Religion v.s. Science


Science has become a competitor against religion.  In ancient times, people would turn to religion for answers to life’s questions, now most people turn to science for answers. Science has the capacity to provide solutions to problems that religion could never provide. However, people still need religion. People still seek answers to many questions, predominantly moral based, from religion.

Here is a brief list, rather incomplete, of advantages and disadvantages of religion and science.

What does Religion Provide?

  • Hope for the future. 
  • Helps cope with death.
  • Creates a purpose in life.
  • Unites people based on common beliefs.
  • A control mechanism.
  • Creates a foundation for high morals and good ethics.

What does Science Provide?

  • Very logical world view.
  • Predictable outcomes in life based on logic.
  • Potential to explain anything.
  • Encourages research of the unknown for a scientific answer.

Disadvantages of Religion:

  • Potential to halt research and development, resulting in a deteriorating society.
  • Cannot provide proof or logical answers to many questions about the world.

Disadvantages of Science:

  • No foundation for morals or ethics.

14 responses to “Religion v.s. Science

  1. “•Predictable outcomes in life based on logic.”
    I find that rather hilarious, for a number of reasons! For instance, IBM and all of the big “mainframe” computer companys of the pre-Jobs/Gates era were entrenched and firmly within the grips of “science” when Steve and Bill appeared with their unseemly ideas, yet, they had no idea what to make of the ideas of these newcomers; nor did they have the slightest idea how to take what they knew already—steeped in the “sciences” as they were; with or without Jobs and Gates—and, get us to this day, in 2013! I. e., the future for the world of their profession, based upon the outcome of applied science as they knew it, being well-educated, well-trained and seasoned professionals, was to them hopelessly unpredictable (not that any of them would ever have admitted that!).

    Further, going back a ways, big wigs and ‘leaders’ of science and industry in the early 1900s declared that all that could be done or known was then on the tables! This they determined resolutely, based upon their knowledge and understanding of “science”. Nothing new was forthcoming.

    Einstein, one of the biggest names in the world of physics—and, rightly so—did the mathematics by finding the equations that power our modern, industrialized world, but, didn’t believe a word of what he himself proved (Planck made the suggestion, but, couldn’t find the equations to prove it)! In so many words, one of the most practical, logic-driven minds the world has ever known couldn’t “predict” a thing—based on the discipline he personally had helped to birth and shape; namely, quantum physics and quantum mechanics. The simply fact of the matter is, until very recently—and even now—no one can predict with any real certainty where the sciences of our day will take us, long term (tomorrow!), where there is not already something of that future “bird in the bush”, in the hand of the soothsayer to begin with. So much the “predictability” aspects of the sciences.

    The Holy Bible, on the other hand, made statements that were downright absurd in the days of their proclamations. Yet, the marvelous, wonder-working sciences has done nothing to discredit a single one. The Bible, incidentally, is not a book of “religion”.

  2. childofgod58, so you are telling me that if your newborn is doagnosed with a serious terminal disease, you won’t take your child to the doctor?

    • I never said a word, disparaging or otherwise, about taking a child to any doctor! But, of course I would use the services of a doctor. Have done it and, where necessary, always will–and give thanks to God for the availbility of their services! All of which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

  3. “Science has the capacity to provide solutions to problems that religion could never provide.”

    This statement may be true on many fronts. Let me hasten to reiterate, however, that the Bible is not a statement of religion. Thus, truth be told, the sciences of our day were begun on the treadmills of a few simple assumptions that in reality, initially, bore no more promise than some of the many scientific statements of the Bible. They were not only not full blown science, there was no way scientists could have envisioned this day, based solely on those early assumptions—some of which were undeniably wrong. They had no more basis in fact, than did the Bible.

    On the other hand, the Bible’s scientific pronouncements were in truth the inevitable outgrowth of science as we know it today. In so many words, the Bible’s statements of science pointed to where the world would be at some future point in time—when for once, the thinking of men was oriented in such a way as to get us here. It was he who was his own inhibition to progress—not “religion”, and certainly not ‘religion’, as it relates to the Bible.

    Moreover, those same “solutions” attributed to “modern” ‘science’ were as much forthcoming relative to “Bible” science—had men pursued them, their mathematical ramifications and resolution, with the same “faith” and determination that has driven them thus far. That is, men of science have done nothing today that could not have been done 2000 to 4000 years ago, based upon the scientific statements penned in the Holy Bible.

  4. At the moment, I believe religion and science are incompatible with each other. Each serves its own domain. They should not cross the borders of their respective domains.

    • OIC, uhnn, huhn! And just who was it that gave you exclusive right to make that determination? As I have shown you don’t know the Bible at all, and, you really are ill-versed in the basics of the sciences–or, so it seems (forgive me if I’m wrong here!). Certainly ur not adequately equipped to differential between the too.

      • I know the bible enough from studying it as an outsider to know that it cannot compete with science. The bible is a collection of stories. Many stories are excluded from the bible so the entire book isn’t presented to the general public; it it up to them to search for the missing books.

        In this article, when religion is mentioned, it applies to all world religions not just Christianity. Moreover, if religion and science could cross each other’s domains, atheists would not exist.

      • “Many stories are excluded from the bible so the entire book isn’t presented to the general public; it it up to them to search for the missing books.”

        Huhn? So, it’s the public’s responsibility to “know” what should or should not be in the Bible? Are u implying that the Bible is as far as u are concerned, somehow incomplete? If so, on what authority? Who says the Bible “should” have had more books than the ones included? What gives u greater privilege than the original compilers (under the inspiration of the Original Author!) to decide what should or should not have been included? Moreover, how does books not being included disqualify the Bible as “scientific”?

        Cite five scientific statements, in the Bible, of which you have personal knowledge, and, show how “books/stories missing” from the Bible make it’s scientific ramifications irrelevant!

        “If religion and science could cross each other’s domains. atheists would not exist.”

        Say what? Sweet-heart, the Bible (if you must insist upon viewing it as “religion”!) was “scientific” when there was no “science”! It is replete with many scientific statements. And, yet, the “athiest” exists. Explain that (remember: I’m am keenly aware of your ignorance of the Bible! So, don’t try to ‘fool’ me!)!

  5. “Potential to halt research and development, resulting in a deteriorating society.”

    Philosophical “bull-squat”! What religion was it that “halted” Eintein. He was not a Christian, nor, was he, being a Jew, particularly “devote”. What kept Planck from proving his own point? His thinking on the subject of science and “religion” (as it relates to the Bible) was akin to yours.

    Your thesis and your premises here are poorly reasoned at best (as is most every argument you raise, as it concerns the Bible)–if for no other reason than that you are plenarily ignorant of the Bible to begin with, and, you base the majority of your arguments squarely upon the ignorance of others (including the likes of Neil Tyson DeGrasse, not to in anyway demean or take away anything from his achievements, but, the reality remains, his thinking throughout on the issue at hand is often downright ludicrous.).

  6. “◦Encourages research of the unknown for a scientific answer.”

    The Genesis account of the “creation” and the creation “retrofit” is a statement in practically all of the disciplines of modern physics (i.e., particle or quantum physics): To wit, geo-physics, astro-physics, bio-physics, etc. At the time of the penning of the Hebrew Pentateuch by Moses, all such subjects were at best utterly “unknown” to anyone of that generation, and, would be for generations to come. These and the many other such statements were and remain “scientific” in nature. Identify and explain any element of “discouragement” to do “research of the unknown…” you personally (or anyone you may know) have found here or elsewhere in the Bible that prohibits research into the unknown.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s