This question has been raised in the cryptirc IRC channel afew minutes ago. the general say was that:
Religion is BS.

First i'd like to make this clear: I myself am NOT a religious person. I DON'T believe in either a god or a creator of any kind or kinds.

THIS IS NOT THE QUESTION AT HAND SO DON'T DARE START TALKING ABOUT GOD k?

Ok i'll start.

From what I understood many people believed that the invention of religion was random and doesn't compare to any of the modern sciences of today and any of the modern ideas answering questions such as: what is the universe made of? how did it begin? how do we define life? and so on...

Let's take a sample of "modern science" and try to understand it - the creation of our universe according to one of the accepted theories:

I think we all know of the Big bang, and there is proof that such a thing might have happened close to the creation of the universe. How do we know that? because we see the expansion of the universe extrapolates into a single point in space. But that is only because we believe the physics of OUR world are correct.

What's the step back from that? The big bang was created from a Singularity

Basically this is a point where there's a huge amount of matter (and according to Newtons theory, thus huge amount of energy) - however it is finite. From Calculations that have been made scientists calculated the amount of matter/energy that was in that singularity. And then they compared it to all the matter/energy we can see in the universe and suddenly there was a huge bulk of matter we couldn't find. Here comes the beloved matter called "dark" matter. It can't be seen, there's no proof of it's existence, but without it, it seems that (according to our current theories of how the universe works) our universe can't exist without it.

But all those calculations and theories are all derived from previous theories such as newton's 1st law with which we extrapolated the origin of the universe... so basically this is a delicate chicken and the egg situation.

So even our modern science lags a few centuries behind itself, suddenly explaining or disproving previous theories.

While current studies show that the concept of god and creator were thought of a few good thousand years ago. Judaism is 5000 years old for instance, according to archeological findings.

at that period the explanation for everything that happened/happens was found - it was god. In fact, that is probably the best theory yet! it stood undisputed for THOUSANDS of years. people fought wars to defend that idea and yet now it seems like BS obviously to some.

So in a few decades we could find that all we think of now as correct is BS, and that's because physics isn't really an accurate science as people like to think it is. Some people argue that it is accurate because it uses mathematics, but that's only because mathematics are tools which were created with the single purpose of defining physical laws and theories.

How the hell is modern science different from that, then?

I'll answer by talking about God

I don't get what you're trying to put across, are you saying that Science isn't convincing as it has many unanswered questions?

No I'm trying to rationalize how religion is completely logical (or used to be at least) so people stop dissing it

Late science (considered "BS" now) had little proof to show it existed. Modern science has proof and examples to back it up. For example E=mc2 has proof to back it up, plus examples (the energy generated from an unstable atom, nuclear energy) Although I do agree with you that some modern science might not be true. There's always room for mistakes to expand human knowledge.

Although there are things you can never be sure of, no matter how many theories are involved. The only things that can be proven are things you can see or feel and prove with materialistic evidence. Anything that seems to be logical but still isn't proven this way is still a theory.

But science has proven some thing's hasn't it? Gravity for example. It exists. You can feel it. Meanwhile religion is all about God doing this, God doing that. I have never seen God do anything, odds are neither have you or the guy living across from you.

In my opinion, man created the concept of Physics and Mathematics. Since man is not perfect, Science and Mathematics are not perfect. They only live up to the standard of man since we created them and we believe them to be true although they can have their flaws. I see what you are getting at Barak and why religion is logical based on these ideas. But since this is the debate forum and I cannot bring my religious insight into this because I will most likely bring up God, I will just stop now.

I would also reply to Xemaul, but I'm afraid I would make this topic into a religious debate. >.>

It's impossible to talk about religion and not bring up God.
I don't see why he want's to talk about this and restrict the mention of God.

I'm going to have to agree with Dino's first statement. Some scientific things ARE true and that is that and there are no debates about them. However, we have never had true PROOF that God has done anything.

Religion and science are different in that religion is not so much about seeking new answers, as it is about having faith in what you're told is the answer.

Yes, all of our scientific discoveries within the last century could be wrong, but that is the point of science, to search for and ultimately find the correct answers, however long it may take.

For example: dinosaur bones. Many creationists and other religious people try to pass them off as a test of faith, while other people create theories and use logic to string facts together and explain where they came from, why they are there, how long they've been there, etc.

This isn't intended to be a debate about religion per se.

Broli got what I was trying to bring up here.

Some people regard religion as bullshit that was never relevantly correct, and compare it to modern science saying it is true. Fact is you can't prove that 1+1 is 2. We defined that - and there are so many other things that we defined that hinder our ability to judge the truthfulness of our theories. In such a way that early "scientists" couldn't explain ANY of that stuff at all so they invented the concept of religion because that was ABSOLUTELY they only way they could understand such awesome ideas such as Mass and Force.

Quick replys since I posted this:

@Kal: Religion itself isn't science, it's a scientific theory.

@Jay: Again, how did we prove any of those stuff? Most of the fundamental questions science has answered is purely theoretical. It's just that we are so much smarter than people who were at the cutting edge of discovery 5000 years ago that we can't even accept the possibility that people didn't know what was "force". hell, we still don't know what is Energy but we use it freely everyday in studies and research.

Some religions tell their followers to find out more about the world they're living in, and that by doing so they're closer to god. I'd like to link it to what you said that modern science might not be correct, because no matter how hard we try to prove the most basic questions with science we find ourselves unable to do so. So by trying to find out more about the universe it brings one closer to religion.

?

You have one apple. Get another apple. You have two.

Are you trying to question the fundamentals of everything we have ever learned and why it is so?

Again no... I'm trying to show how religion was a perfectly reasonable science at the time of it's creation and sonic made a good point. Every scientific theory uses other theories and methods of testing to make the concept sustainable and slightly flexible in face of changes to what was originally known... by saying "learn more about the world" some religions did just that.

In the end, everything man perceives is only that: man's perception.

We may be intelligent when compared to a deer or a fish, but we are nothing but animals capable of thought, and thought leads to questions, which man in turn seeks answers for, which may be right, or may be wrong.

If I understand you correctly, I partially agree with what you are trying to say Barak.

Until man becomes more highly evolved, and develops a more powerful brain capable of things far beyond what our brains are currently capable of doing (which will most likely never happen), we can not be sure of anything at all, because many of the facts (if you can call them that, maybe actualities is the better word) of the universe and existence are far beyond our meager minds, and are not as we perceive them.

I have never seen such a trolly post like this one before, even in my time at lolfusion forums. You, my friend, are aspiring to master the art. Hats off to you, sir, as you have created a topic which in its pure entity rivals specific proportions of the robotic requirement drive created in ages past.

Actually Mark, if you look up the meaning of scientific theory as explained in Wikipedia, this is what they determine a scientific theory as:



Since God could be explained as a "phenomenon" of sorts, saying that religion is a scientific theory in the eyes of a nonreligious person isn't exactly wrong. It can be a plausible and conclusive statement.

You're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wha...entific_journal

I laughed a little bit.

Science is the explanation of the observable physical world, most people refer to god as super natural (which cannot exist), therefore outside the realm of science and a load of bullshit.



There is no such ting as modern science. Science is a method of finding out of the physical world works through observations and coming to conclusions upon similar observations occurring again and again. "Modern science" implie that there is something we are doing differently now than we did before. Anyone doing anything other than what I described is no practicing science.




Excuse me? Physics Phoronidaing works and everyone in there right mind knows it. Ya know those iPods, cell phones and computers that you guys use? None of it would be possible without physics. They work, yes? Also, it's pretty damn easy to dismiss something seeing as you know nothing about it. Do you have a physics/mathematics degree? No? Then explain to me how the hell you think there's something wrong with it. It's served us to far, following your logic everyone should just stop cooking their food, because, it was only a tool created with the single purpose of making food taste better and we should search for alternatives.



