A Scientific Mind vs. A Religious Mind

[Nevermind]

Introduction

Throughout my years as the annoying intellectual in my religion classes, I have noticed several key differences between a religious and a scientific mind. However, I must make a disclaimer. Keep in mind that these are merely based off of my observations and experiences, and there are always exceptions to these. Also, I would like for you guys to keep discussion respectful, and try to not to be offended by any of the things said.


Religious Mind

1. Faith-based
- Religious minds operate upon convictions given to them through superstition and scripture. Their convictions are based upon little or no evidence. In their mind, it is absolute truth. There is nothing that you can do to change a religious person's convictions, because they believe that they are absolutely true.

Spoiler

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w[/video]

2. Satisfaction
- The religious mind is almost always satisfied with their current understanding of the world. They take scripture as almost absolute, and assume that is it the only correct school of thought. Most of the time, they have no need to want to learn or discover more about the universe because the answer is right there in front of them.

3. Ignorance of Science
- Most religious people fail to even look at the evidence available to them. They are so set on their convictions that they as if nothing else could possibly be correct. Their faith is absolute, therefore science must be wrong. However, if they would just look at the evidence presented to them, and listen and attempt to comprehend the scientif theories available to them, they might begin to understand why (most) scientists think they are so crazy.

Scientific Mind

1. Evidence-based
- As opposed to the religious mind, a scientific mind is always changing and evolving to the current amount of evidence and knowledge available to them. A scientist's mind can easily be changed, through a display of logic and evidence.

2. Pursuit of Knowledge
- Scientists always want to increase their understanding of the cosmos. They are always looking for new evidence, new species, new planets, etc. The universe is so vast, and there is so little that we truly understand. It is scientist's job to increase our understanding of our universe. This is best illustrated by a quote from Carl Sagan. He said, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

3. Always Open
- A scientific mind is always open to new ideas, theories, scientific theories, evidence, etc. As opposed to a religious mind, the doors never shut. Scientists are always looking to expand on the current their current knowledge, which means they must be open to every single idea presented to them.

 

[Difficult]

I'm not in Limitless so I don't have the right to converse with a superior such as yourself.

 

[Pacino]

Actually, you are taking it as if religious people were really closed minded and think science is all wrong. Stop there. You sir are her talking about stuff like the Big Bang theory which makes us ask what is the origin of the agglomeration that exploded as you ask us about God's origin. I think religious mind and scientific mind are in a draw since science also have no proof of many stuff. I'll let @Michael write a long detailed version of this.

 

[Nevermind]

Actually, you are taking it as if religious people were really closed minded and think science is all wrong. Stop there. You sir are her talking about stuff like the Big Bang theory which makes us ask what is the origin of the agglomeration that exploded as you ask us about God's origin. I think religious mind and scientific mind are in a draw since science also have no proof of many stuff. I'll let @Michael write a long detailed version of this.

If science has no proof for something, then it is not yet proven. I don't see your point.

 

[Pacino]

If science has no proof for something, then it is not yet proven. I don't see your point.

The main reason you are saying Religious people are wrong is that we have no proof but let's face it, we both have no proof. And I'll restate that you acted like every scientific has to be atheist... How about Einstien who was a strong believer and one of his quotes is: “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” He stated this in a debate against atheists. And don't you dare tell me that he isn't a great scientist!

 

[Nevermind]

The main reason you are saying Religious people are wrong is that we have no proof but let's face it, we both have no proof. And I'll restate that you acted like every scientific has to be atheist... How about Einstien who was a strong believer and one of his quotes is: “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” He stated this in a debate against atheists. And don't you dare tell me that he isn't a great scientist!

Science has loads of proof for evolution, the Big Bang, etc. That's what makes them scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Also, just because one scientist believed in creation, doesn't make it true.

The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it. Science and religion are mutually incompatible.

SOURCE

 

[Pacino]

Science has loads of proof for evolution, the Big Bang, etc. That's what makes them scientific theories.


Also, just because one scientist believed in creation, doesn't make it true.


SOURCE

Give me an evidence that I can see in my own eyes, a monkey in a state monkey-human, something that would make me be sure that this is true. As for the big bang theory, it cannot have any proof. Well, I don't consider you believing in miracles but lots of them happe in my country. When I was on grade 6, I used to be a stronger believer and once felt my heart like burning when I said in my prayer: "Jesus, enter my heart." You might say I'm crazy but you have to respect my opinion. I feel like you're currently rolling on the floor but I don't care, it is what happened to me.

