Science or Religion - You Choose.

[MineralMan]

Science is based on repeatable, falsifiable observations and experimentation involving the existing physical world. It is about reality and knowledge. You can learn how to repeat those observations and experiments to verify them yourself.

Religion is based on mythology and metaphysics that have zero evidence to support them. It is neither repeatable nor falsifiable. It is the opposite of science. It is about the invisible, non-physical, belief, and acceptance of others' words.

You can go through life following the scientific method or mythology. Me? I choose science. It's far more useful. You choose.

Note: This post was created using a science-based machine.

[Snackshack]

1. I choose...

Science.

The other choice is just...never mind.

[LuvLoogie]

2. I think that how one deals with reality is often a mixed bag of tools.

Many advances in science occurred from a leap of faith and a prayer to one's greater power. Risk often run's counter to the survival instinct. Choices are subject to flaws in character and the relative morality of the situation at hand.

Science tells you how many fishes and loaves are needed to feed your Picnic, ethics and morality will tell you who gets the food when you run short.

Religion is a set of ethics and morals and tenets. How they are applied to one's everyday life varies. Religion often includes science. Take the observation of human behavior for example. Granted, religious history contains myths. Some would say those myths actually happened.

Our observations tell us the Big Bang happened, but we are extrapolating based on what we've seen and heard, not on what we witnessed for ourselves 15 billion years ago.

It depends upon how we apply either whether one is more useful than the other. Problems change. The abbots were scientists, the Mayans were very religious. Faith, reality, consequence, and dumb luck are intertwined with cause and effect.

[Cartoonist]

3. Yes, but at no time

At no time can it be shown that the hand of god intervened.

[guillaumeb]

4. In spite of your title, and its obvious bias, one can choose both.

And many of us do choose both.

[Karadeniz]

5. Well...the experiments at Arizona U. Into the survival after death of Mind pretty well meet

your introductory criteria.

The testing of children claiming a verifiable previous life also meets your criteria.

Out of body experiences can be verified.

So, if one's religion involves reincarnation, that religion is not necessarily all airy-fairy.

Chacun a son gout!

[Major Nikon]

6. Hardly

The things you mentioned have much simpler explanations, so Occam’s razor does a pretty good number on them.

[edhopper]

7. Actually all of those are terribly flawed

barely scientific studies that are evidence of nothing.

There has never been a double blind verification of OBE.

You can keep your parapsychology and psychical research that has not had a verified result in 150 years of trying.

I'll stick with real science.

[Major Nikon]

8. Not to mention the so-called "study" on reincarnation was straight up pseudoscience

Orchestrated by hucksters. Anyone who finds "validation" from it is looking way too hard.

[edhopper]

9. I bet he has

faith it is all true.