    > science is built around making verifiable
    > predictions but doesn't in fact give any
    > answers, only theories

This is just redefining "theory" and "answer" to the point of meaninglessness.

Darwin didn't know a lot of things about evolution or biology, and I'm sure he had questions about some of those things. If you could talk to him today you could give him answers to those questions, and the reason for that is that those answers are found in theories and scientific progress in general.

But yes, it doesn't provide "answers" in the mushy religious sense, i.e. "what is it all for?".

    > The difference between science and
    > religion doesn't lie in disagreement
    > over particular facts or any facts at all

Yes, it does. You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments.

Do you think Galileo clashed with the Catholic church over heliocentrism because the church didn't understand what religion should and shouldn't be making claims about?

▲ alexey-salmin 3 days ago | parent [-]

The point being, a theory only holds "true" until it's superseded by a better theory. Furthermore, multiple conflicting theories can be in use at the same time in the absence of a good unifying theory. In the end science neither says nor cares what is "true", it just looks for theories that are good at predicting stuff.

"Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent" or at least that's how I understand the word.

EDIT apparently the comment above got extended, so I'll address some of newer points too.

> You're just implicitly excluding all the parts where religious texts make empirical claims about reality as unimportant or allegory, because religion has already lost those arguments.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying all these claims can be as well true in a different (fully consistent and scientific) world. Furthermore, if you assume we live in a simulation then basically anything becomes possible in OUR world too, including Jesus walking on water turned into wine. It's just our simulation overlords had a good sense of humor.

The reason why we don't usually consider simulation theories is not because they're false (this can't be proven), but because they aren't practical and don't predict much. Even if we do live in a simulation, this simulation so far seems to follow some consistent internal "laws" so we can as well study those. Not that it means anything, but helps us to exterminate those who neglect these laws so it's a survivorship bias in action.

▲

dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> "Answers" in a common sense are supposed to be "true" and "permanent"

I would argue that answers are supposed to be useful for the purpose motivating the question.

Q: What is the price of gas? A1: The number of units of some other good or service demanded by a seller in echange for a given quantity of it. A2: about $4.00/gal

A1 is, I would say, both "true" and "permanent". Assuming it is at least approximately accurate, though, A2 is much more of an answer in most cases the question is asked, even though it is at perhaps only approximately and in any case at best transitorily true.

	▲	alexey-salmin 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		In that sense yes, I agree that science gives good answers.

▲

kmonsen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The goal of science is to disprove our theories so we can find out if they are true, and hopefully replace them with improved versions.

The goal of religious study is to try to prove that it is not impossible, not that it is a probably reading of what happened. To find some absurd way of reconciling different stories. I have no idea how you can call that an answer.

▲

alexey-salmin 3 days ago | parent [-]

Well these "answers", whether absurd or not, were good enough for societies to live by them and survive for millennia.

Furthermore, even though you can argue that science can give some answers, it definitely under-delivers on questions like "what is good and evil" or "why you should have kids". Some of those are covered by the "humanism" neoreligion, some of them aren't. This whole experiment is very modern, it's not clear what are long-term survival rates of societies that completely give up on religions in a classical sense. It could turn out that societies that believe in nonsense have an edge over the ones that don't, after all this matches our experience all the way up until the 20th century.

▲

kmonsen 3 days ago | parent [-]

I agree science doesn’t give good answers for good and evil, for me religion gives even worse answers. For example the Bible is clearly in favor of slavery as an institution. Other religions like Buddhism are for me better.

The scary part is that there may not be a good or evil, and the answers we have are just made up stuff.

▲

alexey-salmin 3 days ago | parent [-]

Slavery made a lot of economic sense prior to the industrial revolution. If you consider "good and evil" as a set of norms that help society to thrive (as in outcompete other societies for resources) then it's not surprising that slavery went from good to bad as the technology progressed.

That's the only remotely rational view of it that I'm aware of. "Remotely" because without some kind of religion it doesn't follow that outcompeting other societies or survival in general is "good".

So in the end yes, I do believe "good and evil" are made up. Luckily, it's not a bad thing.

▲

kmonsen 3 days ago | parent [-]

I do think it’s possible that God and evil are a set of norms that help society (or actually their leaders) thrive, but are presented as universal values.

I think there is a huge distinction to what it’s good for the average person in society vs what is good for the rulers, and it is unclear which one of those you mean.

Most religions are here to support the rulers.

	▲	alexey-salmin 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I think there is a huge distinction to what it’s good for the average person in society vs what is good for the rulers, and it is unclear which one of those you mean. I mean it in the most brutal sense, maximizing replication and persistence of religion bearers (you can say average person in society). In a short term religions can benefit current rulers, but in a long term selection must be geared towards survival of societies and cultures as a whole, otherwise they wouldn't have lived into the modern age.