 

[HUNNID]

Actually, you are taking it as if religious people were really closed minded and think science is all wrong. Stop there. You sir are her talking about stuff like the Big Bang theory which makes us ask what is the origin of the agglomeration that exploded as you ask us about God's origin. I think religious mind and scientific mind are in a draw since science also have no proof of many stuff. I'll let @Michael write a long detailed version of this.

Just explain this to me. Who created God? He can't just appear.

 

[Nevermind]

Give me an evidence that I can see in my own eyes, a monkey in a state monkey-human, something that would make me be sure that this is true. As for the big bang theory, it cannot have any proof. Well, I don't consider you believing in miracles but lots of them happe in my country. When I was on grade 6, I used to be a stronger believer and once felt my heart like burning when I said in my prayer: "Jesus, enter my heart." You might say I'm crazy but you have to respect my opinion. I feel like you're currently rolling on the floor but I don't care, it is what happened to me.

"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."

SOURCE

 

[Michael]

@Chic - It doesn't matter if I post one sentence or a thousand sentences, there doesn't need to be a long, detailed version of anything. @Leader has his own views and I have mine.

1. Faith-based
- Religious minds operate upon convictions given to them through superstition and scripture. Their convictions are based upon little or no evidence. In their mind, it is absolute truth. There is nothing that you can do to change a religious person's convictions, because they believe that they are absolutely true.

It is absolute truth. We do not necessarily need to believe we are absolutely true, but the scriptures are God's way of speaking to us. Tell me, if we were switched around, you were religious and I wasn't, you would live and meditate on God's word, as are we. It is not superstition, but I do respect your views and I know it is vice versa. Speaking of faith, it is something you or many other atheists clearly do not have or use. I cannot change your views and I certainly will not change your views because we both know in the end we will be debating for hours on end and never seem to come to a conclusion. You use faith as an example of why we are "apprenticed". Faith is what keeps us holy, and it is what keeps us going through the day knowing that we have a creator that loves us categorically. Faith is what keeps us one with the triunity.

 Satisfaction
- The religious mind is almost always satisfied with their current understanding of the world. They take scripture as almost absolute, and assume that is it the only correct school of thought. Most of the time, they have no need to want to learn or discover more about the universe because the answer is right there in front of them.

That is not completely true. I know that you are speaking of personal experiences with the religious, but I am in love with the universe. I take Astronomy classes and thrive to learn more about everything that is out of this world. I research Evolution, I take notes, I compare the scriptures and what Scientists believe and I rediscover things. I still stand by my love for Jesus Christ, and I always will because it is based on faith. The religious people you have encountered are probably extremely stubborn and go by what their priests say. This is why I do not attend Church, as most of them are corrupt. Doing my own research and learning myself is the best way to know what is right. I am not satisfied with the current understanding of the world and then again, this is about all the religious people you've encountered, not just me.

Ignorance of Science
- Most religious people fail to even look at the evidence available to them. They are so set on their convictions that they as if nothing else could possibly be correct. Their faith is absolute, therefore science must be wrong. However, if they would just look at the evidence presented to them, and listen and attempt to comprehend the scientif theories available to them, they might begin to understand why (most) scientists think they are so crazy.

I absolutely love Science. I know you stated "most", but here I will speak about me as well. My faith is indeed, absolute and I do not necessarily view Science as wrong. I mean come on, they've found cures for diseases?! They are able to shape and reinvent our world to something amazing; beautiful. They help us redesign and look at things from a contradistinctive outlook. I do look at the "evidence" presented to me and I do believe everyone else should as well. Creationism and Atheism, both sides have distinctly favourable points and both have certain pros and cons. I mean honestly, Science is absolutely astonishing. I do believe some things that they "discover" or find particular declaration on is absurd. I will always keep my faith.

