Is Science a Religion?

[Pendragon]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works. This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught. This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

God Bless

Pen

[JBI]

No, because everyone is a part of science, and you cannot be a "science" person. Science explains things using a method, which is challenged. It has beliefs, and faith-oriented aspects (such as obscure, yet unproven theories and hypotheses), but acknowledging gravity isn't a religion - it is common sense.



In that sense, there are Christians who study science, and religious people effected by it. I don't think any reasonable person can deny science, just certain theories.

[skasian]

Of course not. Science only touches the physical layer and limited amount of mental layer, whereas Religion touches all especially in the spritual layer. Therefore the two are not the same.

[JCamilo]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

C'mom, Pedragon you have been around those debates for quite so long to already know that science does not uphold dogmas and nothing that scientist says is the irrefutable truth, and the method asks this to be tested over and over and over...


But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

I can say that we have a rabit (prophets) who eat(examine) leaves of letuce (holy books). Language is a funny thing, we can create anything with it.
But again, you have been around for too long to know that Scientists are not prophets (and prophets do not do experiments) and a scientist book can be repeated by others over and over and the experiment can be repeated - must be. If one person - who is not a scientist, accept is without questioning, that is not the scientist problem or creed. It is mostly a work writter for and by specialists to apply.




Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works. This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught. This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

If there is a mistaken formula or bad equation it will fail when repeated. Someone will correct it, that simple. The human factor (mistakes) are not be absent of the pratice, altough it does not define what Science is. (It is almost like I saying Religion is like a bank because some churches still get money from the faithful - that individual - as you will may say mistake - does not define religion to me and I hope not to anyone else).

[Pendragon]

And yet you require what you call irrefutible truth to believe in God, while admiting that sience has things that they cannot prove. Am I to turn away from God simply because others do not see things as I do? No, and neither will I turn away from science even though it is sometimes flawed. Gravity doesn't reqiire faith because I can feel the pull all too well. But things like "quarks" for example I may never see. Does this mean that they don't exist? No. There is a similiarity, even if I am the only one who does believe that there is.

I accept evolution as in adaptation to habitat very well, for example. I don't believe the animals now, and at the time of creation are the same, they evolved and changed. I called attention once to an eohippus, ancestor of our horse.

Nevertheless, I bow to those who feel that I am wrong. Feel free to do so, you haven't shaken me yet, and I don't think you could.

[dzebra]

Pendragon, I understand what you are saying. I think everyone who lives has faith in something, because no one knows everything. The main difference is where people are willing to place their faith. Most people choose to place their faith in what makes sense to them.

[skasian]

Is there actually some one that believes or thinks that science is a religion? (apart from scientologists)

[billyjack]

Scientology shouldnt be mistaken for belief in science. its a religion and science really has nothing to do with its wacky beliefs

[blp]

Is there actually some one that believes or thinks that science is a religion? (apart from scientologists)

A lot of religious people try to draw an equivalence between the truth claims of science and the truth claims of religion. They do this to try to undermine rationalist critiques of religion, attempting to show that rationalists have no more firm basis for their beliefs than religionists.

[blp]

Scientology shouldnt be mistaken for belief in science. its a religion and science really has nothing to do with its wacky beliefs

Quite right.

[skasian]

Then why is that religion named Scientology? There must be some form of science in that religion that make up the name. I know that the religion also includes aliens. If science is not included in the religion then it must be named Alienology or some sort.

[blp]

Pen, the big difference is that science is open and religion is closed. Religion starts from an assumption: belief in the divine. Take away this belief and religion is gone. Science has no such founding assumptions, not even the belief that the reality we perceive is absolute. Science isn't even antithetical a priori to religion: if it could be convincingly demonstrated that there was a quality of the divine, science would accept it as a theory.

[billyjack]

so they can trick people into thinking their beliefs are justified, reasonable. its a marketing tactic for a shady business

[blp]

Then why is that religion named Scientology? There must be some form of science in that religion that make up the name. I know that the religion also includes aliens. If science is not included in the religion then it must be named Alienology or some sort.


Scientology was invented by the science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard. Previously he'd remarked that he wanted to set up a religion because that's where the real money was.

Do you really think every name is trustworthy, skasian? People call things what they want you to believe they are. Scientology certainly operates as if it is scientific, using electronic equipment to administer treatments to its adherents that are supposed to clear them of negative energy.

Rather than assuming the practice must be scientific because the people behind it said so, one could just as easily imagine that the name was designed to make their claims seem more plausible than they were. Better yet, instead of making assumptions, one could simply do a bit of research. I know wikipedia isn't the final arbiter of these sorts of things, but its account of the etymology of the word 'scientology' seems clear enough:



The word, "Scientology" is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge," "skill"), which comes from the verb scīre ("to know"), and the Greek λόγος lógos ("word" or "account [of]").

Although today associated almost exclusively to describe Hubbard's works, the word "Scientology" predates his usage by several decades. An early use of the word was as a neologism in an 1871 book by the American anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews presenting "the newly discovered Science of the Universe".[37] Philologist Allen Upward used the word "scientology" in his 1901 book The New Word as a synonym for "pseudoscience,"[38] and this is sometimes cited as the first coining of the word.[4] In 1934, the Argentine-German writer Anastasius Nordenholz published a book using the word positively: Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens ("Scientologie, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge").[39] Nordenholz's book is a study of consciousness, and its usage of the word is not greatly different from Hubbard's definition, "knowing how to know".[4] It is uncertain whether Hubbard was aware of prior usage of the word.

You'll note I've added a little emphasis. ;)

[skasian]

Thank you to both billy and blp, I had limited knowledge in Scientology, and I have to admit I hate the idea of aliens so I avoided that religion.

billy are you sure they want to trick people?? I am not sure with that logic..

blp, if money was the primary goal, then I dont see why it is regarded as a religion.. it lacks morality and righteousness which almost all religion promotes. Thanks for your mini research but I do not understand the definition of bolded pseudoscience.

Do you know whether scientology believe in a higher power, ID or simply God? What I have to argue is how can they use justification of science to explain the existance of God (if they do that) Science skims off the physical layer and limited amount of mental layer. Religion covers all especially in the spiritual layer. Now with these differences, I do not understand how A can justify B.

