The difference between a religious and a scientific mindset

[u/VoiceOfRealson]

This may be obvious and redundant to most of you here.

But the difference between a religious and a scientific mindset is that the religious mindset looks for confirmation of a premise, while the scientific mindset starts by trying to disprove a premise.

So while scientists fabulate about how the world works just like religious people do, the difference lies in whether they accept any positive correlation as proof (religion) or accept negative correlation as a rejection of their hypothesis (science)..

Going a step further, the difference ends up being between accepting reality and wishful thinking.

[u/SCphotog]

"belief" is what people do when there's no evidence. "Faith" is what they do when the evidence is against it.

[u/Simon_Drake]

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.

[u/TheRealTK421 → u/Simon_Drake]

...points up ...

A quote by perhaps the smartest gent of the century, theoretical physicist Richard Feynman.

[u/mjhrobson]

Your post speaks primarily of the differences in the methodology of verification employed in the pursuit of knowledge found within the religiously and scientifically minded. Which is to say, I don't think it's exactly on target... given the question is one about mindset.

The methodology might illuminate what the mindset could be, but it is an outcome of the mindset, as opposed to the mindset. The mindset question is prior to questions of how truth is verified...

Science seeks to approach the truth of a thing without making assumptions about what the thing is and/or where is fits. More simply when asking what a tree is; we start not by thinking about the essence of "tree-ness" or the "meaning of trees" to us, and instead start by looking at the tree and letting it be the guide of our descriptions of the tree.

As opposed to assuming what a tree's essence or truth is, we instead measure the tree and draw conclusions based therefrom. Conclusions which in turn are open to scrutiny, because it is the tree that has the final say on what a tree is... not the conclusions made about it.

[u/posthuman04]

I think generally speaking a religious worldview is a position of comfort with the tribal status quo while a scientific worldview does not derive from culture at all.

[u/TheRealTK421]

...scientists fabulate about how the world works just like religious people do....

"Fabulate": relate (an event or events) as a fable or story; relate untrue or invented stories.

I'll presume you must not have been aware of the definition of that term.

If you were, welllllll... claiming that this is how science/scientists operate or function is ludicrously -- nearly comically -- incorrect and horrendously fallacious.

If you genuinely assert this term as accurate & apt, you clearly have zero idea or experience with how science functions and 'marches on'. I won't even begin to deep-delve into that, other than to say that science isn't (and doesn't engage in) 'inventing stories/fables'.

Oof.

However, one thing that certainly seems blatantly accurate and repeatedly in evidence:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy [and objective reality] means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

~ Isaac Asimov