 

[Nevermind]

@Michael

It is absolute truth. We do not necessarily need to believe we are absolutely true, but the scriptures are God's way of speaking to us. Tell me, if we were switched around, you were religious and I wasn't, you would live and meditate on God's word, as are we. It is not superstition, but I do respect your views and I know it is vice versa. Speaking of faith, it is something you or many other atheists clearly do not have or use. I cannot change your views and I certainly will not change your views because we both know in the end we will be debating for hours on end and never seem to come to a conclusion. You use faith as an example of why we are "apprenticed". Faith is what keeps us holy, and it is what keeps us going through the day knowing that we have a creator that loves us categorically. Faith is what keeps us one with the triunity.

All of your claims are unfalsifiable by my standards. To me, it is all useless religious mumbo-jumbo, but it may means something to you. However, absolute truth is an illusion. There is nothing that you can be absolutely 100% certain about, and that's where faith comes in.

That is not completely true. I know that you are speaking of personal experiences with the religious, but I am in love with the universe. I take Astronomy classes and thrive to learn more about everything that is out of this world. I research Evolution, I take notes, I compare the scriptures and what Scientists believe and I rediscover things. I still stand by my love for Jesus Christ, and I always will because it is based on faith. The religious people you have encountered are probably extremely stubborn and go by what their priests say. This is why I do not attend Church, as most of them are corrupt. Doing my own research and learning myself is the best way to know what is right. I am not satisfied with the current understanding of the world and then again, this is about all the religious people you've encountered, not just me.

Yes, but everything you know has been predetermined in a religious book. Everything that you ever learn or discover will have to somehow fit in to that predetermined concept that you have.

I absolutely love Science. I know you stated "most", but here I will speak about me as well. My faith is indeed, absolute and I do not necessarily view Science as wrong. I mean come on, they've found cures for diseases?! They are able to shape and reinvent our world to something amazing; beautiful. They help us redesign and look at things from a contradistinctive outlook. I do look at the "evidence" presented to me and I do believe everyone else should as well. Creationism and Atheism, both sides have distinctly favourable points and both have certain pros and cons. I mean honestly, Science is absolutely astonishing. I do believe some things that they "discover" or find particular declaration on is absurd. I will always keep my faith.

There are the few in the bunch that do look at the evidence and contort it to fit with your hypothesis, and that's fine. I had to explain to my entire religion class what evolution was, because many of them didn't understand it. I actually got some deeply religious to start questioning their faith.

 

[Pacino]

"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."

SOURCE

I respect your opinion but that's what each and every scientist says about the evidence that the source right here is stating. If monkeys transform to humans, thus means they should still be transforming but there is no monkey-human on earth. And how do you explain how human got intellectuality? You could never give me seen proof. This reminds me of a teacher who once asked his students: "Do you see God? Do you feel Him? Do you hear Him?" and all the students answered no the questions succesfuly so he got out of this that God doesn't exist. One of the students asked him: "Do you see your brain? Do you feel it? Do you hear it?" And the teacher was like "Umm... No." So the student replied: "Then, it doesn't exist!"
This might be a joke but it really shows that we both have no proof. You can tell ne that you can see your brain and touch it if you cut it off but this means you have to die, as we Christians say about seeing/touching/hearing God.

 

[Nevermind]

I respect your opinion but that's what each and every scientist says about the evidence that the source right here is stating. If monkeys transform to humans, thus means they should still be transforming but there is no monkey-human on earth. And how do you explain how human got intellectuality? You could never give me seen proof. This reminds me of a teacher who once asked his students: "Do you see God? Do you feel Him? Do you hear Him?" and all the students answered no the questions succesfuly so he got out of this that God doesn't exist. One of the students asked him: "Do you see your brain? Do you feel it? Do you hear it?" And the teacher was like "Umm... No." So the student replied: "Then, it doesn't exist!"
This might be a joke but it really shows that we both have no proof. You can tell ne that you can see your brain and touch it if you cut it off but this means you have to die, as we Christians say about seeing/touching/hearing God.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. An ape doesn't just give birth to a human one day, that's not what evolution describes. Evolution describes extremely gradual changes every generation. There is no true way to tell what the first human was because of this. Every generation is slightly different than the last, creating a long line of changes.

 

[Pacino]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. An ape doesn't just give birth to a human one day, that's not what evolution describes. Evolution describes extremely gradual changes every generation. There is no true way to tell what the first human was because of this. Every generation is slightly different than the last, creating a long line of changes.

But this 100% supports the idea that human-mokeys should exist while they don't.