[blp]

I'm no expert. If you're curious, your best bet is to read up on it. Loads and loads of info on the net. But if they are just in it for the money, they're certainly not the first or only people who've used people's desire for the comfort and reassurance of religion to make money.

Oh, and I added the emphasis to show that, far from meaning 'scientific', the word 'scientology' could also be used to denote the very opposite: false science. That's what 'pseudoscience' means. Or, to be a bit more accurate, having a pretense to science.

[skasian]

Interesting, I decided to avoid scientology overall, I never knew it was so..lets just say corrupt..
Well thanks for sharing your knowledge:)

[JCamilo]

And yet you require what you call irrefutible truth to believe in God, while admiting that sience has things that they cannot prove.

Do I claim anything or require you anything? I know belief in God is based on faith and faith is a subjective feeling that is up to those with faith to uphold or not.
Also, there is any field of science actually specialized on disproving God? Saying they do not take god on account while studying does not mean they are bothered to proof or not his existence.


Am I to turn away from God simply because others do not see things as I do?

I think you may turn away from your god from the momment you are requiring others to disprove or prove it for you. (You as a generic person). Religion is a field that have its own function and internal logic, if I was religious I would not try to justify it by the strength of anyother field such as science.


No, and neither will I turn away from science even though it is sometimes flawed.

I think anyone can have a nice life without having to take sides. To live, we require efficience and results, and Religion have a history of success as well. So, I suppose you can have a quiet life just with the results.


Gravity doesn't reqiire faith because I can feel the pull all too well. But things like "quarks" for example I may never see. Does this mean that they don't exist?

Nope. I hope we do not equate visual register with existence.


No. There is a similiarity, even if I am the only one who does believe that there is.

A similarity between the existence of God and Quarks? Sorry, but If your God can be equated with small particles or energy waves, or anything that we do not see with our eyes, I must say you are not showing much face on your God.


I accept evolution as in adaptation to habitat very well, for example. I don't believe the animals now, and at the time of creation are the same, they evolved and changed. I called attention once to an eohippus, ancestor of our horse.

Ok, many people do it. It is reasonable.


Nevertheless, I bow to those who feel that I am wrong. Feel free to do so, you haven't shaken me yet, and I don't think you could.

I do not think anyone is wanting to shake your faith, just to answer the ideas you presented. The difference between science and religion are too clear but if you insist on arguing otherwise, It is not like anyone will hunt your down for it. A forum would not live if everyone wrote the exactly samething...

[Pendragon]

[QUOTE=JCamilo;654218]
A similarity between the existence of God and Quarks? Sorry, but If your God can be equated with small particles or energy waves, or anything that we do not see with our eyes, I must say you are not showing much face on your God.





[QUOTE]Not what I meant, although I can see how you got there. I meant that there is a similarity between science and religion. :)

[The Atheist]

I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

The only side which I've ever seen claim infallibility is the religious one.

I keep pointing out that this is the joy of science - it doesn't try to be infallible, in fact, it tries to be just the opposite. That's why science is constantly updated. Even mathematics, the purest of all pursuits, is up for revision, when a generally-accepted theory suddenly has an exception.

And that's all it takes in science - one single exception, there is no prize for being almost right in science. Once that single exception is found, there is no more Pendragon's Theory of equilateral trianges, it is just wrong.

Evolution is an absolutely classic example. Darwin was till largely right, despite what some people try to claim, but he certainly made a number of mistakes. Not surprising, since he was using a magnifying glass and a knife, while modern laboratories have access to electron microscopes and DNA typing. Science constantly moves forward, and it makes mistakes on the way.


But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

Two words: peer review.

Scientists check each other's work. They are more jealous than a room full of aspiring catwalk models and like nothing better than plucking holes in someone else's work. Crikey - if you think theists and atheists get heated, you should sit in some science bull sessions. It's as well they're all geeks who don't carry concealed weapons or it'd be the shootout at the OK Corral every Thursday.

Because the glory in science is for the bloke who discovered it - Newton's Laws, Einstein's Theories, Pythagoras' Hippopotami - and if you're the bloke who's spent 147 years trying to prove circles are square when that bloke Pendragon down the road suddenly reckons he's cracked it, you can be sure that the first scientist is going to go nuts trying to disprove your theory.

Honestly, ask around, join Science Forums, go to Dawkins' site in the science section - there is no free pass anywhere in science.


But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught.

Nope. Never mind the fine-tooth comb, these guys are true zealots. If a study is done on 1,324,786 fruit flies, you'd better not have 1,324,787 dead ones, because someone will program an algorithm to count the blighters.


And yet you require what you call irrefutible truth to believe in God, ...

As I've said many times, I'd settle for one exception.

[blazeofglory]

In fact when a particular set of idea becomes institutionalized it becomes a religion, and today some science has been a religion. Science becomes religion when it is unquestioned or is taken for granted.

[JCamilo]

No sense, blaze, Law are instituionalized and no religion. I would like just to remember everyone that Religion is more complex than just "dogmas that people follow out of ignorance".

[billyjack]

I would like just to remember everyone that Religion is more complex than just "dogmas that people follow out of ignorance".

i dont remember that...pretty sure your quote--"dogmas that people follow out of ignorance"--sums it up for the most part.

[The Atheist]

In fact when a particular set of idea becomes institutionalized it becomes a religion, and today some science has been a religion. Science becomes religion when it is unquestioned or is taken for granted.

No, because by that stage, it's no longer science, and has become pseudoscience.

[dzebra]

Pseudoscience or not, you have to admit that people put trust in things they only know based the word of someone else.

[The Atheist]

Pseudoscience or not, you have to admit that people put trust in things they only know based the word of someone else.

Of course they do, but that has no relevance whatsoever to science, which doesn't use hearsay at all.

[Pendragon]

Of course they do, but that has no relevance whatsoever to science, which doesn't use hearsay at all.
Indeed. Cold Fusion. Fact or Fiction? Some say yea, and some say nay. Both are using scientific principles. Both are nigh rabid in their belief or disbelief. Sounds like many religious arguments to me.

[JCamilo]

But trusting in what others say is not either Religion, Science, Art, law, watever field of knowledge of humankind, it is human nature. If you have time and resources, you can question everything people tell you and think only by yourself, but that is and have been always impossible.
Trust me, humans.

