Truth: Science or Religion?

There is a major difference between science and religion regarding how each arrives at the truth of reality. This post will not address what those differences are, as plenty has been said about such on this blog and elsewhere. This post will, instead, look at the question of who is correct from a little different angle than I have seen elsewhere.

There are over 4000 religion groups in the world, with Christianity being only one group. There are over 38,000 denominations of Christianity. Christianity started "officially" from one and "branched out" to what we have today, as disagreements increased.

Modern science began about 150 years ago. Since that time, scientific knowledge over any subject has begun with many hypotheses over the matter in question. Through the scientific method, the many ideas/hypotheses are whittled down to fewer and fewer until eventually (if the evidence is strong enough) the vast majority of scientists in the particular appropriate field accept one hypothesis as the best explanation for the phenomenon in question.

See the difference here? Religion moves from uniformity of understanding of reality to a diversity of opinion regarding such. Science processes move from a diversity of opinion to more uniformity of such.

If you want to know the truth about anything and you seek an answer, which of the following groups would you expect would give you the best answer?

1) One group of people initially states that they all agree that they have the correct answer. However, as time goes on, disagreement emerges within the group to the point where there are almost as many opinions on the matter as there are people in the group.

2) The other group of people initially argue among themselves over what is the correct answer. However, as time goes on, and through careful analysis and use of tools that all group members agree are appropriate, the group contracts around one opinion on the matter.


  1. Tom, I'm not going to comment on the problems with this post unless you invite me to. But in all honesty and sincerity, out of curiosity, have you ever formally studied logic?

  2. Adam,

    I really think we have become irritants to each other over the issues of religion, science and reason, so I think it best if you withhold comments from my blog from now on.

    Your use of logic on my blog, frankly, I deem as inappropriate for the questions I have asked you. I strongly suspect that you will strongly disagree with me.

    It has been my uniform experience that statements of logic by apologists are invalid for the issues at hand and only serve to obfuscate. You have fit into the mold, IMHO. Again, you probably will strongly disagree.

    I have not studied logic "formally." However, I have read enough apologetics and counter-apologetics to understand how is can be used appropriately and inappropriately. Again, I suspect you will disagree.

    If we ever meet socially, I would be glad to have a respectful and enjoyable conversation with you over any issue other than those we have been discussing. You seem like a very nice person and I believe you are honest in your beliefs.

    I am ready to move on and I hope you feel the same way.



  3. Thanks Tom. It's your blog, so I'll respect your wishes. For the record, you are not an irritant to me and I'm sorry if I've been to you. It is irritating, in the frustrating sense, to see you be illogical and make poor arguments. But I think you are a very nice person as well, and I do hope we have some time to chat in person in the future. As a sincere seeker of truth, I also hope you'll take the time to reasonably consider your arguments, my arguments, and the possibility that some of the conclusions you draw are irrational. Again, I appreciate your courteousness, and I wish you the best.

  4. Adam,

    I am disappointed you would state "It is irritating, in the frustrating sense, to see you be illogical and make poor arguments." Why didn't you just leave it alone? We disagree. I respect you, but not your opinion. You feel the same. Nuff said.

    I can go on and on with you, but it would be fruitless. Even if your logical statements ARE true, in the context of our discussions, they are not pertinent. I have asked you to answer 2 simple questions. You obfuscated in your answers. This has been the pattern with every apologist with whom I have dialoged. I guess you folks have your script and just will not respond to simple questions. Sad.

  5. OK Tom. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I meant no disrespect to you personally by that comment.

  6. Thanks, Adam. Have a good night. I hope you don't get bogged down with your little one again.