 

[Nevermind]

But this 100% supports the idea that human-mokeys should exist while they don't.

Again, you have a severe misunderstanding of evolution. Apes didn't just give birth to humans. There are several examples of species in between humans and apes.

Intermediate Species:

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
  
• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike
  
• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
  
• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
  
• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans"

SOURCE

 

[Pacino]

Again, you have a severe misunderstanding of evolution. Apes didn't just give birth to humans. There are several examples of species in between humans and apes.

Well... Can we, in our current time see something like this? The exampled you gave are what I'm looking for but it can just be a coincedence that these are apes' skeletton that changed over the time it has been hidden and got a human look alike characteristic. Let's stop debating about evolution and get back OT.

 

[Cann!bal]

I respect your opinion but that's what each and every scientist says about the evidence that the source right here is stating. If monkeys transform to humans, thus means they should still be transforming but there is no monkey-human on earth. And how do you explain how human got intellectuality? You could never give me seen proof. This reminds me of a teacher who once asked his students: "Do you see God? Do you feel Him? Do you hear Him?" and all the students answered no the questions succesfuly so he got out of this that God doesn't exist. One of the students asked him: "Do you see your brain? Do you feel it? Do you hear it?" And the teacher was like "Umm... No." So the student replied: "Then, it doesn't exist!"
This might be a joke but it really shows that we both have no proof. You can tell ne that you can see your brain and touch it if you cut it off but this means you have to die, as we Christians say about seeing/touching/hearing God.

It really saddens me when I see such ignorance of evolution. We didn't evolve from monkeys, they're a common ancestor, a cousin, as is every being to live on Earth. We evolved from apes. (We're essentially still apes I should add.) We're more closely related to apes than apes are related to any other primate species, such as the orangutang, chimpanzee and these monkeys you suggest. As for your manifestation, it's the equivalent of asking "If America used to be a colony of England, then why does England still exist?". The statement implies that for some reason monkeys are evolving at the same rate and with the same mutations. That's simply not how evolution at all operates. We do not share the same rate of evolving, nor do we receive the same mutations. That's determined by natural and artificial selection.

There's proof of brains, there's no proof of a god. You do not have to die to see your brain, i.e brain surgery, x-ray scans, etc. Evidence can be provided, unlike god.

 

[Nevermind]

Well... Can we, in our current time see something like this? The exampled you gave are what I'm looking for but it can just be a coincedence that these are apes' skeletton that changed over the time it has been hidden and got a human look alike characteristic. Let's stop debating about evolution and get back OT.

No, we cannot watch it happen because it is so gradual. However, we can observe changes and trends in fossils and DNA.

 

[Pacino]

It really saddens me when I see such ignorance of evolution. We didn't evolve from monkeys, they're a common ancestor, a cousin, as is every being to live on Earth. We evolved from apes. (We're essentially still apes I should add.) We're more closely related to apes than apes are related to any other primate species, such as the orangutang, chimpanzee and these monkeys you suggest. As for your manifestation, it's the equivalent of asking "If America used to be a colony of England, then why does England still exist?". The statement implies that for some reason monkeys are evolving at the same rate and with the same mutations. That's simply not how evolution at all operates. We do not share the same rate of evolving, nor do we receive the same mutations. That's determined by natural and artificial selection.

There's proof of brains, there's no proof of a god. You do not have to die to see your brain, i.e brain surgery, x-ray scans, etc. Evidence can be provided, unlike God.

Well my dear Cannibal, we might really look like apes but this doesn't mean that apes are our ancestors. I might used to have a wrong idea of evolution but you go it right for me. Plus the English colonies example is not equivalent to what I'm asking for since both English and Americans are both humans while you are trying to convince me that an animal developped till they become human.
My personal experience gave me enough evidence that God exists, I just don't feel like sharing it right now.

 

[Nevermind]

Well my dear Cannibal, we might really look like apes but this doesn't mean that apes are our ancestors. I might used to have a wrong idea of evolution but you go it right for me. Plus the English colonies example is not equivalent to what I'm asking for since both English and Americans are both humans while you are trying to convince me that an animal developped till they become human.
My personal experience gave me enough evidence that God exists, I just don't feel like sharing it right now.

It's not only because we look like them. Our DNA is nearly identical to that of an ape's.