[blazeofglory]

I just do not believe in institutionalized religions. And religions if to be true must spring from the heart.

[Taliesin]

Indeed. Cold Fusion. Fact or Fiction? Some say yea, and some say nay. Both are using scientific principles. Both are nigh rabid in their belief or disbelief. Sounds like many religious arguments to me.
People who nowadays believe the "kitchen table cold fusion" are not using scientific principles.
The "Kitchen Table Cold Fusion", when I remember correctly, is an experiment that other scientists couldn't replicate - and nowadays that experiment is widely regarded as pathological science - by the scientific principles - so if you are trying to make science look like religion, you'd better dig up something better than a piece of bad science.

[The Atheist]

Indeed. Cold Fusion. Fact or Fiction? Some say yea, and some say nay. Both are using scientific principles. Both are nigh rabid in their belief or disbelief. Sounds like many religious arguments to me.

This is where it gets difficult to separate science from pseudoscience, but I can assure you that the cold fusion side is all pseudoscience. Some of the proponents may well be scientists, just as Fuelstar (http://www.immortality.co.nz/fuelstar%20main.html) has believers who are scientists - in fact, New Zealand's most respected scientist and chemist believes it works. I'm using Fuelstar because it's a perfect analogy for cold fusion - it employs magic masquerading as science. It's also a subject I spent many months researching and I agree that the arguments do look religious at times.

Strangely, just about all of the proponents of Fuelstar and cold fusion are christians...

[blazeofglory]

What makes some people fuse science and religions.

We should not seek to answer questions of religions through science. This is a great wrong.

[zado_k]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

But modern science is characterised by this attitude - that is to say that science is not irrefutable truth or infallible. On the contrary scientists and philosophers of science insist on fallibilism. "Irrefutable truths" outside of the formal disciplines (Mathematics, Logic...) are not favoured by scientists precisely because they cannot be tested.


But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?)

I notice that you found possible analogues for scientist and for tomes of fact but not for experiments! Experimentation is at the core of scientific rationalism and is part of what distinguishes its world view. Scientists rarely write tomes of fact - they are more concerned with devising ways to test hypotheses than cataloguing facts.


which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

I don't know if it is faith but it does look like accepting an argument from authority. It's not a scientific attitude. Remember that if pragmatically people who don't do science accept the conclusions of scientists without being able to confirm them themselves, this has no bearing on the scentific attitude itself. I cannot repeat lots of experiments for practical reasons and so I rely on the honesty and diligence of others and I critically and tentatively accept the scientific consensus on issues where I can't make my own determination. But that's pragmatic reasoning - not science.


Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works.

I don't think this can be said often enough: scientists don't do experiments to prove theories, they do them to test hypotheses in fact the canonical form of the experimental method is to set out to try to disprove the null hypothesis and to present this as reason to accept an alternative hypothesis. Science proceeds by falsification.


This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

Yes in a sense, if an experiment is successful in demonstrating that we should reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative and this is replicated then it will tend to become part of the leading consensus in some field, but there is rarely total unanimity outside of a set of core assumptions and plenty of argument about detail.


But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught.


The point of replication is not to use the same data (in most cases that just simply isn't possible - at most you can reanalyse data collected and presented by someone else but you can't usually use it again). Replication involves collecting new data and submitting it to the same treatment and analysis as the original to see if the results support the same conclusion. I'm not sure really how to think about your mistakes in formulae or bad equations - it happens and sometimes they are caught when the data are analysed and sometimes they are caught when the formulae are checked and of course sometimes - especially if no replications are attempted - they aren't caught for a very long time (if at all).


This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

No, scientifically it does not because only by the use of the scientific method is knowledge actually acquired. Pragmatically, scientists, because they cannot repeat all experiments in all domains for themselves, will decide to trust that other scientists act in good faith in conducting experiments and publishing results. Sometimes they are deceived but the distinguishing mark of science is that a hypothesis must be tested to transparent and known standards, in replicable ways, with all the workings and results made available for public scrutiny. That scrutiny may not always be carried out in fact, but the requirements that must be met for it predispose science to honesty and rigour.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z


God Bless

Pen

[jon1jt]

It's all about the proof, man.

[Pendragon]

It's all about the proof, man.
Proof, smoof! People are always on about if I can see, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, then it is real. Practically, this doesn't work with real science, yet that is the claim for disbelief in the supernatural. What if it exists, yet we have no way to measure it as of yet. When we do, it becomes science.

[ballb]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works. This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught. This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

God Bless

Pen

Science is the antithesis of religion. The former is built on proof, the latter on blind faith.

[Tsuyoiko]

Proof, smoof! People are always on about if I can see, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, then it is real. Practically, this doesn't work with real science, yet that is the claim for disbelief in the supernatural. What if it exists, yet we have no way to measure it as of yet. When we do, it becomes science.

Disbelief in the supernatural comes about not because we can't sense those phenomena in the usual way, but because those phenomena can't be held up to rigorous scrutiny, in the way that Science can. If the existence of telepathy (say) is confirmed in a double-blind study of ten thousand individuals, subjected to peer review and published in a respectable journal, then as you say, it will become Science.

[chrismythoi]

has anyone heard of or read a theologian called john milbank?

he and a few others came up with an idea called 'radical orthodoxy', which states that secular society is based on just as many assumptions and tenets that a religios faith is. therefore i think it is a fairly solid statement that much of science reflects faith/religion in its practices and appearance. i'm sure you can think of many such parallels.
however it may just be that humanity is the only common link between science and religion. both attempt to answer the core existential questions, the only difference is that they come at them from different starting points. i think it was descartes who said that the roots of knowledge is metaphysics, the trumk physics, and the branches and leaves the rest of the sciences...

[Wilde woman]

I think Science (yes, with a capital s) can become a religion for some people, though it is not a religion per se. There are people guilty of automatically believing whatever conclusions come via the scientific community and, with the same carelessness, disregarding anything coming from religious institutions. In a sense, some believe as blindly in Science as others believe in God.

Either way, it comes down to truth. But truth will never be set in stone for mankind because (IMO) people ultimately believe what they want to believe, regardless of what's actually there.


