• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Science can be considered a religion?

science religion

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 cats_lover

  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 14 December 2013 - 02:29 AM


While some people base the existence of God pointing to the existence of the universe and life, other (usually) atheist people refute this claiming that the universe began with the big bang and life with other processes and then evolution (scientific arguments).

These arguments are heard even from people who know little or nothing about physics and very little or nothing about the big bang theory (for example).

Then some people believe in God without understanding how God works or where God came, they just believe; but other people also believe in science, without knowing either how it works.

So, is Science a kind of religion?

#2 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 14 December 2013 - 02:38 AM

No, science isn't a form of religion. In fact, as I've said numerous times before, it's its very antithesis. The principle underlying science--forming ideas based on reason--is the exact opposite of that underlying religion--disregard reason and assume a set of ideas. They're inherently antagonistic.

Now as for people having faith in science, by definition this would require that they haven't done analyses, looked at data, or invested any meaningful level of thought into their decision. In this case, while they may be correct about where they're assigning value, the act of faith is just as repulsive as that seen in a religious context. You should notice, though, that the criticism is about the use of faith, not what it's being applied to. When it comes to religion, they're inseparable, but in the case of science, they're entirely discrete.
  • like x 2

#3 cats_lover

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:40 PM

No, science isn't a form of religion. In fact, as I've said numerous times before, it's its very antithesis. The principle underlying science--forming ideas based on reason--is the exact opposite of that underlying religion--disregard reason and assume a set of ideas. They're inherently antagonistic.

Now as for people having faith in science, by definition this would require that they haven't done analyses, looked at data, or invested any meaningful level of thought into their decision. In this case, while they may be correct about where they're assigning value, the act of faith is just as repulsive as that seen in a religious context. You should notice, though, that the criticism is about the use of faith, not what it's being applied to. When it comes to religion, they're inseparable, but in the case of science, they're entirely discrete.


This is a very good answer.

I do not know if science is totally antitheist, is rather antagonistic in nature (as you say).

I think in the past people support religious concepts basing on phenomena that had no explanation, and as science began to find explanation to these phenomena many religious people felt attacked. I think that is the origin of the feeling of "antitheist" of science.

Until now the two things that do not have a complete scientific explanation are the origin of life and the origin of the universe (although the explanation for the origin of life is more complete than that which is given to the origin of the universe).

People of religion attributed these phenomena to their religion, but atheists scientists attribute them to something with scientific explanation, even when currently has no logical explanation, they just believe (You can speak about Big Bang Theory as the origin of the universe, but this theory does not really talk about the origin, something went before).

Finally, some people believe in religion, others believe in science, even when science has no explanation for everything, some people just believe that someday it will give an explanation.

I think science involves believing that everything has a logical explanation; but this is not scientifically proven ;)

#4 Turnbuckle

  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2013 - 07:23 PM

There are certainly elements of religion in science. Ideas are often held almost on faith, even when shown to be wrong, and people with different viewpoints can fight it out with great heat. But science itself is not a religion, even if some who practice it have same irrationality as the religious.

#5 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:31 PM

Big difference:

Most people inherent their faith from their parents, and based on the part of the world they grow up in.

There's only one science and it works worldwide. Muslims, the Chinese, Russians, Indians, England -- they all use the exact same science. (And funnily enough, in all cases in contradicts their local religions.)

Religion is the invention of unenlightened tribal people trying to both explain the world, and control it. It fails horribly at the former, and exceeds all too well at the latter.

Edited by DukeNukem, 16 December 2013 - 10:32 PM.


#6 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:19 AM

Science is a method, not a position. The scientific method itself is not proven to be the only way to truth. There are many limitations to science which I won’t go into here. Science is not naturalism which is a common mistake. Religion is not contrary to science.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics
http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers
http://www.tektonics...scientistp.html
http://www.cis.org.uk/
http://network.asa3.org/
http://en.wikipedia....21st_century.29
http://en.wikipedia....Conflict_thesis





#7 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:03 AM

In the sixteenth century Italian Cardinal Baroniius wrote, in defense of Galileo:"The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
  • like x 2

#8 cats_lover

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 20 December 2013 - 12:03 AM

Thank you very much guys for all your replies

Of course, science is not a religion; when I started the topic just wanted to philosophize about how the "believe" is always present in science and religion, sometimes in a very similar way.
  • like x 1

#9 Luminosity

  • Guest
  • 2,000 posts
  • 646
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 21 December 2013 - 06:24 AM

Science is the orthodoxy of our time. A lot of isn't scientific but you aren't supposed to say that, any more than you were supposed to doubt the pope hundreds of years ago.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#10 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 07 January 2014 - 08:41 AM

Very unusual....I more or less agree with a bit of what Shadowhawk said; science is a method; but it's also an accumulation of discoveries and theories which are provisionally regarded as true. Some discoveries, the various "Laws" are probably fully, finally true. When people abuse science, or utter sloppy sciencey thoughts, it becomes like religion. A bit like statistics in the hands of a politician or a preacher or an advertising copy-writer.
As for the big bang; it describes what happened after the moment of creation. What went before is speculative and unknown, probably unknowable for the moment, which is why it provides fertile ground for snake oil salesmen. It may not even make sense to talk about before since if there was nothing, there was no time. But then, the nothing of science is the quantum vacuum, which is actually something, and could, we are told, produce our universe spontaneously from a random event. Pinning everything to that or the made-up vaporings of religion, would be religious, but at least the science version might get scientific support further down the line, whereas the religious beliefs, being unverifiable, are doomed to be forever non-sense. Science depends on the generation of experimentally or observationally verifiable hypotheses. Religion depends on gullibility.

