Is Science a Religion?

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

---

Quite right.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

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. ;)

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

[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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

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 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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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 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...

What makes some people fuse science and religions.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

God Bless

Pen

---

It's all about the proof, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

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.

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pengragon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.)

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: