CreateDebate


Debate Info

159
131
Science God
Debate Score:290
Arguments:131
Total Votes:351
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Science (80)
 
 God (55)

Debate Creator

johnbonham32(2427) pic



Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?

Science

Side Score: 159
VS.

God

Side Score: 131
6 points

Faith in science is like evidence of god. It's an irrational sentiment and a non-starter for debate. A more apt question would be, "Would you sooner believe in science than have faith in God (and his established teachings)?"

Side: Science
4 points

I will answer on behalf of the revised question here.

And I would sooner believe in science. Scientists have been building on the same ideas for thousands of years. Religions are too diverse. If I were to go with God, I'd have to first decide which version of him to accept. And that's a wholly impossible decision. How can a person decide which religion is telling the truth, and which ones are wrong? Should I go by the dominant religion of the place I grew up? That seems rather arbitrary. Or which version I agree with most? That seems a little too biased.

Side: Science

Agree with you 99.9% Whoever stated this, were you tyring to start an argument of science vs religion?

Side: Science
Swryght(161) Disputed
2 points

You don't think faith factors into belief in science? Do you believe that a water molecule is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? If so, why? Have you personally witnessed a water molecule and personally determined its composition?

If not, how do you know? If the answer is that someone you trust told you that this was true (such as a teacher, writer, or scientist), I would ask you to explain how this is not a demonstration of your faith in a person and a process that you deem authoritative in the realm of physical phenomena.

This is the exact same epistemological basis on which a theist puts his faith in God. He trusts his priest and his church for the same reasons that you trust the author or scientist: You trust his or her method, and you trust that her or she has authority in this realm. The fact that science is empirical does not logically factor into your argument.

The epistemic justification is identical. Hence, this debate is well worth having.

Side: God
E223(193) Disputed
2 points

There's two types of faith: belief in something without evidence to support that belief (EX: Faith that God exists), and trust in someone (EX: Faith that my mom'll pay the bills). The "faith" that we have in scientists is the second kind of faith. They've proven that they're right time and time again, and they've shown that if they're not right, they'll correct themselves. The evidence that they're right is the entireity of civilization. To quote Thunderf00t: "Civilization is simply a monument to science."

The fact that we can cure most diseases, the fact that I can go from raleigh to chicago in less than 2 hours, the fact that we're even having this conversation is proof that scientists are right most of the time and that their method works. Religion, on the other hand, and faith in religion, has no more evidence than that which is based upon confirmation bias and intuition, which is hardly worth calling evidence.

The confusion between these two definitions is the cause of a lot of time consuming and pointless arguments, and it's something to watch out for.

Side: Science
1 point

yep.. obviously a pro-God/anti-science person starting this one..

Side: Science
nagtroll(273) Disputed
2 points

You cannot read minds...

That is anti-science and pro-metaphysical

Side: God
2 points

Give up these mind games. Get REAL.

We can speculate for ever but are INFINITELY short of the necessary knowledge to form a valid judgement re the nature of it all.

All Gods are home grown entities generated by early ignorance & fear of the future. That fact is so obvious, it shouldn't need to be stated.

The use of common sense & research (science) is our only means of getting by. We must ALL use it!

Supporting Evidence: What A Wonderful World (Http)
Side: God
2 points

I need to correct my previous post that tags the argument as for God. I've tried to edit it but I get no response; bugs have crept into the program somehow. I wonder who allowed them access?

It's just got to be apparent to anyone who is prepared to think - ALL gods are purely Man-made.

The absract subject of Religiosity is the realm of dumb intellectuals who should know far better than to treat it seriously. It's obvious tosh. They surely must realise that the mind is naturally prone to the generation of illusions & arrive at the common sense conclusions that any sane person would!

Transcendental tripe is definitely not for me!

Supporting Evidence: What A Wonderful World (www.absurdbelief.info)
Side: Science
1 point

Being raised a Roman Catholic for my entire life, I have always been told to turn to God for help. I was Confirmed as a Catholic a few years back. Within the past few months, I have begun to question my religion, and their teachers.

Why should I believe in something I cant see, or touch? How do we know the Bible writers weren't just lying? Basically, the entire Roman Catholic religion is based upon the bible. I still have not made my decision of whether to stick to my faith, or become an Atheist.