Edited by johnross47, 07 January 2014 - 08:44 AM.

  • like x 3

#11 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 07 January 2014 - 09:29 AM

It can be considered a religion in a certain sense. Some people believe that it will soon be possible to upload human minds. Does that count as a belief in science or technology or ...?

Some people who disagree with the conventional wisdom on certain subjects are excommunicated as heretics.

Doesn't this make science akin to religion in some aspects?
  • like x 2

#12 cats_lover

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 149 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Montevideo - Uruguay

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:16 AM

It can be considered a religion in a certain sense. Some people believe that it will soon be possible to upload human minds. Does that count as a belief in science or technology or ...?

Some people who disagree with the conventional wisdom on certain subjects are excommunicated as heretics.

Doesn't this make science akin to religion in some aspects?


That was my point, you've been able to express it much more clearly than me

Thank you
  • like x 1

#13 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 13 February 2014 - 09:33 AM

No. Religion is not just a synonym for belief. Religion has a definition of its own, and science doesn't fit witin it.

#14 IronLife

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • NO

Posted 14 February 2014 - 04:18 AM

No. Religion is not just a synonym for belief. Religion has a definition of its own, and science doesn't fit witin it.

This. It only confounds the discussion when science or political systems are forced into the definition of religion. Of course there are similarities shared by all of them but that does not make them the same thing.
  • like x 1

#15 IronLife

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • NO

Posted 14 February 2014 - 04:28 AM

Very unusual....I more or less agree with a bit of what Shadowhawk said; science is a method; but it's also an accumulation of discoveries and theories which are provisionally regarded as true. Some discoveries, the various "Laws" are probably fully, finally true. When people abuse science, or utter sloppy sciencey thoughts, it becomes like religion. A bit like statistics in the hands of a politician or a preacher or an advertising copy-writer.
As for the big bang; it describes what happened after the moment of creation. What went before is speculative and unknown, probably unknowable for the moment, which is why it provides fertile ground for snake oil salesmen. It may not even make sense to talk about before since if there was nothing, there was no time. But then, the nothing of science is the quantum vacuum, which is actually something, and could, we are told, produce our universe spontaneously from a random event. Pinning everything to that or the made-up vaporings of religion, would be religious, but at least the science version might get scientific support further down the line, whereas the religious beliefs, being unverifiable, are doomed to be forever non-sense. Science depends on the generation of experimentally or observationally verifiable hypotheses. Religion depends on gullibility.

A quantum vacuum, as you said, is not a philosophical nothing. And this of course is the fundamental problem with materialism. If a quantum vacuum that "stands independent of time" existed, and had the potency to bring forth a universe (or a billion universes) then what caused this to occur from a timeless eternity?

This is why Aristotle knew that even if the universe was eternal then it would require a being or thing that is Pure Actuality (having no potentiality) from which the universe would be contingent upon.

Hence the philosophical checkmate of infinite regression that is by no means solved by positing the concept of an eternal quantum vacuum.
  • like x 1

#16 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 14 February 2014 - 07:42 AM

No. Religion is not just a synonym for belief. Religion has a definition of its own, and science doesn't fit witin it.

This. It only confounds the discussion when science or political systems are forced into the definition of religion. Of course there are similarities shared by all of them but that does not make them the same thing.

The only similarity—or, better yet, "common link"—is that they're all informational systems existing within culture. Any complex of attitudes, ideology, social movement, even an art movement, can be grouped into the same category. Actually, what we call "science," is even special in this regard, because unlike all these memetic currents, science is always, invariably willing discard of one's ideas if they are discovered to be false and does not demand to be preserved in the name of tradition.

#17 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 14 February 2014 - 08:26 AM

Actually, what we call "science," is even special in this regard, because unlike all these memetic currents, science is always, invariably willing discard of one's ideas if they are discovered to be false and does not demand to be preserved in the name of tradition.


Well, that's true of ideal Science However, in the real world, ideas that go against the conventional in some fields tend to be suppressed. And that's why science takes on characterics of religion sometimes.
  • like x 1

#18 IronLife

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • NO

Posted 14 February 2014 - 01:44 PM

No. Religion is not just a synonym for belief. Religion has a definition of its own, and science doesn't fit witin it.

This. It only confounds the discussion when science or political systems are forced into the definition of religion. Of course there are similarities shared by all of them but that does not make them the same thing.

The only similarity—or, better yet, "common link"—is that they're all informational systems existing within culture. Any complex of attitudes, ideology, social movement, even an art movement, can be grouped into the same category. Actually, what we call "science," is even special in this regard, because unlike all these memetic currents, science is always, invariably willing discard of one's ideas if they are discovered to be false and does not demand to be preserved in the name of tradition.