We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

If you define faith as "believing (within reason) what my predecessors have claimed, based on their experimentation," then yes, of course there is faith in the scientific world. If our understanding of the world was based completely off our own observations, we'd all have to start from ground zero. Theoretically, we'd have to recreate every experiment ever done just to get to the status quo. Of course we learn from others; of course we use history as a starting point. But the difference is that I today could theoretically run some experiments and come up with the same speed of gravity as Newton did. Sure, the 9.8m/s^2 may not be correct, but it's there on my calculator and I got to it using the objective measurements I took. If someone else comes along and comes up with a different number but following a similar logical mindset, it could very well be that he's right and I'm wrong. With religious texts, it's hardly the same thing. One cannot verify the way we do in science. You can’t go back in time and see Christ on the cross or witness his resurrection. That is an anecdote in and of itself; your belief in it has nothing to do with logic. Once you pull in historians' accounts and relics and whatnot, then it becomes more logical to say it actually happened. I’m just saying there’s a difference between a scientific history where certain theories are replicable and a religious history based completely on word-of-mouth.


Pen, the big difference is that science is open and religion is closed. Religion starts from an assumption: belief in the divine. Take away this belief and religion is gone.

Yes, blp hits it right on the head. Through experimentation and observation, one can construct and reconstruct a scientifically-logical world. There is no assumption of any pre-existing truths. There is only one's own observations. And from such observations, one constructs what he thinks sounds like a reasonable explanation of any given phenomenon. Of course, if one's logic is faulty, you're in trouble, until another person comes along, does his own experiment, and comes up with a slightly different result. Then the scientific theory of the first person is revised and so on and so forth throughout history. If, as blp says, we turn to religion and take away the assumption of a belief in the divine, does the same process still work? It might...But say if I touch a spark to gasoline and get fire, I'd be more likely to assume the reason the fire came to be had something to with the combo of a spark and gasoline...rather than reason that an invisible, immortal deity caused the fire because he willed it at in that particular time and space.

It seems more reasonable to me that someone would jump to "a god did it" explanation more if they cannot explain and reproduce some phenomena themselves and through their own independent logic. But it's all subjective. It's quite possible that given the same spark/gasoline situation, some people would come to the conclusion that a god created the fire.

(BTW, in my skepticism, this seems to be the basic premise of intelligent design and creationism, the trendiest attempts to reconcile science and Christianity. It seems that the scientists studying evolution reach a point where Darwin was obviously wrong or fossil evidence shows some unexplainable new development. And, already being religious men, these scientists simply conclude that because they cannot explain it in scientific terms, it is the work of God. Forgive me for my ignorance, but that's what it seems like to me. I'd love to be proven wrong.)

[librarius_qui]

Nope.







































Science isn't a religion.

It's only a kind of speech. As well as art. They're both usually "well" (much) used by politics, and religion(s).

Now, there's people who use science as religion? Yes, there is! So what? Let them be ... Most scientists had their opinions on "god". Opinions are opinions. Life tells truths -- and hides it, sometimes. (My opinion ...)

:crash:

[librarius_qui]

Dangerous thing for you is (you) to call a scientist a prophet.

Not a mere feeling, however. Both a scientist and a prophet are supposed to tell the truth.

(Not always to either of them do so ...)

Many people will say here that there's no truth. Or ask "what is truth?".

There's scientist who does tell truth he found out. Galilee, for instance. Copernicus. This one was even killed because of it.

There's prophet who doesn't tell the truth. Actually, plenty more who don't than those who do, according to Hebrew writings and the appostles.

So, a scientist and a prophet do have something in common: truth. Both search for "revealing" it. Finding it out. Figuring it out.

*

(something else, still)

There's a great danger in questioning science, in a way. It is .. of use to question everything, at least once, so, why not to question science? No: it's good to question it. However, lets not forget that even a god will allow (give authority) to men to use science (knowledge) so as to do good. For instance, physicians receive authority (and responsability) to cure. And they do so. (Most of the times ... Nobody's perfect, and there's always a man who works in favour of others, and a man who works for himself ...) So, it's good that science is vehicle of authority. Not unquestionable, all right. But to be considered and respected most of the times.

(& Considering that we're all human beings, here, under the sun ... We commit mistakes all the time. More mistakes, maybe, than anything else. So ...)

*

(one last thing)

I HAD promised myself not to come back to this section on religion ... Blast!

[Tsuyoiko]

I think Science (yes, with a capital s) can become a religion for some people, though it is not a religion per se. There are people guilty of automatically believing whatever conclusions come via the scientific community and, with the same carelessness, disregarding anything coming from religious institutions. In a sense, some believe as blindly in Science as others believe in God.

I guess it's possible, although I don't think I've met anyone who blindly accepts the conclusions of Science just because it's Science. If they do so, I think it's usually because they have good reason to trust the scientific method.

I do agree with you that many disregard anything coming from religious institutions. I know a lot of people like that. They reject the Bible for good reasons, but they go too far and refuse to see anything of value in it at all.


(BTW, in my skepticism, this seems to be the basic premise of intelligent design and creationism, the trendiest attempts to reconcile science and Christianity. It seems that the scientists studying evolution reach a point where Darwin was obviously wrong or fossil evidence shows some unexplainable new development. And, already being religious men, these scientists simply conclude that because they cannot explain it in scientific terms, it is the work of God. Forgive me for my ignorance, but that's what it seems like to me. I'd love to be proven wrong.)

Creationism and Intelligent Design came from the religious community, not the scientific community. There may be a handful of rogue scientists who believe in either concept, but the consensus among scientists is that intelligent design has nothing to do with Science. The US National Academy of Sciences says:


Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science

[skasian]

For the people who doesnt really understand what a prophet is, let me explain.

Prophet is someone that has the power to predict the future, gifted by God. Prophet is also someone that is like an instrument for God to talk directly to people. Prophet really is a spiritual person that has strong connection with God.

And finally let me point out science attempts to understand creations of God, and implement it in a beneficial way in our feeble lives in earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

[kilted exile]

Nope, Science is not a religion.

