Why do people require "proof" from religion and mysteries, but not science?

This is a very good point. I have always wondered why people are willing to accept what people with PhDs in Physics say but not people with PhDs in Biblical Studies. Why is one kind of knowledge better than another kind of knowledge? It is only because people are only willing to believe the things that back up their side of the story, so they just belittle the other side. This goes both ways though. There are religious people who refuse to believe anything that science says because they think it goes against their beliefs. I personally believe that science and religion both CAN and SHOULD coexist. After all, God created this world, and He created the laws of nature that scientists study. Everything in His creation leads us back to Him! But yes, science does take just as much faith as anything else. I mean, take the theories of the origins of life? It is no more that guesswork based on their interpretation of what they see as evidence. There is a reason that the theories are various and change from day to day. Yet, people take them as cold, hard fact and refute all the religious theories which have just as much evidence as the scientific ones. It's just plain ridiculous, I think. It shows an extreme amount of close mindedness.

What I find really ironic is when people want to debate anything in religion, especially the existence of God, and I use science to justify my personal beliefs they get way bent out of shape and say I can not use science to justify or prove Gods existence, be cause believing in God is about faith not science. I say back to them Why can I not use the same tools you use to try to say their is no God, That is like saying lets see who is better at cutting a stake, and they pull out a scalpel and hand me a rock.

Interesting point of view. I remember an article in a Finnish newspaper about a professor who was thinking that the evolution theory does not make sense. This professor was wondering why no other scientist had come to think of the same things that he had. Then he understood that they did not dare to say anything, even if they felt that the theory was wrong. They would risk their career and a lot of research money. And they would not be popular. I did a search to find out if he still is working and I actually found one professor in Bioprocess engineering with the name Leisola. I don´t know it that is the guy I am searching - I am not sure about his first name - but it could be... This is just one example of how people prefer to believe what is popular rather than do like this brave professor and tell what he really thinks....

Personally I'm not asking for proof from anyone, but a bit of solid evidence is the least I can expect if anybody wants me to devote my life to their chosen ideology. With religion, there are so many out there with radically different ideas about creation, the nature of their "higher power", etc... and they all make compelling arguments. In the absence of one that stands out to me and offers me anything in my life that I feel I am missing, I see no reason why I should adopt a religion.

I used to listen to a radio show that talked a lot about science and one of the hosts said that he knew many scientists that would become excited at the prospect of someone proving their theory wrong or improving their theory because to scientists it's about finding out the right answer not having some brainiac victory. Science is flexible and if they are proven wrong they are willing to change their theories. They also work hard to produce a visible verification that can be documented on public record. They call their work theory. Religion and science are very much alike in the fact that they are a series of theories but in religion they are called denominations or even other religions but no one is really sure who is right unless they have already committed to a religion, then that is the right one. As for mysteries, no one wants reality to vary from the norm because that would throw everything into uncertainty, suddenly things would be different then they were and you may be in danger, so it's easier to believe a ufo is a storm cloud.

This is one of the best discussions I've seen. =D First off, I really didn't know about Roentgenium. =P It's a good point that we have learned simply to accept things that are fed to us by science, but they doubt religion more. I think that this is because many things in science can be proven true easily and we take the ones that we haven't seen proof to as a given. During the age of Englightenment and during that time period in general, people learned to doubt the existance of religion and stop blindly accepting what is given to them, but this discussion set me thinking that perhaps we are just accepting many of the things that are spoonfed to us by science. This, of course, isn't true for everything, because like I said, many things are able to be proven true through experimentation. People doubt religion because of the turnover during the Englightenment, and because some tend to see the concept of religion as a huge contradiction. In science, there's definitely more proof than religion, and we know where to go in order to obtain that proof if we want to (many of us don't though xD). Science can be encompassed by human rationality as a whole, but religion simply can't - it's based on your own personal belief. I hope that made any sense, but it's my view on this topic as clearly as I can put it. =P The uncertanties in science are a lot more easy to pinpoint in science than in religion, which is based on belief as a whole, and therefore more prone to doubt. Again, I must praise you for this excellent discussion idea. ^_^

For once we agree, science also requires faith all the best urban

Better Question. Why is there undying loyalty to "scientific theories" that have never been proven and unending skepticism about a document which the founder of our modern rules of evidence says is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and dependable in any legitimate court before a jury of reasonable men. Check out Simon Greeleaf, Founder of the Harvard School of Law and creator of the rules of evidence used in the US Court system on the web.

First of all, the element you're referring to is a SYNTHETIC element. It's man made. It doesn't get much more clear than that. How much more proof does someone need when a scientist creates something and it has been witnessed and was documented? In regards to the rest of the subject matter: I have often pondered those thoughts about where we came from and how, but obviously no one is ever going to really know. It's just easier for some to believe in something someone tells them especially if millions of other people including their friends and families believe the same thing. As far as needing proof for either religion or science it really goes both ways, depending on what side of the fence you're on and on what subject. On the subject of say, where we came from, we are given either the choice of religion or science. The people on the science side demand proof as well as the religious movements disputing the evidence science has uncovered or theories such as evolution. A scientist simply makes a logical chain of events happen based on the information given to them along with the information they uncover. It's easier for science to explain things than religion because science has physical proof. As far as the worthless element 111, no nobody's heard of it unless they're an AP Chemistry student in college or a...scientist. It was just another waste of sciences time. Just like investating silly light in the skies reports of UFOs. Don't our taxes pay for the military to take care of the serious threats in the sky from terrorist countries or hijackers? Science should spend it's time working on things that directly improve humanity and not planning for little green men with lasers. And the last thing science should do is spend time figuring out where we came cause what matters is where we're going and right now it's not looking to good. If science had spent more time being constructive rather than just discovering senseless things to sell in a book then maybe we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today with pollution and disease. I know I went off on a tangent, but I was trying to bring a more relevant point of view on what science should really be trying to prove in the 1st place and it sure as hell isn't some element they barely made.