Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Once one's opinions are known it seems pretty common to dispense with prefixes like "I believe" and "I think" and "It is my opinion" and so forth.--Percy

This point is worth stressing. This article says that atheists make Up 0.1% of the federal prison population but 3.1% of the general population. The number of atheists in federal prison is about 97% lower than one would expect based on demographics.The reason for this can be argued. One argument would be that atheists are more moral than non-atheists. A different argument would be that incarceration helps people find religion.--Percy

Science doesn't really "discover truths about the physical world." It can only uncover what is likely true about the physical world. The part about testing (replicability) is true, while the part characterizing historical sciences as untestable is false. This is what some people believe. Considered from a factual, testable standpoint, the Bible contains both true and false information. It also contains a great deal of unverifiable information.--Percy

Rephrasing, you're saying that science based upon unverifiable evidence is unreliable (and you should include untestable and/or impossible claims as well). But such attempts at science are rejected by the scientific community. It is because of the requirements of evidence and replicability that science has shown itself to be the best method we have of understanding the natural world. Some people believe this, but religion lacks requirements for evidence and replicability, so it isn't possible to verify its claims.--Percy

So you're accepting my version, which does not include your implication that science has problems "rightly handling the evidence so that others can verify it"? That premise and conclusion are connected is something you believe, not something you can demonstrate due to the lack of evidence and replicability. Again, something you believe but cannot demonstrate.--Percy

I said that you only believe that your premise and conclusion are connected, that it's not something you can demonstrate due to the lack of evidence and replicability. Just so people aren't confused, here's your original premise from your Message 392: So why do you believe premise and conclusion are connected? How does the truth of your premise lead to the conclusion that revelation is reliable, let alone a source of knowledge?There's also the problem that your premise is ill-defined - what does it mean to rightly invest belief in divine revelation? If by "true knowledge of the world" you mean likely true understandings of the natural world, then only science has demonstrated this ability, and only tentative understandings. Because we know you - it isn't as if you just got here yesterday. Your qualification was just a variation of your questioning whether science can be trusted. We all find it completely believable that you would write something like, "Science can't be trusted about radiometric dating because the dates are inconsistent but they won't admit it." Science is a human endeavor that is heir to all our frailties, but it is also the best method we have for overcoming them to reach ever improving understandings of the natural world.--Percy

How do they even know there is such a thing as "saved"? Attempting answers to such questions is another way of making clear the difference between science and religion. Little of your participation here are answers to the WWJD question - examine your own adherence to faith.--Percy

"Millions believe" is a religious argument, another way in which religion compares poorly to science as a way of understanding the natural world.--Percy

As you demonstrate here, religion can only declare what it believes true of the natural world - it cannot back it up with rationale built around evidence the way science can.--Percy

It seems you can only declare your logic true, not show that it is true. Why do you think arguments along the lines of, "I am too right," have any merit?--Percy

What knowledge of the physical world is sourced to the Bible? But it isn't knowledge of the physical world. It's just things from the Bible you choose to believe without evidence. If evidence isn't the foundation for study, then it isn't science.--Percy

Again, this is just something you've chosen to believe, not something you can demonstrate. Same comment. This would be false.You like forensics. A cold-case murder is a single event in the past, right, the type of event you just described. And how many old cold-case murders have been solved, often by DNA? A lot, right? Maybe you heard about the recent identification and capture of the Golden State Killer using DNA and genealogy websites (To Catch a Killer: A Fake Profile on a DNA Site and a Pristine Sample).So of course science can be used to study "single events in the past." Technology is just applied science. Scientifically acquired knowledge with no technological application (i.e., images of the craters on Pluto) is still scientific knowledge.--Percy

Evidence is subjective because it is gathered, examined and analyzed by imperfect human beings. Through replication we increase our confidence in evidence. Naturally for the events of normal day-to-day living evidence is often simple and obvious and requires little or no replication, reexamination or reanalysis (that *is* alcohol on your breath), but in science the circumstances are usually much more complicated and replication is required. With sufficient replication a consensus develops and the knowledge becomes accepted. Tentatively. Life becomes so much simpler when even the need for such questions is recognized as unnecessary. There are both good and bad believers and unbelievers, and none of that seems to have any effect on what happens to them in this life. Some believe there are things that happen to them after this life, but that cannot be demonstrated. I'd like to know the answer to that, too.--Percy

Rather than turning this thread into another geology/evolution discussion, let's examine your underlying principles. This would be incorrect. Forensics works for the unwitnessed and unhistorical. Why do you think otherwise? My example was of an old cold-case murder - no witnesses, nothing historical, yet forensics works. Why do you think evidence from the distant past can't be analyzed, or in your words, that there are "few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past"?How do you know where the distant past begins? Or put another way, how distant is too distant and how do you know? Why do you think Flood evidence is imminent now after all these centuries?--Percy

You say it's "mostly wishful thinking", but then you say: This is inconsistent with your other statements. It is expressed with much certainty and not as wishful thinking, and how can you believe creationists have already proven the flood when you also believe the required evidence hasn't materialized yet?You ignored the other questions. Why do you think forensics only works for the witnessed and historical, which seems in opposition to its true utility in unveiling information about the unwitnessed and unhistorical?Why do you think evidence from the distant past can't be analyzed?How do you know where the distant past begins? Or put another way, how distant is too distant and how do you know?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Reword slightly.