Side: Science
vertigo(29) Disputed
4 points

If you believe that the laws of logic are true, then you believe in something that you cannot see or touch.

If you believe that you have a mind, you believe in something you cannot see or touch.

If you believe in honesty, justice, tolerance...

If you believe in numbers and letters...

All of these things are immaterial,yet very real.

Side: God
1 point

"If you believe that the laws of logic are true, then you believe in something that you cannot see or touch."

The laws of logic, like most of your other examples, are conceptual, abstracted, theoretical. The laws of logic don't actually "exist" in any real sense. They are merely rules derived from a few self-evident first principles.

God, you might argue, is real in the very same "theoretical" sense. I would agree, but that is a very non-substantial form of existence that no one denies: obviously the concept of God exists, or else we wouldn't be having the conversation. Implicit in your idea is the ontological argument which has been refuted.

Similarly, numbers and letters exist as 'ideas' which are useful in describing the universe. Likewise, no one denies the "idea" of God exists.

Furthermore, frameworks like math and logic can be tested. Does 2 + 2 indeed make 4? Try it yourself, and that will prove its axiomatic consistency.

Side: Science

The bible was put together years after its writers had died when the Romans decided to become Catholic. I myself was Catholic, but now I believe in my own beliefs. Science has evidence to support it, God only answers the last two questions, how the universe began and what happens after death. I say combine science with faith. For example, I believe in evolution. I think that when humans evolved, God gave them souls because He saw that they were the first creatures that could question and think. See? A happy compromise.

Side: Both

Wow, about a year and a half ago I was in your exact same position. I too was raised Catholic but I felt questions about my faith. I eventually chose to become an atheist.

I will not try to influence your decision, because ones own personal beliefs are just that: personal. Whether you choose to remain a Catholic, or become and agnostic or atheist I hope you will remain tolerant of others beliefs.

Side: Science

Like you, I have been raised Catholic. I became athiest simply because if there is a god, he must be some asshole on a high throne too good to step in and help. However, I can concede that something must have caused the big bang. Maybe God, maybe he caused evolution. Rest with science, but accept the possibility.

Side: Science
1 point

If you can't confirm the existence of God (a metaphysical being), then how can God, directly or indirectly, confirm the existence of a man (a material being)?

Side: Science
Messenger(39) Disputed
0 points

Please don't turn away from God. I've just joined this forum and read your response and it concerns me, and Him, I assure you.

Do you believe in love? In hate? In truth? You cannot see or touch these things? You only see and touch the results of these things. God is the same. I used to believe as you (reversed—I started out as an atheist and wasn't raised in a Christian home). Let me ask you this: Do you feel in your heart of hearts that the writings in the Bible are lies. What is untruthful about them? I used to think, when I was a know-it-all adolescent, that some where in the universe, three guys were laughing "They bought it. They bought it! Got the whole world to believe it!!" But of course, that's a very childish, cynical and typical-of-a-teenager view. The truth is three persons did write it, through man, with purpose and with love and IN TRUTH.

What will becoming an atheist do for you? Really? How would losing your faith help you in any way? It would turn you away from TRUTH, and that's the worst thing in the world. Talk to your minister. Or another one, if you're not happy with the Catholic church. Talk to HIM. I'll pray for you. Peace.

Oh, and for everyone else: God and science don't have to be opposed. There would be no science without God? God created scientists, too. There are many scientists who believe in God, so we shouldn't box them into a category of "unbelief."

Side: God
5 points

But you should always question. Having doubts leads to better understanding. If you blindly believe, you are simply a slave to your religion. But if you question and search for answers you may find a personal understanding of God.

Side: Both

Science is understandable and predictable. God is his/her own person and thus not easily understandable or predictable. You can expect science to do certain things, but God can get mad and smite you out of nowhere! :)

Side: Science
nagtroll(273) Disputed
0 points

I will remember that.

.............................

.............................

I meant to support you. :(

Side: God
0 points

I'll remember that.

.........................

.........................

I meant to support you. :(

Side: smite
1 point

Science doesn't require faith. Science is based on evidence.

Side: Science
1 point

I BELIEVE you.

..................................................

