Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News8 mins ago
Is science a religion?
36 Answers
Was discussing this at work. There is a lot of science that can't be proved (eg - the universe is expanding - but into what).
I will never see an atom and have to take it on faith from scientists (or the keepers of this religion) that they exist.
A lot of science is based on hypotheticals and imaginary events (square root of minus 1).
Most people see science as the answer to God - but it is just religion by another name?
I will never see an atom and have to take it on faith from scientists (or the keepers of this religion) that they exist.
A lot of science is based on hypotheticals and imaginary events (square root of minus 1).
Most people see science as the answer to God - but it is just religion by another name?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I could write a long answer to this, but Dawkins has already addressed this question (though he goes on to consider other issues that aren't directly relevant to the original question above).
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/d awkins.html
I almost hesitate to post this lest someone makes some highly original accusation about atheists quoting Dawkins like he's a high priest, but hey ho...
(Must remember to sacrifice another innocent baby on my secret Richard Dawkins altar tonight)
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/d awkins.html
I almost hesitate to post this lest someone makes some highly original accusation about atheists quoting Dawkins like he's a high priest, but hey ho...
(Must remember to sacrifice another innocent baby on my secret Richard Dawkins altar tonight)
Science is not a religion and does not remotely resemble one. Scientists are the most sceptical of people and like nothing more than to try and disprove the theories of others. As a result experiements are repeated thousands of times and results checked, to the extent that I can be pretty sure of most of the day to day laws of physics, for example it is not necessary for me to jump off a building to know I'll hit the ground!
Religion requires faith followers have to blindly believe outragious claims and are considered a bit of a heritic if you dare to question.
So I would say they are about as far removed from each other as is possible to be. But if you must join a religion this one is better than most:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Question569585.html
Religion requires faith followers have to blindly believe outragious claims and are considered a bit of a heritic if you dare to question.
So I would say they are about as far removed from each other as is possible to be. But if you must join a religion this one is better than most:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Question569585.html
No. Most science is provable by observation and experimentation. The theoretical parts like cosmology or evolution are based on evidence (whether flawed or unproven) to support the ideas.
The established religions are based on the word of someone who claims to have gods ear and act as a conduit for god. The words they record become the basis of the religion. The only proof you need is whether you believe the man is in contact with the almighty. If you do, then you believe you are following the word of god.
The established religions are based on the word of someone who claims to have gods ear and act as a conduit for god. The words they record become the basis of the religion. The only proof you need is whether you believe the man is in contact with the almighty. If you do, then you believe you are following the word of god.
You need to check out popper's principal of falsification.
Basically you have to consider what it would take to prove you wrong.
This is the difference between science and faith.
A lot of Science students and even more mature Scientists fall into this trap of taking some scientific ideas on faith.
You may never have seen an atom but I'll bet you've never seen a radio wave either!
You've seen the effect of them too although you may not know it. Your smoke detector relies on the breakdown of atoms.
I won't go into "what" the universe is expanding into here because we've gone over it a lot in this topic before.
The square root of a negative number is a mathematical construct - just like a decimal number, it's a calculational tool - you might be thinking of virtual particles but even these have been demonstrated (see the Casimir effect)
There are areas of theoretical science that are unproven - string theory for example. These gain ground by providing rational explanations for effects that we see but don't really pass into the Canon of scientific knowledge until actual evidence for them is obtained - string theory is still in the waiting room.
So no it's not a religion when properly practiced. However there are a number of zealots about that miss the point and in their enthusiam for rationalism ironically end up treating it as one
Basically you have to consider what it would take to prove you wrong.
This is the difference between science and faith.
A lot of Science students and even more mature Scientists fall into this trap of taking some scientific ideas on faith.
You may never have seen an atom but I'll bet you've never seen a radio wave either!
You've seen the effect of them too although you may not know it. Your smoke detector relies on the breakdown of atoms.
I won't go into "what" the universe is expanding into here because we've gone over it a lot in this topic before.
The square root of a negative number is a mathematical construct - just like a decimal number, it's a calculational tool - you might be thinking of virtual particles but even these have been demonstrated (see the Casimir effect)
There are areas of theoretical science that are unproven - string theory for example. These gain ground by providing rational explanations for effects that we see but don't really pass into the Canon of scientific knowledge until actual evidence for them is obtained - string theory is still in the waiting room.
So no it's not a religion when properly practiced. However there are a number of zealots about that miss the point and in their enthusiam for rationalism ironically end up treating it as one
Generally people (the great masses) are only too willing to believe what they are told by people �in the know� without question, understanding or concern for the accuracy of the information.
Many examples of religious faith follow this trend, and I am sure many people are well aware of them.
In science, we are bombarded with varying and contrasting opinions about what we eat, what we put on our bodies (face/wrinkle creams etc), what we wash our hair with, why we shouldn�t sun tan, why sunshine is good for us, why we should eat an apple to avoid cancer, why we shouldn�t eat a particular apple which causes cancer, the wonders of drinking for social and soulful experiences, the badness of drinking if it is bingeing etc etc.
People change like the wind with science, constantly and faithfully believing theory after theory until the next one comes along to denounce it, and then the next one etc etc. In some ways, the way people pander to the notions, research, theories and assumptions declared by anyone who calls themselves a scientist could almost be aligned to a religious observance and dedicated following. But an uncertain one, until proven otherwise again and again.
The difference is that religion is generally an unwavering belief and faith regardless of the constant bombardment of accusations, denunciation, ridicule and general bewailing.
Many examples of religious faith follow this trend, and I am sure many people are well aware of them.
