What seperates religion and science?

[Medicine*Woman]

SAM,

You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.

People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.

In essence - religions are born from ignorance.

Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.

Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.

The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.

*************
M*W: Thanks, Cris. You summed it up nicely.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM,

You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.

People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.

In essence - religions are born from ignorance.

Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.

Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.

The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.

So tell me, in which part of the world did scientific thought and progress begin from a non-religious source?

 

[Hapsburg]

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science?

They simply deal with two different mechanisms for explaining the natural world. One does so with philosophy and intuition (religion), and the other does so with empiricism and critical analysis (science). As such, they have different semantics, systems, and ideas employed to describe their discoveries.

 

[Ophiolite]

I also think that it is impossible for you to post as many posts per day as you claim. I think there are others who have access to your username who post radical posts on sciforums. There is no possible way you could post all those posts yourself. What kind of game are you playing?

This is an interesting claim. I just want to check out the realism of posting 48 posts per day. Not all necessarily one liners, but a mix of one liners and somewhat meatier posts. If you don't mind I am going to target all your posts for this purpose. (Actually I am going to do that whether you mind or not, which should help to simulate the SAM mode.)
Above this is a default post, the items below are new Time:7:27

*************
M*W: Thanks, Cris. You summed it up nicely.

Are you in complete agreement with Cris's summary. Some of his points seemed to run counter to your usual position on these matters.