Unlike Science, Religion CLAIMS Certainty and DEMANDS Belief

[MineralMan]

Science is always uncertain and is always subject to examination and falsification. That's how it works. If a scientist theorizes or hypothesizes something, evidence must be presented upon which that conclusion was reached. Then, anyone else can test the hypothesis or theory. If the same results are not reached, the search goes on for facts.

Religion, on the other hand, claims certainty. God exists. Jesus Saves. But, for such claims there is no testable evidence. Instead, there is doctrine, which cannot be questioned, because it is fixed and based on scripture or some other writings or stories. One cannot falsify claims that have no evidence. One either believes without evidence or disbelieves. Religious doctrine cannot be examined or tested.

Religious believers are certain of their faith. Scientists are always questioning their hypotheses. Science has evidence. Religion has doctrine. Science is never certain, and changes as new evidence becomes available. Religion cannot do that, since no evidence that can be examined exists in the first place.

Religious belief is easier than science. One can simply accept the certainty that is offered by religious doctrine. Science is always subject to replacement or modification of theories, based on additional evidence. That's harder, and requires open experimentation and reasoning. Religion simply IS, so one can relax and follow it.

[rurallib]

1. yep

[Igel]

2. Yes and no.

"Yup" is the usual response. No demand to be believed, on the part of science. If you buy into a mistaken hypothesis, one of three things happens: It's immaterial to what you're doing (no harm, no foul); it screws things up and you pay for the foolishness; it should screw things up but you made some mistake and failed in your mission to fail.

That works if you're ignoring the current hypothesis or using the commonly accepted one to do something new, say, some project that turns out to be an unintended experiment.

It's the first option where things get dicey for a lot of quasi-religious science adherents. They demand that you confess the truth. You're working on quantum mechanics and don't buy evolution, well, you can't do quantum mechanics without evolution because you don't understand the scientific method (genuflect and bend backwards 3 times as you say that). That's nonsense, of course. In some fields, even in science, you need evolution like a violinist needs to know about plate tectonics. I guess we must all be absolutely consistent. I'll not hold my breath waiting for that on the part of pretty much anyone.

One parent asked if I taught evolution in my science class. "Of course not." "Why not! Don't you believe in it?" (Notice the "believe" verb. "Accept" still mirrors "accept Jesus".) "I teach basic chemistry. Not a hole lot of natural selection and shifts in population going on there. Whole different kind of mole."

Knew a guy getting his PhD in molecular biology and already had an article or two published in regular journals (as co-author, of course). Now, it's hard to do that without evolution as a kind of background. He figured that evolution's a nice heuristic and used it proficiently, but didn't buy it as the absolute truth. And feared his advisor would find out and dump him. It caused him no great amount of dissonance, a young-Earth Creationist molecular biologist from a Tier 1 research university.

Science doesn't demand much. Come to think of it, neither does religion. It's their adherents who are too often boors.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

3. It absolutely boggles the mind to think that

someone could be getting his PhD in molecular biology and be a young earth creationist. The very definition of cognitive dissonance.

[Voltaire2]

4. Ugh.

Yes that’s it exactly. Religion and science, two sides of the same coin.

No. Nice try though.

[guillaumeb]

7. An interesting reply, with far too much truth in it.

[Major Nikon]

5. Doctrine can and does change

Look at all the different Christian denominations and how the doctrine changes between one and the next and you'll have an example of changing doctrine based on the underlying scripture.

Some of this changes over time as well. The Southern Baptists once had doctrine justifying truly evil things like slavery and Jim Crow which for the most part has fallen out of favor.

[guillaumeb]

6. A straw man argument.

Religion demands faith.

Faith implies a belief in the absence of proof.

The same straw man argument framed in a slightly different way is still the same straw man argument.

We all wear blinders. Some of us are aware of our blinders, others are not.