Science and Religion - the Differences

 

What does religion have to say about the claimed contradiction between the findings of science and faith?

 

Religion says: We prefer to wait when science finds problems that seem to refute our faith.  We refuse to admit that only science can tell us if we should wait.  If science disproves God we will still wait until proof comes that science is wrong.  Even if we never get this proof we will wait.

 

A wait and see attitude is simply dangerous.  We would get nowhere if we suspended judgement on matters that we have not tested and experimented on and others have.  It is arrogance.

 

You either accept science or you don't.  When science shows something is proven it is proven.  It is not up to anybody who is not a scientist or to a religion or group to make any excuse for denying that what is proven is proven.  It is arrogance for it is not their expertise.  It is not up to religion to tell science what science cannot prove or disprove.

 

Religion assumes that order exists though we may not always be clear on what this order means.  It says a designer God can design and plan disorder as well so even that is order in that sense.

 

Religion assumes far more than that.  Assumes that order exists but is sometimes overturned by the supernatural as in the case of miracles.

 

Religion takes certain doctrines for granted as being true

 

Science encourages independent verification.  Nothing is taken for granted.  Science doubts and challenges - everything is false until proven true.

 

Science says we must make as few assumptions as possible or as is necessary but religion opposes this truth for it consists of many assumptions and each religion has different guesses from other religions

 

Religion does not. It tends to encourage people to act as if feeling that something is true is a religious experience that verifies itself.  It ignores the fact that pagans report such experiences too despite denying the cardinal Christian doctrine that Jesus is God.

 

Religion says that evidence can tell us when an event is a miracle.

 

Evidence is always naturalistic. It ignores the supernatural. You must discard any suspicion of supernatural interference with the evidence. Evidence is assuming that there is no supernatural.

 

Science argues that nature works within a framework of regularity - it is better to speak of it as predictability rather than as law for law can be mistaken for meaning there is a law maker such as God.


Scientists and scholars can never say that a miracle actually happened.  That lies outside the realm of science.  This creates a bias in favour of inauthenticity or even neutrality.  The scientist will say he doesn't know how it could happen if a man has risen from the dead.  He or she will say he doesn't know if it really happened.  Is that biased?

 

Religion is biased too - but in favour of authenticity. If you have to have a bias you are better with a bias towards neutrality. Religion opposes this truth.  Religion says there are ways of knowing a miracle is true even without science testing it.  This amounts to saying that that their idea of testing is equal to if not better than science.  This is totally unacceptable.  Science cares about hard facts and testing and not about testimony or any other kinds of fact so it should not waste its time verifying miracle claims but ignore them for they are just claims.

 

Science should verify miracles if they are real.  Surely God could work with science to provide miracles amenable to testing? 

 

Science does not seek a reward to the extent that religion does.  Religion gets placebos and emotional rewards and imagines future blessings from God.   Religion promises that those who obey it and believe it will be rewarded by God.  Religionists are not happy with rewards such as human praise and with money for they are so easily lost and hard to keep.  So they turn to God for better and more lasting rewards.  If you give your life and money and another benefits it does not follow that you intended to do it for them.  You may do it just because you can.  In that case, it is its own reward.  What do you trust?  Trust science for religion is concerned about imagined rewards which skews its reliability.  Religion and moral systems can be regarded as far more biased and mercenary than scientists and atheists.

 

Religion says: There can be no universe without God

 

The universe is a self-sufficient, self-contained and independent system.  We see no need for God to set it up.  It can do without him.

 

The universe depends on God for everything and even its own existence.  Yet God should be able to make a self-sufficient universe.  If he has done, then we have no reason to think that the universe implies a God.

 

Anything supernatural cannot be called on as a causal factor in the universe.

 

Religion disagrees.

 

So religion assumes that what looks supernatural really is a caused event. What if it is uncaused?

 

What if it is nothing that makes a man rise from the dead?

 

It can.  Creation is when something comes from nothing.  The Big Bang is not creation.  The Big Bang happened to something that was already there.  Creation is not a scientific idea.  Religion says that creating is current and is not a past event.  It does not seem scientific to say that a supreme intelligence would make the Big Bang look like the origin of all things when it is not.

 

Religion says: we believe that something came from nothing.  God made something from nothing, this something exploded at the Big Bang.  We don't know why God made the Big Bang look like the start of creation for creation is not a past event but a perpetual miracle. He creates now.  It is creation that keeps all things in existence.

 

Even God cannot make something from nothing unless nothing somehow has the power to become something.  The universe can exist without God.  If nothing has the power to become something then God is not needed.

 

Science works on the assumption that nothing has the power to become something.

Even God cannot make something from nothing unless nothing somehow has the power to become something.  The universe is created - it cannot exist without God.

 

Religion says: A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.  Perhaps one day, the non-existence of God will be regarded as a scientific fact. 

 

It is a scientific fact that no sign of God's activity has been found. 

 

A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.  There are some difficulties with evolution and natural selection.  Bringing God into it leads to more difficulties.  Occam's Razor says there is enough without that.   A major difficulty would be the idea of a good God who would willingly devise such a cruel method as natural selection for making living beings.

 

People will deny it is a fact and say it is a belief or opinion - and they will do this in their arrogance despite understanding the evidence and reasoning behind it.  Calling a fact a view or a belief or opinion is a clever way of stopping it being taken as seriously as it deserves.  It ignores the fact it is not an opinion that God has not be observed to be doing anything - the evidence says there is no sign of divine action.

 

If it happens, it will only mean that scientists believe or think that there is no sign of God.  It will not be a fact.

 

Religion sometimes insists that God tweaks the universe in an undetectable way to bring about his plan, But we have no reason to assume that any intelligence is doing that. Surely if there was a plan, it would be necessary to let it be seen that he was acting? Religion is making superfluous assumptions.

 

Religion says: Science does not see how God works.  He moves electrons around and does other things to nudge evolution in the right direction.

 

Answer: Religion is trying to get science to be open to supernatural explanations without evidence that the supernatural exists. Such an approach only discourages research by scientists.