Side: Al Gore
1 point

The is no blind faith in science when it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!

But I'll support science over religion any day.

Side: Science
1 point

I choose science for some areas since there are evidence in front of my eyes :]

Side: Science
1 point

Science explains everything, Religion is fairy tales and whr=en you ask a logical question, you are killed for blasphemy

Side: Science
1 point

Science will always perside over everything. You don't see religion been taught in school as fact, only belief. Science on the other hand is factual, black and white, with no shades of grey.

Side: Science
1 point

Gods are more likely to be wrong.

Side: Science
1 point

One cannot have faith in science. Faith isn't allowed in science, so if you subscribe via faith, it means you're not adhering to science. And faith is easily demonstrated to be a non-starter in every respect. One need only look at the thousands of proposed gods over the course of religious history, and the fact that most people of faith today, insist that most of those gods never existed. And yet they adhere to faith in support of their own god, demonstrating that they haven't learned from faith's horrendously bad record. Follow science, but don't just accept the conclusions. Wherever possible, learn about the evidence and how it supports (or fails to support), the conclusions. And never allow yourself to be so incredibly gullible that you begin to subscribe to the current cult spin-off of Christianity - Flat Earth.

Side: Science
0 points

My faith is in science, since science is just figuring shit out.

hell, science can lead to God if it turns out God exists, or maybe not. maybe that's philosophy's role.

Side: Science
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

Moron,... please read the arguments on the other side.

They clearly describe why you are sooo far in error; erroneously supposing that science is just another arbitrary belief system which one must abandon ones own observation and rational capacity to believe and follow, when in fact it is an attempt at rational, consistent, and fixed set of principles that describe the knowable universe. Furthermore, science only tries to tell you what is, not what to do about it, or any moral judgment.

Side: Al Gore

Hahaha Pyg I agree with your logic, and I also put my faith with science

Side: Science
nagtroll(273) Disputed
1 point

Moron,... please read the arguments on the other side.

They clearly describe why you are sooo far in error; erroneously supposing that science is just another arbitrary belief system which one must abandon ones own observation and rational capacity to believe and follow, when in fact it is an attempt at rational, consistent, and fixed set of principles that describe the knowable universe. Furthermore, science only tries to tell you what is, not what to do about it, or any moral judgment.

Side: Al Gore

How about we look at the contributions of each to society?

Science:

Modern Medicine

Cars

Computers

Airplanes

Televisions

etc...

Religion:

A list of reasons to hate your neighbor

Side: Science
1 point

well, what about Jesus preaching forgiveness?

Side: Science

Sure, Jesus preaches forgiveness and sometimes Christians forgive other Christians, but religion only works if everyone is the same religion, or if people are indifferent to each others religion. Otherwise it is divisive. Christians kill each other (the European wars of religion). Christians kill Muslims (the crusades). Christians kill Jews (all of medieval Europe). And Christians kill "heathens" (the conquest of the Americas). So people only are willing to forgive others if those others share their own beliefs.

Side: Science
1 point

Jesus was a schizo.

Side: Science
10 points

I don't have faith in science, science is based on evidence. Faith is belief in something without the support of evidence. I believe what science says because of the lack of faith that's required

Side: God
2 points

exactly

..............................................................................................

Side: Al Gore
2 points

Perfect! I'll confide my FAITH in God always. And I'll believe science once it is proven.

Side: God
Swryght(161) Disputed
2 points

Those of us who embrace a scientific worldview often fall prey to the same logical fallacies that devoutly religious persons do. One example of the popular appeal to authority: "Famous and Intelligent people have said X, thus X is more likely to be true". I often see atheists trumpeting quotations from famous scientists and thinkers which support their view. This is the same argument used by theists when they assert that since their priest or pope said X, then X is more likely true because that pope or priest has some supposed authority on the subject of divinity.

My point is that you and I believe scientists because we trust their authority. We trust their method, so we believe that a water molecule is composed of a specific composition of atoms even though we personally have no empirical evidence that this is true. Unless you have personally examined a water molecule (which some of you may have done), you probably learned about its structure from a teacher or a book. Thus you have no more justification for your belief than does the devoutly religious person in his or her belief in the resurrection of Christ. He or she trusts the methodology of their religion, and so is willing to take the words of the clergy at face value without a careful examination of the facts.