Religions all attempt to answer the "WHY"

Science (good science at any rate) is far more interested in the "WHAT" & "HOW"

Science does not even attempt to offer any moral code for us to follow for the governance of our lives, one of the main requirements of religion

[zado_k]

And finally let me point out science attempts to understand creations of God, and implement it in a beneficial way in our feeble lives in earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry but what is your authority to point this out? First, you define science as essentially theistic (something the vast majority of practising scientists deny!) then you conflate it with technology! As someone who "does science" for a living, I do nothing that has anything to do with "creations of God" and there is no guarantee at all that anything I do can be implemented so as to be beneficial in anyone's feeble life. As it happens, I don't know these feeble lives you speak of.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

[skasian]

Nope, Science is not a religion.

Religions all attempt to answer the "WHY"

Science (good science at any rate) is far more interested in the "WHAT" & "HOW"

Science does not even attempt to offer any moral code for us to follow for the governance of our lives, one of the main requirements of religion

Religion to answer why and science to answer what and how? You may have to elaborate more this, as I disagree with this.

Science also attempts to answer WHY, to know the WHAT and use to solve HOW. For example, a to understand WHAT a particular disease it is, scientists need to know WHY it is the way it is, and HOW they can fight it off from spreading etc.

Religion also answers WHAT we must do in life, and something eg the Bible tells HOW we can achieve this, and WHY we have to put the effort into it.

[skasian]

I'm sorry but what is your authority to point this out? First, you define science as essentially theistic (something the vast majority of practising scientists deny!) then you conflate it with technology! As someone who "does science" for a living, I do nothing that has anything to do with "creations of God" and there is no guarantee at all that anything I do can be implemented so as to be beneficial in anyone's feeble life. As it happens, I don't know these feeble lives you speak of.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

So you too dedicate your life to science? Welcome to the club. So am I. Yet I believe that science is a field where mankind tries to understand God's creation : the universe and everything that it contains within.

You say what you do has no guarantee of helping out people in earth? So what? If you spend your whole life working on something and you end up with no product that will help people, thats your businesss and I dont care. I was talking about science in GENERAL, not one specific person that "does science". Science itself attempts to discover new things, therefore put a bit more words into science, increasing our knowledge about the world. The world itself is God's creation, hence science attempts to understand His creations.

Someone in this site told me a very high percentage of medical doctors of the world are Christian and every single of them would link their work with God: Helping His creations from being sick, implementing with the advanced science.

I do have an authority to point this out thank you very much. Its called individual thought and belief, and if you have anything against it, feel free to debate on this.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Hmm...Wow, it's been awhile since I seen something that interested me.:D Science and Religion does seem to share some similarities, I think.

[subterranean]

Nope, Science is not a religion.

Religions all attempt to answer the "WHY"

Science (good science at any rate) is far more interested in the "WHAT" & "HOW"

Science does not even attempt to offer any moral code for us to follow for the governance of our lives, one of the main requirements of religion

I think science is also used to answer the 'why'. But unlike religion, it uses specific methodology in its attempt to provide the answer.

[kilted exile]

Religion to answer why and science to answer what and how? You may have to elaborate more this, as I disagree with this.

Science also attempts to answer WHY, to know the WHAT and use to solve HOW. For example, a to understand WHAT a particular disease it is, scientists need to know WHY it is the way it is, and HOW they can fight it off from spreading etc.

Religion also answers WHAT we must do in life, and something eg the Bible tells HOW we can achieve this, and WHY we have to put the effort into it.

May not have been specific enough in the original post, Science does not answer the "big" why questions eg Why are we here. but it will attempt to answer the lower level questions like how was this done, what causes this to happen. It offers no moral guidance at all, and as such is not a religion in any way shape or form.

[skasian]

May not have been specific enough in the original post, Science does not answer the "big" why questions eg Why are we here. but it will attempt to answer the lower level questions like how was this done, what causes this to happen. It offers no moral guidance at all, and as such is not a religion in any way shape or form.

Yeah, every little aspect of in science requires specificness. If you are thinking that science doesnt answer Why we are here, it also doesnt answer what is the reason for our existance and how we can fulfill the purpose of existance.

[zado_k]

Why does this question arise? It bears examination because, on the face of things it's no more interesting than

Is cookery a religion?
Is sport a religion?

and so on (and the latter example is to my mind closer to being answered "yes"...).

It seems to me reading these threads and the enormous literature on the subject, that science implicitly or explicitly challenges the claims of religion and that for this reason both religious believers and scientific rationalists feel compelled to answer the question.

It's a strange debate because neither side would really wish to believe that science is a religion: the religious believer does not admit that the natural explanations of science are sufficient and wishes to reserve a realm of supernatural explanation and the scientists wants to differentiate the constrained explanations of science from the expansive imagination of religion.

Science isn't a religion. It doesn't have any of the characteristic hallmarks of religious belief - most importantly it has no place for the supernatural in its explanations. Moreover, it is characterised by its own canons of reason that are nothing like those of theology. When people compare science to a religion it is not science they are talking about at all - it is scientists. People really want to say that scientists are in the same position as religious believers; that their thinking is no more or less securely grounded and that their motivations are similar.

Even so of course it's not true. Scientists are in a different position with respect to their knowledge claims than believers because the claims are in principle susceptible to testing using natural methods of enquiry. But this it seems will never do. It just has to be so that scientists have "faith" and that the claims of supernatural belief are due all the "respect" that those of science claim. You would have thought they'd be due more! Science, in response to the question "What is the meaning of life?" answers "as best we know there is no pre-ordained meaning to life and you must give it what meaning you can". Given this modesty, you would think that religious believers who typically respond that they have privileged access to the mind of god and can answer the question in detail, would be anxious to distinguish themselves from science!

Despite the language games and naive philosophising, it remains the case that with respect to god the scientist (qua scientist) "has no need of this hypothesis". There are no halfway convincing "proofs" of god's existence and no compelling reason to seek them.

If the religious believer says "I have had this experience and it leads me to believe in god" then the rationalist can ask whether the experience is public and shareable or private and unique. If the latter, then there is nothing more for reason to say to religion and nothing more for religion to say to reason. If the religious believer claims on the contrary that this experience is publically accessible then it just has to meet the standards by which all other evidence is judged. The plain fact is that so far no evidence put forward has.

Science isn't a religion - it's nothing like one. Not because religion is bad and science is good but because one is emphatically wedded to the world of nature and the other is open to another realm which to most scientists appears quite imaginary.

