The reason why Science > Religion.

[WafflesFTW]

Religious proof constitutes a 2000 year old book, ravings of insane women, and sentence's with "thou and thy" to make it appear like they are back in "Jesus time."

Science has tons of evidence supporting evolution, science has actually contributed to the world, and science gives reasons other than "believe or you are going to hell."

I'm disappointed in my countrymen. I believe hinduism is the only polytheistic religion left. We haven't even graduated to monotheism. Eventually though, everyone will see the world as it is and not hide behind some robed man and atheism will predominate.

[Skeptic]

I was thinking; Science is greater than religion because it is testable, verifiable, and repeatable. It stands up to scrutiny, does not claim to be perfect and when the results don't support the hypothesis, we change the hypothesis not the results.

Religion on the other hand says; This is how it is, without testing because if they could test the results would certainly not match the hypothesis and religion would be unsupported.

Science makes no claims of truth, just the current hypothesis or theory and is always looking to debunk what they know in search of something more accurate.

Religion on the other hand claims to be the truth and anyone who tries to test it won't get accurate results because they don't have enough faith. Not that religion can be tested since the supernatural is imperceptible

[Cathar1950]

I was thinking; Science is greater than religion because it is testable, verifiable, and repeatable. It stands up to scrutiny, does not claim to be perfect and when the results don't support the hypothesis, we change the hypothesis not the results.

Religion on the other hand says; This is how it is, without testing because if they could test the results would certainly not match the hypothesis and religion would be unsupported.

Science makes no claims of truth, just the current hypothesis or theory and is always looking to debunk what they know in search of something more accurate.

Religion on the other hand claims to be the truth and anyone who tries to test it won't get accurate results because they don't have enough faith. Not that religion can be tested since the supernatural is imperceptible

Maybe I am just a hopeless romantic that just can't seem to get enough of seeing to much and feels uncomfortable feeling comfortable. Maybe I should try some of those new pills? Or is it another scam?

I can't help get the feeling there is a problem here in valuing.
I have seen some crazy science in my day.
I might ask if religion had all those same qualities you find useful in science in how would science be better then religion?
I have found some of those Religious ideas in great Christian and non-Christian scholars, "such as ones that do make “no claims of truth", always searching for "something more accurate", and "when the results don't support the hypothesis", they "change the hypothesis not the results".
Of course most of them take a historical or even evolutionary approach were it is more of an outcome then an aim and are part of our modern world with a history going back to our search to understand and know. More important in my mind is our ability to share.
I think we are dealing with different world views or we are talking about a subject.
Naturally I tend to like the world view that includes them both as they seem inseparable in the world of ideas. Let me think about it.

[Almsivi]

I use to believe both evolution and religion, why not? I embrace all religions, faiths and beliefs,
even if they contradicate each other, i simply see the harmony in them.

God exist, and it is obvious that all beings evolve in some manner, so i think that the God is the one
that created the cosmic evolutionary laws, which operate in this universe.
First God created the laws and rules, and then the evolution begins.. according to the God laws..

Some books about Hinduism, and how to know the essence of religion.
http://www.almsivi.zoomshare.com/ my new created little website for sharing these books..

[Almsivi]

I use to believe both evolution and religion, why not? I embrace all religions, faiths and beliefs,
even if they contradicate each other, i simply see the harmony in them.

God exist, and it is obvious that all beings evolve in some manner, so i think that the God is the one
that created the cosmic evolutionary laws, which operate in this universe.
First God created the laws and rules, and then the evolution begins.. according to the God laws..

Some books on Hinduism, and how to know the essence of religion.
http://www.almsivi.zoomshare.com/ my new created little website for sharing these books..

[byofrcs]

I use to believe both evolution and religion, why not? I embrace all religions, faiths and beliefs,
even if they contradicate each other, i simply see the harmony in them.

God exist, and it is obvious that all beings evolve in some manner, so i think that the God is the one
that created the cosmic evolutionary laws, which operate in this universe.
First God created the laws and rules, and then the evolution begins.. according to the God laws..

Some books about Hinduism, and how to know the essence of religion.
http://www.almsivi.zoomshare.com/ my new created little website for sharing these books..

Great - I picked on, THOUGHT POWER By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA, the first one listed. I see,

While light travels at the rate of 1,86,000 miles per second, thoughts virtually travel in no time.
Thought is finer than ether, the medium of electricity. In broadcasting, a singer sings beautiful songs at Calcutta....

So in two sentences I see two claims that look like nonsense. The speed of thought is the propagation delays in the human mind.This is easily tested for and is less than a second, above a few hundred milliseconds, but no where near "virtually travel in no time". At best is some stuff like the use of Myelin sheathing and some short-circuits from the hippothalamus but we're talking milliseconds not microseconds or nanoseconds.

The second is the claim that there is luminiferous aether (the PDF mentions "ether" which is a chemical so I guess they really mean the classical aether). Numerous experiments right up until the past few years haven't found this stuff.

So for just the first two sentences of 1 short note we already have two claims that require evidence,

- prove that the speed of thought exceeds what is generally accepted,
- prove that aether exists.

[Almsivi]

I cannot prove anything, you can only experience by yourself.

Ether, or aether, it is something like spiritual, a non material substance, which is a substratum
for thoughts. Here in Physycal world there is distances, miles kilometers, but in the thought world
there is no distance between us, the whole existence is as in one point.

This is thought philosophy/religion , it is in some degree alternative.

The main thing that Thought Power teaches us, is that you can discipline, purify, order your
thought, and in that earn benefits, mental peace, and some freedom!

[byofrcs]

I cannot prove anything, you can only experience by yourself.

Ether, or aether, it is something like spiritual, a non material substance, which is a substratum
for thoughts. Here in Physycal world there is distances, miles kilometers, but in the thought world
there is no distance between us, the whole existence is as in one point.

This is thought philosophy/religion , it is in some degree alternative.

The main thing that Thought Power teaches us, is that you can discipline, purify, order your
thought, and in that earn benefits, mental peace, and some freedom!

So basically no evidence in that mumbo-jumbo. The reference I gave was very clear in that it mentioned the speed of light (using Indian number groupings/lakh) so there is an attempt to relate this to the natural world.

Given naturalism I feel you have no proof that there is some "superluminal" speed at which thoughts travel. Given naturalism we are very much constrained by the very slow sublight speed chemistry and the proof is that with various fNMR techniques thoughts can be seen forming and are very much sub-light.

Prove otherwise.

The problem you have is that the whole of the texts fails because of this refusal to prove this one claim. Without the ability to falsify, how can we see what is true and false and therefore nothing claimed in those texts can be shown to be the truth.

Don't worry, this is the same for all religions and people can still make a good living out of it.

[MikeH]

Religious proof constitutes a 2000 year old book, ravings of insane women, and sentence's with "thou and thy" to make it appear like they are back in "Jesus time."

Science has tons of evidence supporting evolution, science has actually contributed to the world, and science gives reasons other than "believe or you are going to hell."

I'm disappointed in my countrymen. I believe hinduism is the only polytheistic religion left. We haven't even graduated to monotheism. Eventually though, everyone will see the world as it is and not hide behind some robed man and atheism will predominate.

Why science vs religion, though? If you pick only one, you are still an absolutist.

[McCulloch]

Why science vs religion, though? If you pick only one, you are still an absolutist.

When science contradicts religion or religion contradicts science then what?