The essence of the scientific method is the willingness to admit you’re wrong, the willingness to abandon ideas that don’t work. And, the essence of religion is not to change anything. Supposed truths are handed down by some revered figure and then no one is supposed to make any progress beyond that, because all the truth is thought to be in hand.

– Carl Sagan “God, The Universe, and Everything Else” (UK 1988)

The scientific method involves a combination of induction and deduction, each feeding back upon the other. The first part, known as the Method of Induction, is the process by which we take information from our senses and attempt to produce general statements about our world. The deductive aspect of the scientific method moves in just the opposite direction: it involves taking a general principle about the world and deducing what will or should happen in some particular instance.

Informally, we can say that the criteria of scientific theories can be grouped into a few basic principles: scientific theories should be consistent, parsimonious, correctable, empirically testable/verifiable, useful, and progressive. In most contexts, a theory is a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one with a low probability of being true. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones.

The only consistent differentiation between hypothesis and theory that scientists use is that an idea is a hypothesis being actively tested and investigated, but a theory in other contexts. As far as "facts" are concerned, scientists caution that even though they appear to be using the term in the same way as everyone else, they aren't. For scientists, a fact is assumed to be true, at least for the purposes of whatever they are doing at the moment, but which might be refuted later.

There is a long-standing debate over whether science and religion are necessarily in conflict or if they can be compatible. Science is often a threat to religious beliefs simply because reality can be a threat to religious beliefs. Not all religious beliefs are contrary to reality, but any review of history will demonstrate that a great many have and that these beliefs have had to be shed in order to make way for the facts discovered by science.

The debate between science and religion goes on without resolve and without satisfaction for any involved. We might get somewhere if we narrowed the terms of debate a bit: on what grounds are we attempting to compare the two? There are many possible points of comparison; here I shall briefly summarize how science is superior to religion in terms of improving the lives, health, and welfare of humanity on a very basic level and all around the world.

What has religion done in the past millennia to improve sanitation and cleanliness? Little to nothing. Science, however, has informed us of the ways in which disease can be spread through improperly handled water and poor hygiene. Science has also provided the tools to make water safer to drink and to clean up both ourselves and our surroundings to greatly reduce the risk of disease. Countless people have been saved from sickness and death through this information.

Disease in general is not something which religion has helped fight; on the contrary, myths about the origins of disease have only made things worse. Science, however, has identified the bacteria and viruses which cause disease, how they work, how to fight them, and more. Through evolutionary theory we know that the fight against pathogens is endless because they will constantly evolve, but science gives us the tools to continue the fight with. Religion does not and often inhibits the effort.

Humans today live much longer on average than they used to, with the longest lives occurring in the industrialized West. This is not a coincidence: it is due to the use of science to fight disease, improve hygiene, and most importantly to improve the chances of survival in childhood. People are living longer because they use science to better understand and manipulate the world around them. Religion has not contributed to this.

People today can communicate with each other across vast distances in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago. This facilitates not only the transmission of useful information, but also the development of new and dynamic human communities. All of this is possible through the use of science to create new technology. Religion has made great use of these abilities, but has contributed nothing to their basic development.

Everything we make must be made from some raw material. In the past the options were limited; today, however, there is a wealth of materials that are lighter, stronger, and often better than what was available before. Religion did not create plastics, carbon fiber, or even steel. Science and the scientific method allow people to develop new materials for new tasks, making it possible to do so much that we take for granted today.

Science has provided invaluable insights into how human sexuality and reproduction work. We understand not only how and why things function, but also how and why they fail to function. This makes it possible to correct for errors and for people who previously were unable to have children to now successfully do so. Religion not only has not contributed to this, but in the past it has inhibited our understanding through myths and fables.

It should go without saying that we cannot improve our position if we don't know what that position really is. Science has provided tremendous information about our place in nature, about our planet's place in the solar system, and about our galaxy's place in the universe. There is much to learn, but what we know already has been put to great use. Religion has only ever offered myths, all of which have proven to be wrong and misleading.

It can be argued that there is much more to life than improved sanitation, improved hygiene, fighting disease, increased food production, new materials for building things, improved communication, and so forth. On the other hand, there isn't nearly as much life without those things — and those who are alive will have to endure more hardship and suffering as well. The ability of science to improve the very basic necessities of life is without question. The fact that religion doesn't even come close is also without question.

Why does such an extreme difference exist? Science's success depends upon the scientific method and upon methodological naturalism. The scientific method ensures that new ideas are thoroughly tested and vetted before being accepted. Methodological naturalism ensures that science conforms to the boundaries of the natural world rather than the boundaries of wishful thinking.

Religions neither incorporate nor value either of these methods. The diversity of religion prevents us making many generalizations about all religions, but I am unaware of any that develop and test their claims on the scientific method or rely upon methodological naturalism when examining the world.

This doesn't require the conclusion that religion is valueless because not everything in life can, does, or needs to incorporate the principles of science to be worth anything. What we can conclude, however, is that in the past couple of centuries science has done far more to improve the basic living and survival standards of humanity than religion has in the past several millennia. Religious leaders like to claim that we need more religion in order to solve our problems, but with most problems we could probably benefit from more science instead.

Info from http://atheism.about.com

All That info^ In a nice little diagram v

That sums it up quite well.

Go science! I just watched on PBS how we landed on a moon of Saturn called Titan. Scientists have always been interested with this moon for they believe that it could have the ability to create life.

There is water, methane, and nitrogen on this moon.

In the end I find it amazing that a small satelite can travel 1 billion miles from Earth and take pictures of both Saturn and its moons.

Now that is Science!

We finally landed out there? I would of wanted to see that show. I'm disappointed that I missed it.

Yes so interesting. I am sure there are new pictures up somewhere on the internet to see both Titan and Saturn. Scientists have discovered many new things about both of them.

Did you know that the rings around Saturn are of ice and some kind of natural contamination? The darker rings have more contamination then the lighter ones. Ice! Water!

Just like Mars Ice was found.

There is another satelite going all the way to pluto. It should arrive sometime in 2010 or 2011 I think. That would be interesting.

Also Europeans have discovered what possibly be a planet like Earth, but only 5 x bigger then our planet. Just imagine a planet liveable like ours ready to be colonized. We just somehow need spaceships to fly faster or space stations that can fly fast and sustain life on it to have grandchildren be able to see the planet.

I know sounds nuts. I am a nutcase if you haven't already realized.

I'd volunteer for the trip! Space travel is my greatest dream adventure.