Is Science a Religion?

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilde woman

(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:

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zado_k

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zado_k

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zado_k

...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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

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: 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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkingsam

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkingsam

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thinkingsam

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

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

post deleted by user

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

post deleted by user.

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

no rocket science, this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weltanschauung

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Comedian

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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.

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

I use the following definition of religion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiktionary

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.

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.

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.