Is Science a Religion?

[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 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.




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.

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.