Hey, Santa Claus has been around a while...he must exist too! Evidence or gtfo.




Perfect is subjective.

Every single religion is a theory trying to deduce the concept of all that is and will be, but it fails to realize that it's wrong and even if it's right it has a lot to contend up to.

I'm not going to be some raggot militant atheist who ONLY picks on Christianity because they miss the point completely

EVERY religion is started by a person be one person, a group, or many.

Scientology was conceived by L Ron Hubbard, Islam was conceived by Muhammed, Christianity by the followers of Jesus, Judaism by people before Jesus' time waiting for the oncoming of the messiah

Apart from ALL those religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, cults, and every other religion ever conceived... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions ), religion can not be correct and is only there to fabricate that which we don't fully understand yet.

Science doesn't know how the universe was formed, science doesn't know everything. Science doesn't know alot of things... But when science knows something, we make GOD DAMN SURE that it is CORRECT AND TRUE instead of relying on faith or belief to prove something

As an example, Creationism and Evolution is obviously a debate that will never cease to exist. People fail to realize that both Creationism and Evolution are BOTH theories that exist as written by someone, and were conceived by someone.

However... Evolution is backed up by SCIENCE instead of faith or belief, and science then proves as many possible true things attributed to evolution whereas creationism can not compare.

You're right, science doesn't know everything, neither does religion though. Science however will keep reworking and rewriting itself until a hypothesis becomes fact and we will move on to the next thing to learn. Science is a constant.

Back then everything was based of religion, now we have people who disagree with these religions.

There were always people who disagreed with religions, some religions were built on disagreements of other religions.
And there were and always will be people who disagree with some things in science. See the relation there?

No. That's just not science. Physics, is the science of the observation of the universe... not the other way around.
Science is the systematic practice of useing knowledge to explain and predict events and outcomes. It doesn't always refer to anything physical.



You are thinking of about 10%. These Newtonian Mechanics and other concepts that are there for the eye to see. you are referring too work in a normal environment. But we already know they don't work in accelerated frames of reference, for instance, they don't work in the molecular and atomic structure, and therefore we know for a fact that they are only a small part of a much larger concept.

90% of physics speaks of things you can't see for yourself. Take electricity for instance: At first people though it was positive charges moving (but now we know that's not true), then they thought it was negatively charged particles moving (but now we know that's not true), now we think that it's the movement of "holes" of negative potential. But ALL that is a complete theory because we can't see electricity.

I see no correlation between your post and the intended topic.

Alk and Abe ended this debate.

Religion began long ago, back in ye olde medieval times. Back then, almost everbody was really poor and slaved away in the fields all day. They created the idea of heaven so they could imagine that one day, in the afterlife, they will escape all their butthurt.

As Christopher Hitchens said, God did not create man, man created god.

So yeah. Talking n' posting n' shit and Broli being a maverick.

Physical - Any entities which are composed of matter and/or energy, as well as the physical properties of those entities; and not merely items of thought or belief.

In other words, everything that exists.

Well, no it doesn't. Religion offers a mystical explanation and says that we can't grasp the concept of God so we will never be able to understand why things happened/happen the way they did/do, as God's motives will never be understood. Early science, although primitive, attempted to explain things moreso than just 'God' and therefore the two are not the same.



What do you mean the physics of our world? The Big Bang is theorised to have occurred because of the way this Universe works and although we may not know the fine intricacies of it, this is the only Universe we have to study. It is also based on the same physics that put the Space Shuttle into orbit and the same physics that allow for skyscrapers to be built, so our system of physics isn't and shouldn't be questioned here.



That's progression. Theories evolve and that's not a bad thing. Religion is stagnant. Think Galileo. What did the Church try to do because he was breaking new ground? If religion had its say, we'd still think that God created the world in 6 days then rested.



Because it obviously is BS. There is no proof of it. Just because something is old doesn't mean that it has any credibility over a new theory.



Modern science is different because it actively encourages the discovery of new and interesting phenonema and seeks to explain them rationally. Religion does neither. Religion encourages complacency and if something new were found, it'd be put down purely to God's will or work.

To be honest, I'm not really seeing a major point in this topic, it's pretty obvious that what science stands for differs from what religion stands for.

Abe, Alk, and Plant just closed the topic.

And no, I'm not going to explain it. But needless to say this was the sort of reason I dropped out of a maths degree. You can prove that 1 + 1 = 2. You can't prove addition.

Science is a collection of theories to explain everything around us using proofs, studies and examination. Religion is a belief concerning everything around us where the only proof is that the whole cannot be disproved.

when you say "dark matter" is it the same as "antimatter"? because i thought that missing matter was transformed in energy when it collided with antimatter, just after the Big Bang.

anyway. I think people follow science just like any other religion. There is proof, there is maths, but many are just theories. For example, the Big Bang. you have the expansion of galaxies, cosmic radiation and the proportion of H and He in the universe to prove it, but it leaves some questions open, like what happened before, what "activated" Big Bang, etc.
While the theories in science are formed after experiments or observation, in religion or philosophy they're made in a different way. They are all attempts to discover the truth, the difference is in the methods.

Dark matter is an unidentified type of "matter". Anti-matter is the opposite of matter (a book explained it to me as, anti-matter is a hole, and regular matter is the filling, also explaining why they destroy each other).




You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is. They are based off evidence and observations, not a "guess". Ever heard of the Theory of Gravity? It's just a theory right? Go jump off a cliff and get back to me on that.



And results. Science has given us: Modern Medicine, Cell Phones, Satellites, the Internet, etc. Please tell me what religion has brought to the table?

I swear to god, if there's any more talking about god, I'm going to smite all of you.

Anyway, if anyone read the original post, it seems to question the difference between religion and science as methods of thought.

There's about to be a bombshell dropped here.

Get ready.

3.
2.
1.

Religion doesn't mean god.

So stop imposing western culture on everybody.

Now onto the actual discussion.

First, let's not get too egotistical with our knowledge, here. There's a distinction between "modern science" and "modern physics." Thus, we should all stop talking like we actually understand Quantum Mechanics.

Second, religion and science are culturally different now as they serve different functions. One is for spirituality and happiness, while the other is for impacting the world in a positive way and fulfilling nerds' curiosities. However, back in the day, they served the same fundamental purpose, to explain what people didn't understand.

Now onto the actual discussion between methods of thought.



It's arguable as to whether mathematics was "created." Furthermore, there are critics now who do not agree with modern physics.



As a method of thought, there's really no distinction except in the way you explain things. For example, you explain gravity as 9.81 m/s/s, or a force that pulls you toward the ground. Religion may explain it as Shiva pulling you towards the ground. Hindus can definitely feel it.

For example, I could contend that science is totally invalid because it relies on its own evidence to validate itself. If we define 2 as 1+1, then we have already stated that 2 must be 1+1. If religion defines 2 as Buddha's gift, then according to Buddhists, Buddha plus generosity equals 2. The question of course, is why 1+1 is a better definition for 2 than Buddha's gift.




Religion is also an explanation of the observable physical world. Most reasonable SCIENTISTS believe that religion is supernatural. Of course, anything outside their own realm is a load of bullshit. Just like how everything outside Christianity or Islam must be a load of bullshit. There's no longer any bright line between the way you explain science and the way you explain religion.



This is elitism to the max. You missed his argument as well. He's actually admitting that he cannot prove that science at this point is wrong. But that's not the argument he's making. He's saying that we can never escape our own historical context, but if we look back, many people in the past were just as convicted had "empirical proof" and were wrong. He's not saying that there IS something wrong with our conception of the world, but that there MIGHT BE.

In fact, any good scientist would say that. Science itself admits that it doesn't know everything.



