Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Waves
from dictionary.com:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
science:
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Barring semantical differences, science and religion are alot alike.
Religion incorporates faith, science uses verification.
Thats the main difference. Both religion and science result in a set of morals, but the morals are not the objects themself. In religion, you are taking the word of someone else on faith, wether it be the bible or the quran or some other ancient text. With science, you are taking the word of someone, and if you choose to engage the same scenario, you will always come to the same conclusion. No faith involved. Its not that science is more objective, its that science is much more efficient because it incorporates validation, which equals sameness, which equals ease, which equals efficiency.
|
I don't think science results in a set of morals, it results in a way of defining your morals. Religion tells you what your morals are. If you believe in science you believe in being able to change your morals depending upon your circumstance. Religion doesn't allow for that. If I have faith in anything it's that it's necessary to change in this world because this is a changing world and that's based on facts and evidence.
I do think that science is much more objective. I don't know how you could say that religion was objective when typically there's one person or institution running that religion. Science is constantly being reviewed for errors and that just doesn't happen in religion. Please explain how religion is as objective as science in your opinion.