Religion v. Science. Is there a more logical choice in the two?

[Seefu Sefirosu]

As for religion, just something I found while browsing around the internet (Facebook):

1. The only evidence you have for your holy book/religion being worth more than someone else's holy book is that you are convinced it's so.
2. Lots of people are convinced by lots of different holy books/religions.
3. They can't all be right.
4. Therefore it's possible to be utterly convinced and wrong.
5. The chances of your religion being the right one--it has an equal chance as ALL other possible religions--are a billion to one.
6. Your religion probably isn't right.

Thus, by that above set of statements (which I believe to be true), there is only one correct religion, and your chance of picking it is completely and utterly nil. It's probably some religion you've never heard of, because right now it's DEFINITELY not looking to be in Catholicism's favor. (Joke against Catholics... it doesn't look very good for any religion, actually, because there are so many.)

On the other hand...

Look at Science. A lot of people choose the scientific path, thinking that there's more proof in that. In my experience, sometimes Religion provides more answers than Science could ever dream of. Look at how many things are unproven, unstudied, or simply not really known about. Gravity is still unproven. No kidding. They still say it's a theoretically based claim. Now, in four hundred years, no one has ever disproved gravity. EVER. In fact, no one in recorded history (5000 + years) has ever dropped something and not had it fall. Trust me, they'dve recorded that.

In other words, Science is sometimes too thorough for its own good. Rarely is anything proven about a subject past its existence.

Anything to add to either side?

[cry4eternity]

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu

It's probably some religion you've never heard of, because right now it's DEFINITELY not looking to be in Catholicism's favor.

What makes you say this? Have I missed something recently discrediting catholics? I'd sure love to present to my parents any more evidence against Catholicism.

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu

In my experience, sometimes Religion provides more answers than Science could ever dream of.

Maybe if you count answering every question with either "God did it," or "Our human minds can't comprehend it."

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu

Gravity is still unproven. No kidding. They still say it's a theoretically based claim. Now, in four hundred years, no one has ever disproved gravity. EVER. In fact, no one in recorded history (5000 + years) has ever dropped something and not had it fall. Trust me, they'dve recorded that.

What does it need for it to be 'proven?' It's a fact that it happens every time, and people can predict how fast objects will be attracted and at what speeds. The only thing they can't explain fully is why gravity occurs. There are theories, such as universal expansion... but how can you say gravity is neither proven nor disproven if it happens every time?

EDIT: this sounds like it's copied and pasted from a facebook group

[All_That_Chaz]

This has been discussed too much in this forum already.

Religion is not based on empirical evidence. It cannot be proven or disproven. It lives in the realm of belief.

Science is based on empirical evidence. It must reflect proof or the closest approximation we have to the proof and it is falsifiable - if proof against a scientific theory is found, the theory is scrapped for a different one that fits the facts. It lives in the realm of fact.

The two cannot and should not be compared. If people want to believe that there is a God watching over them and affects everything they do in their daily lives, you cannot prove or disprove that, and you shouldn't criticize someone for their true beliefs. For everything we can prove or disprove, look to science.

[FictionJunction]

Physics stings more than God.

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Religion is belief. The idea where humans can blame supernatural entities for everything that happens in the world. I hate it.

The empirics of science is based on our perception of the universe as we see it. It is impossible to determine whether what we percept is true. There is no necessity to delve into the realms of how the universe functions if there is no practicality in doing so. The only reason I see for studying science is to be able to control the universe with human hands. To be able to do something with our own knowledge as we percept the world is far better than not doing anything at all and blaming God for it.

Gravity is proven to exist. What's not proven is how gravity functions as a fundamental force (aka Gravitons). Also the spiraling of galaxies and it's acceleration lead to the presence of either dark matter, or another force besides gravity... In the end, gravity is the same force as the weak, strong, and electromagnetic in regards to origin.

And yes... this is an overused topic.

EDIT: Science could just as well be another form of religion based on empirics. =/

[infinity.]

science does not disprove religion,
the two are completely different things.

threads like these are not supposed to be started

[devonin]

I should add an "Apples and Oranges" clause to the thread starting rules.

The problem with this thread isn't so much an inherant disallowing of "religion v science" threads, so much as it is the fact that you've set down a certain set of premises that basically dictate one conclusion only. There's not actually anything to discuss here. You've asked us to think about which is more logical, then made the obvious statements to show that science is more logical. We're basically already done at that point.