I think you're missing the point of the topic. It's not that god must exist or that Santa must exist. Rather, it's that there is no difference in the methods of thought. You asking for scientific evidence to prove the existence of Santa is the the equivalent of a Santanist asking you to conjure up a spell to prove that science exists.



Untrue. Some religions claim that they understand god fully.



This makes you a terrible scientist. To say that "our system of physics should never be questioned." Ask any preeminent Big Bang theorist or physicist and they will tell you that the theory is incomplete and has problems.



You should stop saying "religions" because clearly you are only considering one. There are thousands. Also, even the example you gave was not a "stagnant" one. It has evolved over the years.



Just because you think it is obviously BS doesn't mean that the theory itself is less credible.



Define "rationally."



If they did, it was only because they missed the point of the topic and started talking about why god doesn't exist instead of pointing out differences in the methodologies.



Also, I don't believe in anything I typed above, it's just more fun to argue this way.

Thank you Zhou for calming my rage.

It's easy to argue blindy.

For you it seems it's easy to understand each argument and the logical reasoning behind it and thus you are able to explicate the strengths and weaknesses very clearly. It's a gift!

Well seeing as most of us live in a western society, and it's safe to say all of us are familiar with it, we obviously start to argue about that. Christianity has a monopoly on religion in the western world, so we talk about it. Kind of like the movie Supersize Me, is Mcdonalds the only fast food place that's unhealthy? No, but it's the biggest and most well known. (Am I rambling? )

Oh, and replacing "God" with "Shiva" doesn't change anything.



Says who?



There are also critics who do not agree the earth is round, just because there is opposition does not mean something is wrong.




Well one because it works and makes sense, two because it's simple, and 3 because there's no proof it was Buddha's gift.




Religion is an explanation of the observable world, yes, but that doesn't mean it's true or holds any water.




I admit that we don't know everything...I think you might have missed the point of my missed point...

Oh, and science doesn't "know" anything, it's a method, not a person.



Um, no? There is a difference between thoughts. If something doesn't work, then it's dismissed (in science), if religion doesn't work, people just change their believes to fit it.




On this point I agree, but that just because the Big Bang can be wrong doesn't validate another theory.





There is no proof like he said. If I told you there was a giant letter A in the sky, but can't be detected would you still defend my position, even if I just pulled it out of my ass?





Um, no? There is a difference between thoughts. If something doesn't work, then it's dismissed (in science), if religion doesn't work, people just change their believes to fit it.




On this point I agree, but that just because the Big Bang can be wrong doesn't validate another theory.





Are you really going to try to debate this? Just this in, semantics isn't an argument, it's a sign that you are cornered and need a red herring.

It definitely does matter. Hindus are generally more tolerant, and Buddhists as well. The term "religion" doesn't imply that there is a monotheistic spiritual being. Furthermore, Christianity definitely does not have a monopoly on religion; it's quickly being superseded by Islam.



Um... Says me. It's clearly an opinion. I'm not sure if this is a rhetorical question. Even if it were, I'm not getting its effect.



Missed the argument completely. If you took a look at the argument about historical context, perhaps you would understand. In 100 years, it might be just as ridiculous to think a Higgs-Boson exists like it is now to believe that the world is flat.



One, it makes sense to you. This is a non-unique argument because it could make just as much sense to a Buddhist.

Two, also a non-unique argument as Buddhists find it very simple.

Three, also a non-unique argument because there's no proof that 2 is 1+1 outside of the already set up definition. If I say that a box plus a fish is equal to a computer, there's no proof that I'm wrong either.



Let me rewrite that sentence for you.

Science is an explanation of the observable world, yes, but that doesn't mean it's true or holds any water.

One thing that bothers me is the arrogance that goes on here. It's almost as if you ignore the fact that science has been continually wrong. Of course, our generation thinks that we are correct.

It seems like all the times science has been wrong and negatively impacted the world people have blamed (either correctly or incorrectly) religion or ignored it.

My point is not to prove that any system of thought is more preferable, but rather to help you guys see your own faults and elitism that leads to BAD science.



First, you should read your own quote. If you did, you would realize that you did not comprehend what Fisher was saying at all.

Second, it's called personification. It's a literary device.



I would and could.



Not true at all. Scientific beliefs are sometimes held for decades or even centuries before they are dismissed. In any case, this argument is still non unique.

If science doesn't work, people just change their beliefs to fit it.

It's called revising the hypothesis.



I'm not validating any theory. I'm defending Fisher's original position.



First, I'm never cornered in an argument. Every argument can be refuted. The argument I just made could be refuted.

Second, "rational" is an extremely arbitrary word used by elitists to belittle those who differ in opinion. It's not a matter of semantics at all. Let's look at the definition of the word "rational" by Merriam-Webster:

having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

What is reasonable to you may not be to others. Vice versa.

Third, every argument must be based upon a premise. Therefore, the premise must be clarified before the argument can be understood or refuted. In this situation, the argument is based upon the assumption that the word "rational" holds meaning and is preferable. If the premise is untrue, then the argument is untrue.

Of course, I could just choose not to explain anything and act patronizing for no reason like you did.

And thank you, Row.

Science takes new information on board, Religion doesn't.

/thread

To take a quote: "Religions die when they are proved true. Science is the record of dead religions''

I spend far too much time discussing this type of thing at work, and have reached an accord with the RS (Religious Studies) department. It is this:

Religion requires faith (believing in something without evidence). Science requires pragmatism (believing in something only with evidence). Between the two we have hypothesis - thought before choice of action.



That is as succinct as I can be. If anyone has specific science questions please feel free to email me or post direct comments on this thread (the latter may take some time to reply to as I am rarely on).

Take care

Barak and Zhou have a point, in science you need "faith" to believe in some theories, the same way you have faith in your religions. Even tough you have all the proof that might make your theory true.

I think you'll find that there is no faith in true science. A defintion of faith is as follows:

QUOTE

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Science doesn't state something to be true and fact unless it has been proven. Until that time, it is hypothesis and is used from the viewpoint ''if this is right, then we can reasonably expect...'' as opposed to the more dogmatic religious viewpoints.
Only religious people who dabble in the shallow end of science use faith in their experiments and assertations. You may be religious, but to stay true to scientific principle, you must keep it separate in order to remain unbiased - removing the subjective aspect.

Indeed, God may exist, but until we prove/disprove it, even he is just another unproven hypothesis, much like the Loch Ness monster, abominable snowman and good country and western music.

While on the topic of hypothesis and theories; I am fully aware many among the religious community use the argument against many scientific ideas saying ''but it's just a theory and we can't believe it''... an example being evolution. To you I say this: Gravity is just a theory... perhaps you can take the same view and drop off the planet.

I can prove the existence of one of those things Ronan.

Ring of fire gave birth to the drinking game of the same name, ergo it is good by association.

My argument was not that science and religion are the same thing. I just wanted someone to point out their differences, and as of now nobody has. What I was trying to illustrate was not a point about religion; I could care less. I was trying to show that the attitudes certain scientists take is equally dogmatic and counterproductive as the attitude prevalent in many religions.

Before I proceed with the explanation, there are logical fallacies within certain arguments that people have made. Everyone assumes that all religions are based on faith and that science is not. This is a Anglo-Saxon fixation, no? Many people conclude from what they consider "evidence" to the theories of natural religion. That's why religion exists. For many, it serves the same function as science, to "search for truth." The problem I see with a lot of posters here is that they ignore the fact that bad science can be equally damaging as bad religion. In fact, religion and science were one for many centuries, though I suppose you can make a linguistic argument for why that is not true, it is still conceptually true.

It is absurd to dismiss others' beliefs on presumptions of Western ideas and then demand proof within an entirely different logical framework. Essentially, it boils down to "show me evidence in my conception, which is completely contrary to yours."

Now there are assumptions that "science is always right," or "science requires proof," but those assumptions demand the proof of another assumption: the concept of "proof." It is infinitely regressive to say "I have scientific proof within the scientific framework." This begs the question, "Why do you get to dismiss other things that are proven within their own frameworks?"

Religion generalized that some years, since tributes were made to the gods, and the harvest was good those years, that tributes should be made every year.

Science once generalized that since sometimes leeches cured people that leeches will always cure them.

Science has had massive benefits to humanity. More people are alive, and their quality of living is much higher now.

Scientific research shows that religious people are more happy and tend to live longer.

One problem I had when I went to see Richard Dawkins speak last year was that despite his charm and hilarious satires on religion, his faith in science seemed equally dogmatic.

Fisher points out that:



But that doesn't solve back all the problems in science nor does it say anything about religion. This is true since differing people will reasonably expect different things even when given the same foundational premise. This is where science and religion diverge. The statement is, "Since the world is so complicated and wonderful, we can reasonably expect..." followed by completely opposite conclusions. Thus to ask one to explain their conclusion in terms of another is nonsensical.

Labeling things as "dogmatic" is not an argument. Dawkins' adamant rejection of the possibility of a god and the infallibility of evolutionary biology is equally dogmatic since it seems as if he doesn't care about the problems the theory has. Although such problems may not deconstruct the theory entirely, it's not as if they don't matter. Ignoring such problems would be akin to ignoring contradictions in the Bible, Qu'ran, or another religious text.

Thus, it is not sufficient to address this question without addressing the foundational principles of the two different methodologies of thinking. In other words, how do the ways that science and religion differences have any practical application?

To answer this question preconceptions of the need for "proof" or "dogmatism" need to be abolished immediately. In fact, such questions complicate the discussion and degrade into useless bickering that has no constructive value.

So let's look at the differences.

Science's distinction is not that "if x is true, then we can reasonably expect" or that "there needs to be proof" for something. That doesn't answer the question of the nature of that "proof." The foundational principle of science is that "If X is true, then this, detailed and specific phenomenon will happen." This is different from saying that we "can reasonably expect" since it is based upon observation of a specific phenomena that is detailed prior to the experiment and does not rely on reasoning but rather a comparison between the expected result and the actual result. The requirement for reasoning implies that there is only an expected result.

I should note that this is the expected norm of science now, and it should be followed to avoid bad science.

Religion is explanatory in nature. It says that "x happened because y has the ability to make it happen." Unfortunately, such reasoning is often
A) Non-verifiable and
B) Based upon assumptions and "reasoning."

The A) point is that saying "x happened because of y" is non-verifiable. This is because causal statements can never be proven true as a conclusion could have resulted from a multitude of non-identifiable actions. For example, we may say that I have not been attacked by a vampire because I wear a garlic necklace every day. However, this assumes that a particular behavior that I have is the reason why something bad has not happened to me. This is non-verifiable since I don't know if I haven't been attacked by a vampire due to the fact that I have black hair, speak English, live in America, am Chinese, or that vampires don't exist.

The B) point is that reasoning is based upon assumptions. Although sometimes reasoning can lead to good conclusions, it usually does not. In fact, it is hard for humans to deduce the system of logic that is infallible, and even if they have, the plethora of assumptions that are required are sometimes misidentified or ignored. As such, reasoning can not be a reliable means to explain things, as observable phenomena may be unreasonable.

HOWEVER, it is important to realize that science was and perhaps still is entrenched in these two attitudes. This is why people wore penguin suits during the plague and took leaches to their skin: scientists. The distinction is that science being wrong doesn't matter for science. Religion being wrong matters. Science is a broken car that always needs work. Religion claims to be a faultless McLaren.

Also, there are other things that may be derived from religion outside of a fundamental worldview. A religious lifestyle may be the source of happiness for certain people. It is important to realize that although religions may serve as a way of explaining things, that function usually has minimal importance. That's why you don't hear Genesis being preached every Sunday at church. While the creation story is usually a fundamental assumption to every religion, it carries less importance with regards to those people's lifestyles.

