to criticism.

Religion is the quest to control human beings through emotional intimidation. It demands total faith without any evidence to back its claims. Nothing is open to criticism, and questioning anything is considered evil.

As to answer your question on what happens after death -- I believe this quote by Mark Twain will be more than satisfactory to stand in it's place
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

[IamNuts]

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

[Surfofthenomad]

What's the difference between these two inquiries for truth?

Well, one goes based off of unwarranted claims and blind faith alone which labels a nonbeliever a heretic if they even question the legitimacy of religion. The other requires claims to go under rigorous testing, pure review, and scrutiny before it's even remotely accepted as a "theory".

I challenge anyone to find some sort of phenomenon and ruled out all practical explanations only to conclude "This is the work of a supernatural. To attribute something to the "workings of god" because we haven't found an answer to something is intellectually lazy. Just remember, at one time, before we figured out the mechanics of an epileptic seizure, we thought it was a demon invading someone's body.

[moistycakes]

I'm not here to argue for one or against one. Merely stating where they came from and how they fit in with human nature.

[Anonymous]

I'd add about those findings -- how they are obtained is important. Even today, most people will not openly admit to being atheists. They are THE most distrusted and discriminated against group in the country. So I'm doubtful about the stats regarding the belief of scientists -- I'd much expect that the number of "believers" there is highly inflated.

And frankly, yes, religion is ridiculous. It requires NO evidence whatsoever. None. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual.

Science, on the other hand, demands evidence. It demands proof. It invites argument and disagreement. It demands testing. Science is also fundamentally humble -- it understands that we don't know everything, so instead of making wild and unfounded assertions, we have to test. And science is open to revision -- if new evidence and tests show that something isn't true, we stop believing in it and instead give credence to that which has evidence.

Religion and science couldn't be more different.

[sluggognatface]

I have never been scared or ashamed to say I have no belief in any god nor do my friends.

[moistycakes]

They do have their similarities. I am not a religious person but it's clear that they came from the same 1+2=3 type of formula which is what I focused on in this. Not to prove one better than the other or start science vs. religion debates. :)

[Anonymous]

The fundamental difference between science and religion is science seeks always to minimize the number of assumptions you must make and test any hypothesis you draw from those assumptions. Religion does not. It might not seem like much but it makes all the difference.

Religion and science aren't exactly in conflict because (true) science does not seek to compete with religion, it simply doesn't recognize ireligion as having any validity from a scientific view.

[moistycakes]

I'm aware that it makes quite a large difference, however the purpose of this was to look at the logic behind both not to argue for one against the other :)

[Phoenix98]

I balance the two out I'm just as much a scientist and knowledgeable of the sciences as I am a Christian the only difference is that science further proves what I already know to be true religiously. Hell even some atheists have realized that none of what we have could have been created randomly they admit that a higher power had to have been involved in the process.

The fact that everything was have was created out of pure random chance is bs, especially when you look at how the ecosystem and the animals is, the ecosystems are very delicate and balanced and some animals within them and around the world in general were created with very specific purposes in mind.

[HighlanderTheOne]

A majority of scientists do not believe in God. All the arguements are just not good enough. Science is not the same with religion and it will never be. Cherrypicking at your holy books and saying what is literal and what is figurative does not connect you with science in any way. Every single time religion is based on what we don't know so we also end up at the God of the gaps. Being religious is no longer matter of faith but matter of illiteracy. WE KNOW THINGS. WE KNOW GOD DIDN'T DO THEM. And if we don't know some things we will find them out later. We always do and statistically it's never god.

[Drednaught]

What do you do when science starts contradicting religion if they're both ridiculous? I don't see how the thing that gave us planes, cars, ac, computers and phones would be ridiculous, it works. Just because humans have biases doesn't mean we can't try, this is why we have peer review. Yes, everyone may have their own bias, but bias won't stand up to scrutiny when everyone else looks at their idea and tests it. Any amount of bias will not make it through the rigorous amount of tests and observations of peer review, so it seems a bit strange to claim this process as ridiculous when it clearly works.

[dudebro33]

Religion was and always has been a way to explain things that we didn't understand. Look to the Greek myths about the weather (Angry Zeus = storms). Science just explains how these things happen, and why. So in a figurative way, they're both related, and in a literal way, they are not.

[moistycakes]

Exactly my point pretty much. :) Thanks for understanding x

[dudebro33]

No probs!

[ObscuredBeyond]

Bill Cooper actually traces beliefs in Zeus and Poseidon back to the deification of Japeth and the sons of Japeth, one of whom became a seafarer. Read "After the Flood."

www.ezekielwatch.com/.../AfterTheFlood.pdf

[Anonymous]

I'm Muslim! My Religion doesn't contradict science, nor does science contradict my religion!
1.bp.blogspot.com/.../...1932937801_74633052_n.jpg

[Riggers]

Pretty terrible example... Thats 4 people, All of whom were alive centuries ago... and again, Only 4 people... How many scientists are in the world today? A couple dozen million perhaps? more?

[Opinion Owner]

@Riggers relax your chin bruv!
I'm just shouting out my manz from back in the day.

So how is it a "terrible example", exactly...

[TwistedLogic]

It is a terrible example because it suggests that the religion ITSELF had something to do with these great men's achievements, which of course is a fallacious notion. See the problem with dogmas is that they don't appreciate individuals efforts or accomplishments, nor do they reward it. Instead, they claim that god (or the dogma itself) was the inspiration behind these ideas. I assure you this isn't a rant against Islam in particular. The truth is; if it wasn't for a small group of great men and women throughout history, we'd have no fire, language, mathematics, medicine, etc...

Stop robbing those people's efforts and greatness just to make your religion look or sound clever. Besides, there is evidence in some of these guys' writings that shows how much they resented religion and disagreed with a lot of its content, philosophically. I know for a fact that several Muslim scholars consider Al Khwarizmi and Khaldun to be irreligious (or rather infidels).

[Opinion Owner]

@TwistedLogic the only thing I was using them for was as an example of how these men some of my favorite scientists.

It's like saying my favorite superhero is Batman, I'm not robbing his accomplishments...
Chill

[moistycakes]

People need to chill oh my lord. You go anonymous.

[Hezigrimm]

@TwistedLogic how do we not know that these great men and women came to their conclusions because God implemented the idea into their mind. We do not and neither do they. If these men are not good examples because they are from centuries past how about Stephen Hawkins. He believes in God. As well just because one believes in God or is spiritual does not mean they like or believe in religion itself.

[Anonymous]

Science is based on evidence and knowledge. Religion is based on faith, which is defined as the belief in something despite the lack of evidence to prove it.

Science is based on today's technology and understanding; it is constantly evolving as we make new discoveries. Religion has not changed for thousands of years; the same stories told by sheepherders thousands of years ago are still what are taught today.

Some people believe in a deity, but no one has ever conclusively proven that such a deity exists. Science is based on proof and peer-reviewed evidence.

Science doesn't have all the answers. Religion claims to have all the answers, and they're rarely the same from one religion to another.

[Anonymous]

"usually these questions are accepted when they come from a source that fits in with your personal biases."

The whole purpose and method of science is to overcome bias.

whynogod.files.wordpress.com/.../...e-vs-faith.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4WUFXvCFQ&index=35&list=PL61DHJ1YbQsnsVrLwbQ4wNsm9DoPiOJ4R

[moistycakes]

We still all have personal biases, if we operated like science we would be robots.

[Opinion Owner]

Are we talking about science? Of course we have biases, the human brain is very flawed, but that's what science is for, to overcome these biases as much as possible. Is that what religion seeks to do? Or does it actually do the opposite and takes advantage of them?