Has science been proven wrong more times then religion ?

People will often see what they want to see when it comes to religion or science , belief or theory , and there have been many claims made from both sides of the coin , the religious and scientific over the years . However , over time who has been shown wrong more often and had to reevaluate there theory or beliefs over time ?

Uh that's an irrelevant question. Science is meant to be proven wrong and reevaluated, that's how we make progress and learn new things. Religion on the other hand is unchanging and proven wrong long ago.

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
Science is meant to be proven wrong and reevaluated, that's how we make progress and learn new things.

Agreed. But I want to add that when religions are proven wrong all they have to say is that the accuser is a non-believer and the followers are convinced that the accuser is just trying to discredit them. They don't need to reevaluate their beliefs because someone doesn't believe them.

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE



Science
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Science by definition is not meant to be proven wrong , its quite the opposite , it's intent is to prove its self right .

Religion has been proven wrong ?? Please share , when did that happen ?
Please don't get me wrong , I will say that I am sure over time both sides have proven to get some things wrong however, I feel the original question is fair .

Uhhhh...

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE

 

Science
–noun
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Scientific knowledge and laws are derived through observation and experimentation. Science is self-correcting. If a law is wrong or off somewhat by new observations and experimentation, then the law will be modified or discarded for a better law or explanation.

Please read this to get a better understanding of science
en.wikipedia.org...

In contrast, religion is not self-correcting. What the scripture says, it is the truth, end of story. No room for growth or knowledge.

I think the argument the OP is making is slightly skewed.

"Science" is not a religion - it does not need to "prove" itself to garner a mass of followers and control them.

There are also many different branches of science - it was once thought for instance by science that leeches would cure all illness. This has of course been proven false, and other scientific methods are used to treat illness.

Religion, by its very definition, cannot be proven wrong in the same way that science can. Religion is faith-based, and it's pretty difficult to prove that someone's faith is wrong.

Science is open to different possibilities, while religion is more or less concerned with rigid faith.

I'm not sure that religion is being actively proven wrong by science.

But given that I'd rely more upon science if I were to become sick, than for instance an imaginary man in the clouds, I'd say that's all the proof I need personally.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by mattguy404]

Religion is not self correcting ? that is not a true statement at all . Last time I checked some religious now allow and bless a same sex marriage , to give but one example .
From the replies given so far I am lead to believe that the consensus is that science has been proven wrong more times , but thats ok because thats what science is designed to do , strange .
As I mentioned earlier , I think both have been shown to be less then correct with all there claims , however both are a form of belief and at the time of the belief they are considered to be the "truth" .
Which lead me to my original question .

Originally posted by Max_TO
Religion is not self correcting ? that is not a true statement at all . Last time I checked some religious now allow and bless a same sex marriage , to give but one example .
From the replies given so far I am lead to believe that the consensus is that science has been proven wrong more times , but thats ok because thats what science is designed to do , strange .
As I mentioned earlier , I think both have been shown to be less then correct with all there claims , however both are a form of belief and at the time of the belief they are considered to be the "truth" .
Which lead me to my original question .

Allowing same sex marriages are more mundane than religious. However, most christian churches do not support that.

We are more concerned about the claims of christianity of divinity of Jesus, his existence, and so on and on. Christians have no problem rejecting Zeus, Vishnu, etc. because they accept that there are no evidence for them existing. Will christians be willing to admit that Jesus may not have existed at all? Will they be willing to accept hard proof that Jesus wasn't divine? You see the point.

Well, which religion do you want to work with?
Last I checked, the Earth is not made up of the body of a dead dragon, the sun is not a chariot driven by a God, a golden apple will not let you live forever (but they do taste good!) there is not a never ending party on top of Mt. Olympus. The sun does not require a sacrafice to rise, nor crops a sacrafice in order to be plentiful.
Earth revolves aroud the sun, which, yes, was also a scientific theory, however, scientists did not lock the fellows who made new discoveries away at home.
Religion has been proven wrong many times, over many more years than science. Science has, however, been corrected, rethought, and reappplied.
So, what exactly are you trying to prove then?

Originally posted by Max_TO
Religion is not self correcting ? that is not a true statement at all . Last time I checked some religious now allow and bless a same sex marriage , to give but one example .
From the replies given so far I am lead to believe that the consensus is that science has been proven wrong more times , but thats ok because thats what science is designed to do , strange .
As I mentioned earlier , I think both have been shown to be less then correct with all there claims , however both are a form of belief and at the time of the belief they are considered to be the "truth" .
Which lead me to my original question .