That's only true of the method, not the scientists themselves. Plenty of scientists are dogmatic about their divergent beliefs. Memetic transmission proliferates these beliefs too.

Edited by IronLife, 14 February 2014 - 01:45 PM.

  • like x 1

#19 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 16 February 2014 - 12:16 PM

Very unusual....I more or less agree with a bit of what Shadowhawk said; science is a method; but it's also an accumulation of discoveries and theories which are provisionally regarded as true. Some discoveries, the various "Laws" are probably fully, finally true. When people abuse science, or utter sloppy sciencey thoughts, it becomes like religion. A bit like statistics in the hands of a politician or a preacher or an advertising copy-writer.
As for the big bang; it describes what happened after the moment of creation. What went before is speculative and unknown, probably unknowable for the moment, which is why it provides fertile ground for snake oil salesmen. It may not even make sense to talk about before since if there was nothing, there was no time. But then, the nothing of science is the quantum vacuum, which is actually something, and could, we are told, produce our universe spontaneously from a random event. Pinning everything to that or the made-up vaporings of religion, would be religious, but at least the science version might get scientific support further down the line, whereas the religious beliefs, being unverifiable, are doomed to be forever non-sense. Science depends on the generation of experimentally or observationally verifiable hypotheses. Religion depends on gullibility.

A quantum vacuum, as you said, is not a philosophical nothing. And this of course is the fundamental problem with materialism. If a quantum vacuum that "stands independent of time" existed, and had the potency to bring forth a universe (or a billion universes) then what caused this to occur from a timeless eternity?

This is why Aristotle knew that even if the universe was eternal then it would require a being or thing that is Pure Actuality (having no potentiality) from which the universe would be contingent upon.

Hence the philosophical checkmate of infinite regression that is by no means solved by positing the concept of an eternal quantum vacuum.


If the quantum vacuum is a thing, then it might be possible to extend time back into it's existence. We can't say much about the characteristics of that existence; close to nothing. It's one of those points where we have to simply say, "we don't know". That idea of course implies that time did not begin at the big bang; matter changed its structure. The Aristotelian view is of course based on a much more primitive, practically clockwork, picture of the universe. There is a long history of people, (mainly religious in the past) saying, "It must be so", and then finding out that is is some other way altogether. I prefer the wait and see position.

#20 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 18 February 2014 - 01:01 PM

Actually, what we call "science," is even special in this regard, because unlike all these memetic currents, science is always, invariably willing discard of one's ideas if they are discovered to be false and does not demand to be preserved in the name of tradition.


Well, that's true of ideal Science However, in the real world, ideas that go against the conventional in some fields tend to be suppressed. And that's why science takes on characterics of religion sometimes.

That's only true of the method, not the scientists themselves. Plenty of scientists are dogmatic about their divergent beliefs. Memetic transmission proliferates these beliefs too.


Oh, but are we talking about the scientific community or science itself? There's belief, and then there's reality. To those of us who maintain that all scientific knowledge has value and that what matters is the information rather than the informer, it rightly seems absurd that Stalin would voluntarily make his country's advancements in physiology degenerate simply because the author of Mendelian genetics had been a Catholic priest, or that Hitler would be disinterested in nuclear weaponry simply because the developer of general relativity was a Jew; however, that was not science, but political considerations, and idiotic ones at that too. The same is being done irrationally in the West today, for example, to some areas of genetics, the memory of Nazism being fresh. China is compensating for it a little, though.

#21 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 February 2014 - 07:18 PM

Oh, but are we talking about the scientific community or science itself? There's belief, and then there's reality. To those of us who maintain that all scientific knowledge has value and that what matters is the information rather than the informer, it rightly seems absurd that Stalin would voluntarily make his country's advancements in physiology degenerate simply because the author of Mendelian genetics had been a Catholic priest, or that Hitler would be disinterested in nuclear weaponry simply because the developer of general relativity was a Jew; however, that was not science, but political considerations, and idiotic ones at that too. The same is being done irrationally in the West today, for example, to some areas of genetics, the memory of Nazism being fresh.


Except that scientific findings are inevitably coloured by the people who research them. For example, do you expect Monsanto research to say that roundup is bad? Would you expect Nazis to find that people are not necessarily limited by their genes?
  • like x 1

#22 Bogomoletz II

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Ukraine
  • NO

Posted 18 February 2014 - 09:35 PM

For example, do you expect Monsanto research to say that roundup is bad? Would you expect Nazis to find that people are not necessarily limited by their genes?


It matters little what Monsanto or Nazis say. Babble is cheap. What matters is what they can demonstrate.

Except that scientific findings are inevitably coloured by the people who research them.


As long as you don't confuse the history of the finding with the knowledge.

Edited by Bogomoletz II, 18 February 2014 - 09:37 PM.


#23 serp777

  • Guest
  • 622 posts
  • 11
  • Location:who cares

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:30 AM

science makes predictions and makes tangible things like computers. Religion makes ambiguous or false predictions and doesn't produce anything tangible. I don't see how you can say science is a religion in any sense of the word.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: science, religion

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users