Science and religion may both involve systems of beliefs, except that in science the beliefs are generally probabilistic, tentative, and subject to falsification and revision, whereas in religion the beliefs are dogmatic and absolute, and the belief systems involve a lot of vagueness, ambiguity, metaphoricity, and inconsistency. The methods of science are relatively principled whereas the methods of religion involve mostly repetitive exhortation and cherrypicking. Science is no more "just another religion" than not collecting stamps is just another hobby.

I think that the difference between Religion and Science is mainly in methods. On the other hand, Science is based on facts and inferences, which are obtained by means of different methods of reasoning, which are reflex from natural relations. And I think that interpretation of the meaning is a psychological operation, depending on needs-motives of interpreting subject (person), in the actual activity, and, consequently, it has social-historical character (meanings change, depending of internal and external conditions where the subject is living).

Science and religion may both involve systems of beliefs, except that in science the beliefs are generally probabilistic, tentative, and subject to falsification and revision, whereas in religion the beliefs are dogmatic and absolute, and the belief systems involve a lot of vagueness, ambiguity, metaphoricity, and inconsistency. The methods of science are relatively principled whereas the methods of religion involve mostly repetitive exhortation and cherrypicking. Science is no more "just another religion" than not collecting stamps is just another hobby.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Skiles & readers,

I doubt that science is "a system of beliefs, not predicated solely on justifiable physical facts." It does involve (as yet) unconfirmed hypotheses, of course, but only subject to eventual testing. Again, not all scientific facts are clearly "physical" facts --if by this you mean facts taken into account in the science of physics.

For example, that species of living things generally reproduce according to their own kind, is a biological fact, but I know of no translation of this into the standard vocabulary of physics. Many more examples could be given.

"Science accurately interpret the meaning of observed physical evidence," in accordance with accepted theory --also in accordance with proposed alternatives to accepted theory. It gets interesting when differing theories differ in their preferred interpretations; but often enough evidence allows for clear decisions between competing theories. That is the chief point of interest.

H.G. Callaway

I agree completely with Karl. Science has to be based on verifiable facts, and these are constantly being questioned and revised, as more facts become available. Religion is based on faith alone, and questioning is either discouraged or even prohibited. The two could not be more different, in my view.

To address Satish's point:

.i.e presence of soul in human being only logically it can be explained without sufficient provable evidence

Because "soul" is an artifact we have created in our minds, passed on down the generations through traditions, and it might bear no resemblance to anything factual. Much like many people truly believe that "love is a matter of the heart," as if this were literally the case. It's astonishing what people's belief systems are.

So, we have faith in such matters, and we could be quite thoroughly wrong. If there is anything behind this concept of "soul," then eventually science will discover it, measure it, even replicate it, perhaps.

Religion and traditions also used to teach that rough seas were created by an angry Poseidon. That too was faith. And I think today, most people hopefully agree, not really the case.

Science is an information collected by observations and explained by logic. If we fail to observe or fail to explain, there will be no science. Religion is a faith-based facts.

Thank you for this question.

"If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one."

~ John Barrow

~~~~

IMO, the best answer to this question is an emphatic "yes!" which is {scientifically, mathematically, logically, philosophically and metaphysically} supported by Godel's incompleteness theorems. The reason the answer must be "yes!" is best explained in a two-hour video lecture {that explores the metaphysical implications of Godel's theory, in depth, and in simplified language that can be understood by anyone with an average intelligence and some modicum of understanding of mathematics, physics, psychology, philosophy and logic}.

Although most readers here {I assume}, are well-beyond their student years, and seem so invested in {committed to} their {scientific ?} beliefs ... and, thus, loathe to listen to lengthy lectures {especially from someone without an advanced degree in their particular scientific specialization}, I highly recommend the expenditure of two-hours of your valuable attention to this lecture. I promise, it will be an enlightening experience for any scientist, no matter your level of "expertise."

Best regards,

Bob

Metaphysical Implications Of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWuaPEpKgfk

~~~ "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine."

~ Kurt Godel

~~~

"Godel demonstrated that every logical scheme, including mathematics, is dependent upon axioms that it cannot prove and that cannot be reduced to the scheme itself. Godel was reportedly concerned that he might have inadvertently proved the existence of God, a faux pas in his Viennese and Princeton circle."

~ George Gilder

~~~

"As with geometries, so with logics: there are an infinite number of consistent schemes of logical reasoning that can be constructed. There is no such thing as absolute truth in logic and mathematics. The best one can do is talk of the truth of statements given a set of rules of reasoning. It is quite possible to have statements that are true in one logical system, but false in another."

~ John Barrow

~~~

"If a 'religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one."

~ John Barrow