Z

[The Atheist]

Why does this question arise?

Outstanding I think I know why it arises, but you've answered it brilliantly.

I think the reason it's asked is because, deep down, religionistas recognise that their faith is illogical so they want science to suffer from the same illogical faith.

I'm open to evidence though.


...Is sport a religion?

and so on (and the latter example is to my mind closer to being answered "yes"...).

That's actually a good discussion point for another day, because I agree with you. Not only a religion, but a religion with false idols and no moral code.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Oh, dude! Check it out! Man, I am an idiot for not thinking of this sooner! Ahem...Science is not a religion.

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact science is also to a certain extent characteristic of religions, and it has features of religions that have some characteristics of religions.

Scientific assumptions remaining unapproved are likened to religious faiths characteristically.

[Mathor]

I think you all are missing the point. Science is not a religion. It can be proven. However, the truth is that a good deal of what we know of science we have taken simply out of faith because we cannot see the actual research. The point is not that you believe science to be true, that is not what's worth believing. What matters is if a scientist whom you know to have successfully completed research and you trust i.e Darwin, Newton, etc do you look at the actual evidence or do you do what 99 percent of humans do which is just accept it as fact? That is 100 percent faith. Though it can be proven, the truth is you do not know anything except things that people have told you, and that is theism, not atheism. Atheism is not real in the literal sense, because everyone believes in something, whether it's trusting Darwin or it's trusting Jesus or it's trusting your dad or it's trusting a newspaper report that said "5 people died in the shooting". You often will accept things as fact before you are given any sort of proof, that is theism.

[Taliesin]

That is 100 percent faith.
I'd be more careful with statements like that. Much more careful. And, please, get yourself more familiar with the concept of fuzzy logic before you use it.
I wouldn't call that 100 percent faith. At most, I would call it, say 30 per cent faith - since that kind of information fits well with already known information, the probability that people are lying to me on issues like that is rather low and mistakes/lies would probably come out soon since they wouldn't fit with the known information.
Science demands a much lower percentage of faith than religion.

[Mathor]

the probability that people are lying to me on issues like that is rather low and mistakes/lies would probably come out soon since they wouldn't fit with the known information..

and yet you have faith this is true, but you needn't demand proof if you already believe someone is presenting you with facts. Like i said your view that the person in question has probably backed up his/her research and there is truth to that person's argument because he is a scientist or like you said word would have gotten out if the person was lying or wrong and everything you've heard leaves you to believe that it is fact.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I think you all are missing the point. Science is not a religion. It can be proven. However, the truth is that a good deal of what we know of science we have taken simply out of faith because we cannot see the actual research. The point is not that you believe science to be true, that is not what's worth believing. What matters is if a scientist whom you know to have successfully completed research and you trust i.e Darwin, Newton, etc do you look at the actual evidence or do you do what 99 percent of humans do which is just accept it as fact? That is 100 percent faith. Though it can be proven, the truth is you do not know anything except things that people have told you, and that is theism, not atheism. Atheism is not real in the literal sense, because everyone believes in something, whether it's trusting Darwin or it's trusting Jesus or it's trusting your dad or it's trusting a newspaper report that said "5 people died in the shooting". You often will accept things as fact before you are given any sort of proof, that is theism.

Very well argued and I confess that I do not know or understand 99.99% of what I accept as scientific 'fact' and reject virtually 100% of what is presented to me as religious conviction. A different, possibly more relevant question might be: Why, with no indisputable personal evidence in either case does one opt for one or the other, science or religion?

[thinkingsam]

Science demands a much lower percentage of faith than religion.

Does it?

For the sake of this argument, let's use this dictionary.com definition of faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith): belief that is not based on proof. It is very arguable to say that religion demands quite a bit of faith because of the low level of proof available to many of its claims, but I will argue that science is not very different.

There are many beliefs in science that demand high faith due to low proof available, and some of these beliefs are the most fundamental theories. For example,

(1) Black holes: scientists only have very indirect evidence for these, but believe these to exist (or else General Relativity is violated).
(2) Strings of string theory: many scientists and mathematicians believe these to exist because of the elegance and power of the equations of string theory, but there has been no evidence at all that these things exist.

etc...

Now, it is fair to say that while we have no direct proof for many scientific concepts, we have indirect proofs in the form of the scientific method that led to those conclusions, and therefore less faith is required. In other words, there is empirical evidence that the method of science works, which itself is proof for aspects of science we would have little evidence for otherwise.

But is religion very different from this?

If you look carefully at Christianity, for example, there is apparent evidence that, as a whole, it works. To cite two examples: prophecies coming true within the bible itself, and miracles taking place today. Whether or not you believe these in the first place is a question of fact which demands research and empirical evidence, just like in science.

If you choose not to find any empirical evidence for the religion you believe it, then you are using faith in adhering to the religion. In the same way, if you choose not to find empirical evidence for any of the scientific theories you believe in, then you are using faith in applying those theories.

Just my two cents about the topic. :)

[Taliesin]

and yet you have faith this is true, but you needn't demand proof if you already believe someone is presenting you with facts. Like i said your view that the person in question has probably backed up his/her research and there is truth to that person's argument because he is a scientist or like you said word would have gotten out if the person was lying or wrong and everything you've heard leaves you to believe that it is fact.

You know, I thought you were referring to fuzzy logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic) when you made that previous post, now I think that you just found that 100 per cent faith sounded fancy.

Well, let me try to explain - fuzzy logic(fuzzy sets), rather than viewing only two possibilities - true or false (belongs or doesn't belong to the set) have a range of values from 0 to 1, where 0 represents the classical "false" and 1 "true" and numbers that are between those two...well, things that are between. Would one call a man who is 2 meters tall a tall man? Well, I think yes, that's quite sure, so a 2 meter-man would belong to the set "tall men" by value 1 or something that is very close to that. Similarly, a man who is 1m 45cm probably would belong to that set by value 0 or something very close to that. Now, is a man who is 1m 70cm tall? How about 1.80? 1.75?
We can't give exact answers to those questions, however, we can assign to them a value, say, a 1.80 man is 0.8 tall, whereas a 1.70 man is only 0.6 tall.
Fuzzy logic is used a lot in artificial intelligence - and human speech and ideas are usually fuzzy things and I find the use of fuzzy sets here justified since faith doesn't just have two values - it has quite a wide scale.

Now, similarly, we might say that we need to have faith in some things when we believe some scientific results - and yes, that is true - but it isn't blind faith, because there is, after all, a lot of empirical evidence and a low level of probability that these things are false. Therefore, even though there are things that we don't demand proof for, the level of faith needed is much, much lower than the level of faith for religion.
When you say that the level of faith science needs is 100 per cent because there is a slight amount of belief needed, then it is like saying that a glass that is nine tenths full isn't full at all since it isn't 100 per cent full. Yet most people would say that if a half-litre glass has 450 cl liquid in it, it is full.



If you look carefully at Christianity, for example, there is apparent evidence that, as a whole, it works. To cite two examples: prophecies coming true within the bible itself, and miracles taking place today. Whether or not you believe these in the first place is a question of fact which demands research and empirical evidence, just like in science.

So when a book (that has been changed and edited a lot due to political reasons over the centuries) refers to itself and a prediction in the first part is fulfilled in the second part, then it is evidence? I call that very weak evidence - there are quite a number of fantasy books that have predictions in the beginning that are fulfilled in the end - so they are true?

And could you refer to these miracles? I feel rather skeptical about them and feel that the evidence for them is quite weak.

[The Atheist]

There are many beliefs in science that demand high faith due to low proof available, and some of these beliefs are the most fundamental theories. For example,

(1) Black holes: scientists only have very indirect evidence for these, but believe these to exist (or else General Relativity is violated).
(2) Strings of string theory: many scientists and mathematicians believe these to exist because of the elegance and power of the equations of string theory, but there has been no evidence at all that these things exist.

You're making some serious category errors here:

1 - There is overwhelming evidence that black holes exist and they certainly do not violate the theory of relativity. The evidence is direct, because we can see the results of the gravitational pull of the black hole.

2 - String theory is a completely different class of science, not being recognised by many physicists. String theory is a hypothesis at best.

3 - You seem to think that all science should be as perfect as algebra, say. It isn't. Good science becomes good science when it has been peer-reviewed many times.


In other words, there is empirical evidence that the method of science works, which itself is proof for aspects of science we would have little evidence for otherwise.

This is correct, so if you actually start to practice it, as above, you'll find you make fewer errors.


But is religion very different from this?

If you look carefully at Christianity, for example, there is apparent evidence that, as a whole, it works. To cite two examples: prophecies coming true within the bible itself, and miracles taking place today. Whether or not you believe these in the first place is a question of fact which demands research and empirical evidence, just like in science.

If you choose not to find any empirical evidence for the religion you believe it, then you are using faith in adhering to the religion. In the same way, if you choose not to find empirical evidence for any of the scientific theories you believe in, then you are using faith in applying those theories.

Just my two cents about the topic. :)

Sorry, but I'd rate it only as half-a-cent.

:D


There is no empirical evidence for any religion.

That's the whole point.

[Mathor]

There is no empirical evidence for any religion.

That's the whole point.

See, like, i'm not religious at all, but the reason I find it hard coming to your side on these arguments is this:

why do you try so hard to prove that religion is useless? It shows your dependence on the need for you to be right.

I take the side that there is little proof of anything, so I don't get caught up in religion.

But disproving religion is folly.

It's easier just to admit that you disagree, not to try to elude that there is any evidence that negates religion.

And that's MY two cents.

[NikolaiI]

See, like, i'm not religious at all, but the reason I find it hard coming to your side on these arguments is this:

why do you try so hard to prove that religion is useless? It shows your dependence on the need for you to be right.

I take the side that there is little proof of anything, so I don't get caught up in religion.

But disproving religion is folly.

It's easier just to admit that you disagree, not to try to elude that there is any evidence that negates religion.

And that's MY two cents.

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not see very much of what I would consider the best way to approach: "I disagree." Nothing more nothing less! We could say "I disagree, and I am an atheist humanist, and I think [etc.etc.etc.]" Or, "I disagree, and I am a nihilist, and I think [etc.]" But NOT, "I disagree, and therefore we are enemies, and you possess n(variable) negative qualities, because you are so wrong."

I guess I am lucky I was an atheist for the majority of my life. I see both sides of it.

One thing actually, a very important thing which history has taught us powerfully; above all and foremost we should always AVOID the "Us Vs. Them" mentality. It's not religion or ideology that has caused the worst crimes; underlying, there has always been a Dehumanizing of the "others," and a strong reinforcement of the Us Vs. Them, etc.

[billyjack]

See, like, i'm not religious at all, but the reason I find it hard coming to your side on these arguments is this:

why do you try so hard to prove that religion is useless? It shows your dependence on the need for you to be right.

I take the side that there is little proof of anything, so I don't get caught up in religion.

But disproving religion is folly.

It's easier just to admit that you disagree, not to try to elude that there is any evidence that negates religion.

And that's MY two cents.

a common tactic used by open and closet case theist alike... some cold hard facts are thrown at belief and theism and the immediate response is to question the intentions of the fact producing, thoughtful, questioning person. disproving religion is farce not folly. its hilariously simple if you trust your reasoning abilities and go with what makes sense

[Mathor]

post deleted by user

[andave_ya]

a common tactic used by open and closet case theist alike... some cold hard facts are thrown at belief and theism and the immediate response is to question the intentions of the fact producing, thoughtful, questioning person. disproving religion is farce not folly. its hilariously simple if you trust your reasoning abilities and go with what makes sense

Just dropped in and saw this and wanted to comment:

Generally I'd agree with you, especially that it's a cheap tactic. However (I'm a Christian) I'd agree or ask the same thing as Mathor based on other posts by people like that as well. If they consistently block a debate with such a statement as "There is no empirical evidence for any religion," then yeah, I'd bring up the same thing.
Only, note, if they've used that tactic before. Otherwise I'd open myself to such a statement as yours.

[The Comedian]

I don't think science is a religion, but there are religious aspects to a belief in science. For one, both religion and science are self-validating. Science uses logic and science to prove logic and science. Religion uses faith and religion texts to prove religion. What this shows me, personally, is that the core of one's belief in either science or religion is a faith a particular means of truth-getting. That is, fundamentally, a belief in science depends on a blind faith that empiricism and logic are the core and sole reality, and science uses science to support this faith.

