science vs religon, which one is important and needed ? Rating Options

[demolished]

i think this is a tricky question if you think about it.

is science important or .. religon ? why tho .. ?

Religon helps make people safer . It help you to become a better person. Religon is mainly about beliefs and how to become a better person . . . the problem is . . did anyone prove that gods existed ? etc ..

Science helps people to be safe. Science tell us what to aware of. Without science, we wouldnt know where we are, what is safe? .. such as planets or universe ..... etc ..


if you think carefully, it could be tricky, you dont know which one is " more " important

do you people understand what i'm saiding ? just think bout it.

tell me what you think ?

[Reidar]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

[freeridefight]

Tung is equivocating the concept of science and what comprises it, which is indisputably an objective method, with how science is socially appertained. That's a syllogistic fallacy.

Society is subjective.
Science is a part of society.
Therefore, science is subjective.

No. The application of science is part of society. That is obviously subjective. More obviously, that does not define what science is.

If a scientific procedure is influenced in any way, shape, or form by discretionary variables, then it is not science. It will be refuted and discredited by anyone with a sharp eye. That doesn't mean there's susceptibility to relativism. Like philosophy, science admits to be self-corrective in the aspiration to objective truth.

Thankfully, there exist far more exercisable measures to eliminate unwanted outside vacillations than that post would have one believe.

then are you telling me that religion itself is not objective? Religion was made by society, therefore in your own words itself is objective.

And how does the scientific method influence that it is lower or the same level than religion? Yes it is self-corrective, which only establishes a higher platform on which science is better. Religions do not self-correct themselves. It says this is the way, and you are wrong. Science says I may be wrong, let's redo this.