You may well counter that the methodology of science is obviously superior to that of religion, because it is based on rigorous observation rather than metaphysical speculation. I would challenge you to ask yourself WHY you believe that empiricism is superior? Why do you believe that the universe is composed only of physical objects interacting in a strictly causal fashion to produce events. If you are honest like I was when I asked myself this question, I think you will probably have to admit that it is because lots of other people around you also have faith in empiricism and materialism (the belief that the world is composed only of observable physical objects).

So what is it that makes you ANY different from the religious person?

Side: Both
E223(193) Disputed
1 point

It's not because of their authority that I trust scientists, I trust scientists because what they do has proven time and time again to be successful and correct (and, more importantly, if they're incorrect, they realize it).

Sure, I haven't checked to see if water molecules are actually composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but for all intents and purposes, I can assume that they are. Why is this? Because they act the way that they would act if they were made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can take some water, freeze it, then observe that solid water is less dense than liquid water, which would be the direct result of the bonding between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom (and yes, I realize that it's possible to create solid water that's denser than liquid water, but that requires insane amounts of pressure, so let's ignore that for now, mmkay?)

Secondly, the empirical method is superior to that of the religious method because of one simple fact: the empirical method produces observable results, the religious method doesn't. The religious "method" is based upon intuition for the most part. Back when I was religious, I believed in a God that was kind, had a sense of humor, and was exactly what I wanted Him to be. All of this was contrary to what was exhibited by the Old Testament, but fuck the old testament! I liked my God the way I believed in Him! Luckily, now I can look back and see "Oh, wait, I was basing beliefs off of OPINIONS, that's a no-no!"

Science, on the other hand, bases beliefs off of facts. You can observe that Earth's gravity causes an acceleration of approximately 9.8 m/s^2, you can observe that if you create a closed circuit with the proper energy source and lightbulb, the light bulb will light up, you can observe that if you shape glass in a certain way, it can create lenses that can bend light in such a way that it'll compensate for poor natural vision. Science works! It's not fucking faith! The only "leap of faith" that I have to take is that what I'm interacting with actually exists, and I'm willing to take that jump.

If you don't believe that science works, where'd that computer that you're using to debate with me come from? Where'd your house/apartment/whatever come from? God? Faith? Intuition? Prayer? NO! It came from science, it came from understanding the world around us in a way that is actually practical.

What makes me different from a religious person is that I base my beliefs around fact rather than intuition and person opinion.

Side: Science
Beastt(43) Disputed
1 point

The reality is that there are no authorities in science. No one is subscribed to on the basis of authority. No matter who they are or how illustrious their career, if they can't support their conclusions with objective evidence, then they're functioning as story-tellers, not scientists.

As for the composition of water, one need only pass an electrical current through water and examine the resulting gases - hydrogen and oxygen. In most fields of science, you can perform relatively simple experiments, the results of which will support the scientific conclusion.

One can do this to a lesser degree with religion as well. For example, noting that despite the large number of scholars, theologians, and researchers on both sides of the issue, no one has ever recovered so much as a single document making any mention of Jesus or anyone like him, from the actual time of Jesus, or for at least two decades beyond the biblical time of the crucifixion. This is readily admitted to even by those still attempting to promote the idea that Jesus was a real person, rather than a popular myth.

I not only believe that empiricism is superior to religion, but can demonstrate that to be the case. If you drive a car and survive doing so, it's because you employ objective evidence in the driving decisions you make. Even getting up in the morning, every decision you make is based on objective evidence. Throughout your day, every move is based on objective evidence. You don't reach for the coffee, find no evidence of coffee in your cupboard or pantry, and continue going through the motions of making coffee, having faith that as you pour from the empty carafe, coffee will fill your cup. That would be a faith-based practice and we don't do that because we know for certain that it will fail every time.

We only reserve faith-based actions for issues of religion, because we know that faith will fail in every other regard. And if you're adhering to the conclusions of science without doing any of your own investigating, research, or experimentation, then you're demonstrating a misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Side: Science
9 points

... since "faith" by it's definition implies a lack of evidence.

And science works with evidence.

This is a trick debate.