While faith is brought to light more clearly in religion, science tries to hide this central component under the rug. But I don't really care. They each have stuff to be ashamed of and stuff (religion = war/bigotry; science = Atom Bomb) to be proud of (religion = morality/redemption; science = medicine, etc).

So, in summary, science is no religion, but it does partake in a religious aspect from time to time.

[billyjack]

I don't think science is a religion, but there are religious aspects to a belief in science. For one, both religion and science are self-validating. Science uses logic and science to prove logic and science. Religion uses faith and religion texts to prove religion. What this shows me, personally, is that the core of one's belief in either science or religion is a faith a particular means of truth-getting. That is, fundamentally, a belief in science depends on a blind faith that empiricism and logic are the core and sole reality, and science uses science to support this faith.

While faith is brought to light more clearly in religion, science tries to hide this central component under the rug. But I don't really care. They each have stuff to be ashamed of and stuff (religion = war/bigotry; science = Atom Bomb) to be proud of (religion = morality/redemption; science = medicine, etc).

So, in summary, science is no religion, but it does partake in a religious aspect from time to time.

nah uh. science utilizing empiricism, or should i say utilizing the gods with us: reason and experience (nietzche paraphrase) isnt blind faith. its all we have in terms of what can be known. i'd be curious to know what isnt blind faith if empiricism is?

[Mathor]

post deleted by user.

[weltanschauung]

blind faith- the belief that something is true just because one believes in it.

no rocket science, this.

[The Comedian]

nah uh. science utilizing empiricism, or should i say utilizing the gods with us: reason and experience (nietzche paraphrase) isnt blind faith.

Why not? Why do you believe in reason and experience as accurate truth gatherers? Does reason tell you that reason is cat's meow? :)

billyjack, I'm not trying to be adversarial here. And I'm not trying to say that science uses faith (as we all know, science employs doubt), but I am saying that if we choose to believe in the truths of science that that belief is an act of faith for which there is no reasonable answer other than: I just do.

[The Comedian]

blind faith- the belief that something is true just because one believes in it.

no rocket science, this.

yep. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

[krymsonkyng]

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not see very much of what I would consider the best way to approach: "I disagree." Nothing more nothing less! We could say "I disagree, and I am an atheist humanist, and I think [etc.etc.etc.]" Or, "I disagree, and I am a nihilist, and I think [etc.]" But NOT, "I disagree, and therefore we are enemies, and you possess n(variable) negative qualities, because you are so wrong."

I guess I am lucky I was an atheist for the majority of my life. I see both sides of it.

One thing actually, a very important thing which history has taught us powerfully; above all and foremost we should always AVOID the "Us Vs. Them" mentality. It's not religion or ideology that has caused the worst crimes; underlying, there has always been a Dehumanizing of the "others," and a strong reinforcement of the Us Vs. Them, etc.

Your head's in the right place. :thumbs_up

There are differences

Science is a process. Religion is a doctrine.

Science evolves by definition. Religion evolves through schism.
A true scientist is a doubter by nature, and the opposite of someone truly faithful.
Science values education. Religion values demonstration.
Science is about trial. Religion is about resisting temptation.
Science = mostly experiments. Religion = mostly texts.

(This last one is a jab... sorry I couldn't resist) Science gets man into space in a little over a century. Religion has man believing space is firmament for centuries.

[A Siege]

Science is the investigation of the world using the scientific method. Religion is faith- believing assertions without evidence.

[billyjack]

Why not? Why do you believe in reason and experience as accurate truth gatherers? Does reason tell you that reason is cat's meow? :)


no, reason tells me its the cat's pajamas, actually. it rarely fails and when it does, the events are typically beyond words, therefore meant for experience and perhaps, a lot of the time, nothing more. i dont think trusting reason is a belief. its just trusting yourself. i'm still curious what a good beacon of reality would be if not reason and experience??

[Mathor]

no, reason tells me its the cat's pajamas, actually. it rarely fails and when it does, the events are typically beyond words, therefore meant for experience and perhaps, a lot of the time, nothing more. i dont think trusting reason is a belief. its just trusting yourself. i'm still curious what a good beacon of reality would be if not reason and experience??


but what if a religious person claims to be using reason and experience. I feel like a person saying "The other day God woke me up and we went for a walk in the park", if they are being truthful and this REALLY happened, then that is reason and experience that has been proven by them. It is no different than experience that you have. And how could that person possibly prove to you that that happened other than by telling you that it happened.

[Sapphire]

I would answer the question of this thread with a "no".

I use the following definition of religion:
A system of practices which act according to beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one’s body.
And in science, I wouldn't know which spirit or deity this would be. One might argue that atoms live on after the death of one's body, but in my opinion science does not regard the world of spirits.

Now the question whether science is a believe system, that one I would not be able to wholeheartedly say "no" to. I don't remember which philosopher it was, but I remember in high school that science progresses within Dogma's. In science, we simplicate reality to grasp it in our brain. We find formula's, but those formula's only "work" when we follow certain rules.

I don't think science and religion are synonyms or fall within the same group. They just exist on their own, though certain similarities can be found.

[blazeofglory]

In one respect science can be close to religions. Of course some of the religious ideas can not be weighed in the scales of reason or can not be experimented and on that ground science can resemble features of religions.

[Oniw17]

Science and religion are both attempts to understand the world, and they both have the risk of becoming dogmatic. I'm not one to preach against religion; I've learned a lot from religious books and other texts, just as I've learned a lot from literature. However the reasons that science differs from religion are that it allows for change and that nothing is accpeted as science unless there is a reproducible experience that anyone with the right apparatus can repeat. You could make an argument that science also doesn't involve supernatural forces, but it has in the past and there are religions that don't necessarily believe in the supernatural. The problem with experiencing God is that it's not an experience that can be reproduced by anyone using the same stimuli. Not to say that science isn't compatible with religion.

[billyjack]

but what if a religious person claims to be using reason and experience.

i'd ask them what school they went to that taught them their reasoning abilities. then i'd investigate the school to make sure it wasnt getting government funding.

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact both scinece and religion has undergon edramatic change over time. And the values in religions accepted centuries ago are changed and so are in science.