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.