One doesn't have faith in science.

Or knowledge of god.

Side: trick debate
3 points

Agreed

................................................................................................

Side: Al Gore
Swryght(161) Disputed
1 point

Those of us who embrace a scientific worldview often fall prey to the same logical fallacies that devoutly religious persons do. One example of the popular appeal to authority: "Famous and Intelligent people have said X, thus X is more likely to be true". I often see atheists trumpeting quotations from famous scientists and thinkers which support their view. This is the same argument used by theists when they assert that since their priest or pope said X, then X is more likely true because that pope or priest has some supposed authority on the subject of divinity.

My point is that you and I believe scientists because we trust their authority. We trust their method, so we believe that a water molecule is composed of a specific composition of atoms even though we personally have no empirical evidence that this is true. Unless you have personally examined a water molecule (which some of you may have done), you probably learned about its structure from a teacher or a book. Thus you have no more justification for your belief than does the devoutly religious person in his or her belief in the resurrection of Christ. He or she trusts the methodology of their religion, and so is willing to take the words of the clergy at face value without a careful examination of the facts.

You may well counter that the methodology of science is obviously superior to that of religion, because it is based on rigorous observation rather than metaphysical speculation. I would challenge you to ask yourself WHY you believe that empiricism is superior? Why do you believe that the universe is composed only of physical objects interacting in a strictly causal fashion to produce events. If you are honest like I was when I asked myself this question, I think you will probably have to admit that it is because lots of other people around you also have faith in empiricism and materialism (the belief that the world is composed only of observable physical objects).

So what is it that makes you ANY different from the religious person?

Side: Both
iamdavidh(4869) Disputed
1 point

That's not wholly correct.

If a child was raised by wild wolves, and made it somehow to an age where they could survive on their own, they would have knowledge of things like water and food because they have experienced them.

It is a short step from there to develop a curiosity for these things you can touch and feel and experience, to where we are today studying things to discover their properties, trying to find out where things like water and food came from.

The difference is science is born of study of real things, even vague things like metaphysics must follow observable rules of nature and the rules of math. They must be checked and studied etc.

Meanwhile the child raised by wolves at some point would see his fellow wolves die and realize that life was not infinite.

That would be from observation, but what would not be from observation is an ideal of immortality, then later that there is some being who will take care of wolf child when he dies - that indeed he doesn't really die.

This is strictly the realm of imagination. It's pretty, and a nice thought, but likely not the least bit true. And certainly there is no means of observing this phenomenon of infinite life.

I find it endlessly entertaining how those who choose to believe in a god assume that those who do not simply haven't thought about it, or forgot to ask them self one simple question.

I have asked myself the very question you proposed.

Like the vast majority of the Western world I was heavily indoctrinated in Christianity, and did not finally free myself from that silly superstition until well into adulthood. I doubt you have any questions I have not asked myself but feel free to try.

Side: God

My faith rests with God while He tells my mind to pray that Science figured it out properly!

Side: God
5 points

Thats exactly right, I don't get why people treat God and Science like they are the opposite.

Side: Both
iamdavidh(4869) Disputed
6 points

here's why

Or can one have a set of beliefs, then kind of mold them to fit around what science tells us?

Like, okay so now we know the world wasn't really created in 7 days... so now that's a parable...

But Jesus dying for everyone's sins, that's true...

Unless somehow at some point through DNA evidence or something, we could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that that never really happened...

Okay, so then it was symbolic I'm sure the faithful would say.

Fine.

But at some point it seems ridiculous to have a religion, if everyone within that religion picks and chooses what to follow, and what to believe, based on their feelings, and ideas, and knowledge. And that set of beliefs, stories, parables, is constantly being proved wrong, or even immoral.

Okay, so then people say things like "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual."

Well that seems to be the new trend.

Which is far better I think than following mindlessly one creed created, and clinging to, a time long gone.

But the whole thing seems a bit hypocritical to many.

I mean, if one does have their own personal set of moral standards, why not call it that? Why call it god?

And why, if it's so hard to find even two people that agree on every moral issue, is it so important to the hordes of the religious, that everyone drink the koolaid with them?

Side: Science
5 points

That is flawed logic.

Why do people keep trying to separate God and Science!?

Give me one of Einsteins theories that goes against the belief of God.

Side: Both
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

Well I can't give you one Einstein's, but I can give you one of Darwin's...

(against a literal interpretation of the Bible anyway.)

Side: Science
5 points

Maybe the bible, but not the belief in God...

really, there is no evidence at all against the theory of God, since God is a very vague term that goes beyond any simple understanding.

not saying i believe in God, but philosophically wise, there's more to it.

Side: Science
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
0 points

no thanks......

Side: Both
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
2 points

Why Einstein? If I might ask.

Side: Science
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

What, cant you find anything? Don't try to avoid my challenge.

Side: Both
E223(193) Disputed
2 points

People separate them because you have to separate them for them to be able to function. Science requires evidence, religion doesn't. Religion fills the gaps in our knowledge with a god, while science fills the gaps in our knowledge with facts and theories that are supported by evidence

Side: Science
3 points

I, on the behalf of All those names who start with "I", I will say that both science and Religion can mix together. Also, There once was a popular saying,(Now it's not that as popular as before) that "It's better to believe in God than to rather not. IF you believe in God, and there truly is a God, you will go to heaven.IF you do not believe in God, and there truly is a God, you could be punished.IF you believe in God, and there is no God, nothing will happen.IF you do not believe in God, and there is no God, nothing will happen. So, to be on the safe side, I will truly believe in God. My faith will rest in a mutual defense among both God, and science...

Side: Both
2 points

God will be angry

Side: God
E223(193) Disputed
1 point

That's, of course, assuming that God exists.

Side: Science
2 points

I never rely solely on God. One must pray as if everything is on God's shoulders, but act as if everything is on his shoulders. That's how I live my life. However, I would much rather put my faith on God. It gives a chance for miracles. Science is straightforward, but not always correct. Sure, you could plug into formulas, but there are always variants. With God, I feel safe.

Side: God
2 points

Sometimes you need to personally experience phenomenal things yourself.

You cannot prove why did human die or where do we go after death.

Things regarding these matters can only be realized and not proved or should i say it cannot be proved.

Side: God
1 point

Science is slow. What you stated are the final two playing cards that religion/God still has in his hand. When science finds the answer, religion will die. Or if aliens come to earth. For every religion claims us to be the only damned things in the whole fricken universe. That sounds a little greedy, sounds like a human claim. Therefore God is nothing more than a human creation to help hide our fear of death. End game. I rest my case with science.

Side: Science
2 points

Id radther put my faith in God, because i know that eventhough i may go through alot in life, someday ill stand in front of him, Actually we all will, but i dont wanna waste my life just making God second option, i wanna live for him and actually follow him and lead others to him, faith without action is dead, so yeah i chose God

Side: God
2 points

Can faith in science earn you a happy afterlife like faith in God can?

Side: God
2 points

I have seen what man does with science, I will not put my faith in man. To have faith in one superior to man is not flawed, but flawless.

Side: God
1 point

God is known to be miraculous but many disagree to say its not possible.... Aparantely they don't know the meaning of a miracle.

Side: God
1 point

I can believe in science without faith. I "see" the evidence.

Faith is another kind of evidence that is mostly with sight, although the effects can be most astonishing.

Tell me this...

Under the assumption God made the world, would it be wiser to trust in the creator or the created?

Under the assumption there is no god, would it really matter since your life is going to end completely at any time?

Side: God
0 points

God will always be there, science not so much!

Side: God
frenchieak(1131) Disputed
4 points

So science is going to go away? I think science will be here for a while.

Side: Science
0 points

No. Science has always been here. We as humans just did not always understand it. Your logic is lacking. Without humans, there would be no God. We are the only creature that seems to care about it. And its not God that we care about, it is death. Humans have a deepseated fear of death that influenced the creation of god. End game.

Side: Science
Swryght(161) Disputed
2 points

Science has always been here? What is that supposed to mean? Science is a strict methodological practice that has developed over time. It did not exist before we created it. It seems that it is your logic that is lacking. I'll assume that you are confusing science with "empirically verifiable objective truth", which arguably has always been here.

As far as fear of death being the only impetus for the invention of God, do you have any psychological evidence to support this assertion?

Side: God