To address this question for yourself you need to ask yourself two questions:

1) Are science and religion mutually exclusive?
2) If they are, which one would you prefer to solve the world's problems or fulfill your desires/needs?

Whew that was fun.

In other words since you can't disprove science in its own "logical framework" you shoehorn it into one were it can be. Science's "framework" is based on observation and proof, taking one of those away makes it cease to be science.

That was not what I said at all. I specifically analyzed the substance of "proof" within a logical framework. I don't try to "disprove" science, nor do I indicate anywhere that I am. In fact, I rigorously criticize the operation of religion's logic. I merely wanted to point out the false logical assumptions people made when criticizing this perspective so as not to fall into an equally elitist and dogmatic conviction in science, because good science must be able to admit that it may be wrong. My argument is that "proof" is framed in such a way that can be interpreted differently in different logical frameworks. The word "proof," like the word "rational," is a word that carries persuasive weight but no substantive weight, since the word is vague and unspecific about what it entails. Clearly you ignored the examples I pointed out about how people getting better from leeches once constituted "proof" that leeches work.

In the end, I concluded that demanding "proof" is ridiculous in any sense and instead the simple conclusion can be made through which mode of thinking is more utilitarian.

I think it is important to know something about the properties of scientific discourse. I think there is a tad bit of misunderstanding as to how scientific theories can be "overthrown" and new ones placed in.

It is easy to have the misconception that, for example, when Einstein's formulation of gravity overthrew Newton's as the "correct" description of how gravitation works, that that would mean Newton's system was completely incorrect.

To show this view is incorrect, I will elaborate on how the scientific process ideally works:

1. A question is asked or a problem proposed. For example, the scientists from the 16th to the 17th century asked: "How does gravitation work?"
2. A hypothesis is made. The hypothesis has to have one key property: IT MAKES PREDICTIONS. Newton's hypothesis that the force exerted by gravity between two bodies was proportional to the product of the masses of those bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them yielded predictions for the masses, trajectories, and distances of celestial bodies which are specific, measurable and FALSIFIABLE (the prediction can be disconfirmed). Once a hypothesis has made enough predictions correctly, it becomes a theory (a broad explanatory framework; be careful not to confuse this word with the everyday use of the word "theory", which people may use to mean a guess or an imprecise formulation.)

So, now that we have the scientific theory of Newtonian gravity, what do we do once Einstein comes along and tips the boat? On the one hand, Newtonian gravity is still a useful description of the world, yet we are told that it is essentially incorrect, and that Einsteinian spacetime is instead the "correct way to formulate gravity.

The resolution is simple: What if somebody were to tell you that the earth was completely flat? Of course, you would dismiss this offhand as incorrect, but can we see if a flat earth model would be useful in SOME situations? Yes, it is! This sounds surprising, but a flat earth with a uniformly perpendicular gravitational force is a useful description *SO LONG ARE NOT CALCULATING AT A SCALE TOO LARGE*. We know the earth on a large scale is not a flat plane as the predictions arising from the "Flate Plane Hypothesis" fall short of being verified on scales much larger than about 20 miles (it is not only scale which devastates this hypothesis. That the earth is a non-inertial reference frame and a rotating sphere can be measured on tiny apparatuses and still discredit the hypothesis, but the latter was an easier example.)

In the same way, Einsteinian gravitation IS NOT ONE IOTA DIFFERENT from Newtonian theory if a property called spacetime curvature is set to be flat. Newtonian gravity thus works to a very close approximation because the spacetime of the solar system is comparatively flat compared to more extreme curvature (black holes, neutron stars; and other places where the predictions of Newtonian gravity fail.)

In conclusion: Think of scientific hypotheses or theories as *probably incorrect*, but still better than the one it superceded.

Religion is a symptom of irrational belief and groundless hope