Well, I believe that the consensus that you speak of is actually that science corrects itself more times. And, yes, by its very nature science experiments using its own scientific method that we all know so well... Science observes something in question, then creates a hypothesis and tests that hypothesis, then analyzes the results and notes whether or not it is true, then - if proven wrong - starts a new experiment/hypothesis. It is an ongoing thing, which is why there is a difference between theories and laws in science. Science does not necessarily enjoy being proven wrong, but it lets us know when something isn't 100% accurate, and is in fact just a theory.

Religion, however, is a bit trickier. You ask if religion has been proven wrong... and by doing this it sounds like you don't believe that it has been. Well... how about all religions that were once known as the way but are now taught as mythology? Greek, Babylonian, Incan, etc.

Originally posted by justxxme

Originally posted by Max_TO
Religion is not self correcting ? that is not a true statement at all . Last time I checked some religious now allow and bless a same sex marriage , to give but one example .
From the replies given so far I am lead to believe that the consensus is that science has been proven wrong more times , but thats ok because thats what science is designed to do , strange .
As I mentioned earlier , I think both have been shown to be less then correct with all there claims , however both are a form of belief and at the time of the belief they are considered to be the "truth" .
Which lead me to my original question .

Well, I believe that the consensus that you speak of is actually that science corrects itself more times. And, yes, by its very nature science experiments using its own scientific method that we all know so well... Science observes something in question, then creates a hypothesis and tests that hypothesis, then analyzes the results and notes whether or not it is true, then - if proven wrong - starts a new experiment/hypothesis. It is an ongoing thing, which is why there is a difference between theories and laws in science. Science does not necessarily enjoy being proven wrong, but it lets us know when something isn't 100% accurate, and is in fact just a theory.

Religion, however, is a bit trickier. You ask if religion has been proven wrong... and by doing this it sounds like you don't believe that it has been. Well... how about all religions that were once known as the way but are now taught as mythology? Greek, Babylonian, Incan, etc.

Wish I noticed this before I started writing out the same thing

Exactly. Listen to the smart cyclopes lady.

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE

hahaha!!!

btw - I hate when that happens

science relies on fallible humanity.

religions rely on infallible gods and goddesses.

so duh?

no but really. both science and religions are man made and therefore have flaws. science allows corrections. religion is stubborn. at least old religion.

Originally posted by Max_TO


Science by definition is not meant to be proven wrong , its quite the opposite , it's intent is to prove its self right .

Religion has been proven wrong ?? Please share , when did that happen ?
Please don't get me wrong , I will say that I am sure over time both sides have proven to get some things wrong however, I feel the original question is fair .

Cern is another example of science trying to prove/disprove a thoery right or wrong in order to better its self

they find the higgs partice the standard model is correct and it has ugly maths (which scientists dont like usually means its a bit wrong somewhere)

they dont find it they know they have took a wrong turn and re-evaluate till they find where they went astray

science hasnt been proven wrong its just eliminating possabilities until it finds the right answer

like edison said i found a 1000 ways to make a faulty light bulb before i made 1 that worked(note that he didnt actualy make the bulb he just claimed he did bless him ^_^ )


now onto religeon!

wait as you dont say what religeon... hate presuming but gonan have to here, experience of this kind of post usually points to christianity (if im wrong let me know which religeon you specifically mean and ill try my best)

now who can we get to prove christianity wrong someone of such authority to dispute it would be heresey. lets ask God and Jesus to prove modern christianity wrong

if you go to church or make threads like this your a hipocrite before god(Matt 6:5),
not only that but praying to and asking for anything even world peace is the actions of a heathen*(matt 6:7-8)
and taking communion and burning incense unless it is on the very specific incense table makes you a heathen* (Mal 1:11)

the first 2 are jesus's words and the last one gods .........

the jewish god of the old testament says your heathens and so your religeon is wrong in his eyes and jesus says you pray like heathens too, who am i to argue with the word of god - christians are heathens

there you go christianity proved wrong by its creaters ...... (well if you dont count the hundreds of people that spent 300 years making it up as they went along. praying to jesus as a man-god or just a spirit. some taught he was reserected others he didnt, what we have now is the favorite stories of 300 years of creative religeous writtings)


*hea·then (hē'thən) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen

Offensive
One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

the jewish god and his son say christianity is a heathen practice ... time to change to judaism im afraid


[edit on 13/9/08 by noobfun]

If you think religion is the images and names of people being shown, then it can easily be proven wrong. The dogmas exist because of it.

