For the past 8 months, I have been the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Soon, I won't be. Let truth be whatever makes people comfortable. I am sure there are going to be plenty of you punching my online nose for typing that.

"But I think the real bottom line difference, is very simple."

Go on, you don't say.

Unless it's simply that one is fact and the other fiction.

Science answers questions by observation to determine the facts.
Religion has answers that can not be questioned.
Philosophy ponders questions that can not be answered.
The truth is factual answers to questions.

The "Scientific Method" works best.

When it comes to science verses faith I request evidence of faith based technology.
Good luck with that.
Tootles

There's a big difference between beliefs and facts.

I think what you’re talking about is the difference between science and superstition. And my answer is... superstition is natural and science is artificial. And yes, one is free and the other requires lots of work, and is therefore more valuable. Religion, on the other hand, the one I’m more familiar with anyway, is just early (primitive) science, and early philosophy, and early medicine, and early psychology, and early ethics, and early law, etc. that never fell out of practice because, most people haven’t escaped their natural superstitious instincts. And because, in some ways, science still hasn’t learned how to provide some of the comforts that religion provides for people. And apparently isn’t interested.

Reminds me of Indiana Jones movie, we deal in facts if you wants truths go to the philosophy class

Truth is subjective.

I agree that falsifiability is an essential element to the scientific process, and it is not at all in religion, though more thoughtful religionists might try hard to reinterpret their religious tenets if scientific discoveries make their existing versions seem silly(for example, the Biblical creation story being said to represent a metaphorical six days of creation rather than literally).

But importantly, the whole concept of "truth" in science versus either secular philosophy or religion differs. Science concerns itself with seeking to improve our understanding of objective factual reality. That is its truth, and as such, it is always open to revision, because reality seems to have ever deeper layers of knowledge possible.

In contrast, philosophy, whether secular, religious, or new age woo-loving(my made up term for unaffiliated spiritually magical thinking), expects more from "truth." These approaches are concerned with articulating values to live by, which is of necessity at the very least somewhat subjective. That is about what is to be considered importsnt and why, not just about what is.

The remaining distinction I would make is between religious vs secular philosophies, which hinges on acceptance of the notion of "revealed" truth, in the case of religion, vs reasoned discovery, in the case of secular philosophy. (This touches on the scientific need for falsifiability, but in the case of philosophy doesn't quite match that level that science emphasizes.) The latter accepts the prospect of revision. The former pretends that their "Truth," with a capital "T," is eternal, perfect, and unchanging. ...which, of course, makes religion juvenile, as well as nonsensical.

I want to do these:
Rational truth is the result of conclusions made through the use of the scientific method. Science and "rational truth" are tied together. Philosophy is a set of unproven theories or thesis. Religion, besides being the "opiate of the people" is 1. A way to explain what science and rational though has yet to explain. Over time, things that religion used to explain are now explained by science, but some choose to believe the religion over the science (as we are well aware). and 2. Religion is a method by which the powerful control the masses. Moses is an example of this. He persuaded his followers to do so with the use of "the word of gawd" chiseled in stone, no less.

The truth always seems to grant them, the winners with the factual truth, those who write the history have always been those who support the winners truth!!!

Falsifiability is important. Otherwise I get to do things like saying Aphrodite is responsible for erectile dysfunction and you should give her offerings through me until she is pleased to stop doing this. Let’s say ten guys do and 3 guys it appears to work. Those 3 tell ten guys, repeat. We now have a chain of guys taking my bullshit claim but insisting their truth is real because they experienced it. For that fourth generation guy who insists he knows people it worked for, can he demonstrate Aphrodite exists, did act, and in what manner?

That is the problem with religious methods. Every time look for the assertion they can not demonstrate, thus making their claims mere assertions.

Philosophy helps you ask better questions, but is susceptible to garbage in garbage out even if properly structured. Which is where religious philosophy fails, they still sneak that assertion in as true.

Scientific methods use provisional certainty and follow increasingly better evidence when able to.

All truths are personal, this despite what any God Mobster or scientist might tell you.

That's all a bit random, like an exercise in free association.

Agreed. In science, we get closer to truth, but never, ever all the way there. And we are OK with that.