But if you actually understand what the religion is saying by understanding the philosophy behind the images, then you can see the truth.

Does it actually matter if Jesus was real? Does worshiping the image of Jesus actually matter? Not to me. Because what is important is the philosophy of Jesus and those teachings are truth.

Simple exercise. Imagine what you think Heaven would be like. How would people act? What kind of society would have to be present? When I did that, I came to the same conclusions that Jesus taught in philosophy. That you don't rid the world by doing evil, you merely become the evil yourself.

Truth is, the only way you can have a society like heaven is when everyone follows the philosophy of Jesus. Otherwise, you will be stuck with evils.

To dismiss this truth because of the way other people manipulate and use it for their own purposes is a special kind of ignorance.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by badmedia]

I'm not exactly a science-y guy. But come on, that's not even a a valid question. As far as science goes, thousands, if not millions of times, specific theories have been proven wrong. That's kinda the whole point. Everything science has to offer is based on the latest theory, no more than that. That doesn't take anything away from it. It's just like anything else. If you're target shooting, you miss the mark, you correct it, and try and get a little closer to bulls eye. Science is the same, if something is proven to be incorrect, or less valid than the latest theory, it is discarded as the community inches closer towards the truth, correcting itself along the way.

My only problem with science is that it's proponents are often convinced that now they know the truth, and often refuse to consider other possibilities objectively. 600 years ago, the idea that all matter is actually a denser form of energy would have been called insane, blasphemy, etc. But we know now that it is true.

As far as religion, there are a million interpretations. Is it literal? Is it a metaphor? Is this supposed to have actually happened, or is this something that's said to illustrate a point? It's very hard to disprove religion, especially to proponents who have programed their subconscious minds to have Faith in a particular interpretation. To me, the closest thing to disproving a specific religion would have to be for a team to focus on debunking entirely a single person's interpretation of it. Which of course, would be mind-numbingly expensive, and pointless. With so many viewpoints, it can be difficult to determine what to confront. You may show evidence that a single concept of a religion may not be true, but other proponents will tell you that you were working off of a mistaken premise, and therefore your evidence was for naught.

It's a vicious cycle. Science is always wrong. It just gets more right over time.

Religion is always right, as there are interpretations that cannot be disproved. If I say the stories never happened, they were all parables, how can you disprove that? If I say that God is the highest level of consciousness that pervades all existence at a level far more subtle than energy, how can that be questioned? It's really a tricky issue.

reply to post by TheGreySwordsman


Science teaches anything which can't be proven is by default true. While Science says it's the opposite, that it is only those which are proven wrong to be false, science still puts the mindset in people that if it's not proven, then it's wrong.

So now who do you take at their word here? The ones who use science as a way of saying if it's not known/proven it's false? Or the ones who use science as way of proving things are wrong, and that unless proven false, it's still possible?

And as far as science goes, there is a big difference in being able to remember and repeat E=MC2, than it is to actually understand it. There are those who just repeat the science they've heard and use it as "proof" something doesn't exist, because there would be signs of it, and those who actually understand science and would correct them.

It's the exact same problem in religion. You have those who "know" what the words say, and then you have those who understand what they mean. Being able to recite the bible is useless if you don't understand it. And the same goes for science.

It's not a problem of either, the problem is ignorance. Ignorance is always proven wrong. And we are all ignorant in our own ways.

Give me a choice between what i belief and what science find out, i will take what i believe thanks.

That says it all.

Originally posted by andy1033
Give me a choice between what i belief and what science find out, i will take what i believe thanks.

That says it all.

ignorance is bliss...

But you have probably not always felt this way. Do you still believe everything that you have once thought true, but is obviously untrue? When you were younger and thought that raining meant god was crying, or that adults had eyes in the back of their heads, or that a giant rabbit crept into your house and hid presents for you to find, or that if you made a funny face long enough your face would stick that way... Ahhh... childhood beliefs...

reply to post by badmedia



I don't believe I see a disagreement here.

Of course, I could be missing something. But that's impossible. I'm perfect.