In science, we are bombarded with varying and contrasting opinions about what we eat, what we put on our bodies (face/wrinkle creams etc), what we wash our hair with, why we shouldn�t sun tan, why sunshine is good for us, why we should eat an apple to avoid cancer, why we shouldn�t eat a particular apple which causes cancer, the wonders of drinking for social and soulful experiences, the badness of drinking if it is bingeing etc etc.
People change like the wind with science, constantly and faithfully believing theory after theory until the next one comes along to denounce it, and then the next one etc etc. In some ways, the way people pander to the notions, research, theories and assumptions declared by anyone who calls themselves a scientist could almost be aligned to a religious observance and dedicated following. But an uncertain one, until proven otherwise again and again.
The difference is that religion is generally an unwavering belief and faith regardless of the constant bombardment of accusations, denunciation, ridicule and general bewailing.
-- answer removed --
Even if I try I can not give the kind of explanation Octavius has given. So I better be quiet apart from just one thing that I always say.
Science is still Work in Progress whereas Religion is complete. Only we may not understand few things. And that is where faith jumps in. If everything is so clear and in front of us then all of us will have no choice but to believe in it. But to believe in the unseen is known as faith. You do not have to prove to your loved ones that you love them, it is a matter of trust.
Yes so in the end Science is not religion because it is not complete.
Science is still Work in Progress whereas Religion is complete. Only we may not understand few things. And that is where faith jumps in. If everything is so clear and in front of us then all of us will have no choice but to believe in it. But to believe in the unseen is known as faith. You do not have to prove to your loved ones that you love them, it is a matter of trust.
Yes so in the end Science is not religion because it is not complete.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
surely science is the concept of gaining knowledge about the world around us? they dont always get it right but in investigating the theories, more breakthoughs are likely and more knowledge is learnt.
Religion is a social glue that brings people together, its accuracy is questionable and its based on knowledge that cannot be proven, The less people knew about life years ago the more likely they were to put their beliefs into religion.
Religion is a social glue that brings people together, its accuracy is questionable and its based on knowledge that cannot be proven, The less people knew about life years ago the more likely they were to put their beliefs into religion.
So your point is based on whether it is right to be constantly changing opinion and belief whilst having no certainty on current truth or acceptance, or just that it is wrong to have an embedded belief system in a world where the environment and its people change, but your faith remains constant?
Do you believe all current scientific theories until someone else comes along and tells you that you are wrong? How do you know whether they are right, or whether they are wrong because someone else in a few years will say so?
Is this not a basis of �trust� and �belief� in the words and papers of a scientific seer?
It seems the only difference as I said above, is that religious faith is unmoving, but people who don�t believe in religious faith are content to change their beliefs daily.
Why should those with (peaceful) religious faith be such a heinous and abhorrant entity to you? At least you know where they stand, even if you do feel that is in the dark.
Do you believe all current scientific theories until someone else comes along and tells you that you are wrong? How do you know whether they are right, or whether they are wrong because someone else in a few years will say so?
Is this not a basis of �trust� and �belief� in the words and papers of a scientific seer?
It seems the only difference as I said above, is that religious faith is unmoving, but people who don�t believe in religious faith are content to change their beliefs daily.
Why should those with (peaceful) religious faith be such a heinous and abhorrant entity to you? At least you know where they stand, even if you do feel that is in the dark.
No, science is not religion by another name. Science constantly seeks knowledge, whereas religion depends upon blind faith. Science is not complete, and it never will be, since there will always be more to learn. People of religion may see their own faith as being complete, but if religion were truly complete, then there would be no disagreement between the many varying belief systems.
If you believe in something that is incomplete, then aren�t you asserting some semblance of blind faith as well? Aren�t we all seeking the ultimate truth?
Would you say that believing in the spiritual (ghosts) is also blind faith, since science is yet to prove or disprove its existence, but similarly to your example above - society is at odds as to whether they exist or not.
Would you say that believing in the spiritual (ghosts) is also blind faith, since science is yet to prove or disprove its existence, but similarly to your example above - society is at odds as to whether they exist or not.
I believe that when I walk out of my office this evening, there will be a hallway with five lifts in it. I believe that my daughter has two legs and says 'quack' quite a lot. I believe that Tesco is a supermarket. I believe that grass is green. I believe that a Stephen Moffat-penned Doctor Who will air on Saturday.
Those are beliefs on a par with scientific beliefs. They are mundane and checkable.
I believe that when I break wind an angel dies. I believe that how I behave while alive will determine where I spend eternity after I die. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that Vishnu is guiding me in making good decisions. I believe that when I pray for a sick person, it helps them get better. I believe that if I were to have sex with a man, I would go to hell.
These are religious beliefs. They are extraordinary and not backed by evidence.
To attempt to imply the two types of belief are analogous is is silly, and obviously not true.
Those are beliefs on a par with scientific beliefs. They are mundane and checkable.
I believe that when I break wind an angel dies. I believe that how I behave while alive will determine where I spend eternity after I die. I believe that God created the universe. I believe that Vishnu is guiding me in making good decisions. I believe that when I pray for a sick person, it helps them get better. I believe that if I were to have sex with a man, I would go to hell.
These are religious beliefs. They are extraordinary and not backed by evidence.
To attempt to imply the two types of belief are analogous is is silly, and obviously not true.
When science would finish its home work and would change no more then all the scientists would start believing in religion. As far as variance in the religion is concerned that is due to the teachings of the Imams, Rabbis and pastors. If you carefully look in those religious scriptures then you would find out that even after invasion and infiltration by few people into the original teachings, most of the religions teach same thing, there is only one God. Rest of the things are those problems which can be sorted out easily once religions would agree on this key point. I have no doubt that it would happen one day and in fact has already started happening.
So belief is a type of emotion that is either black or white, and ne�er the twain shall meet Waldo? You make science sound mundane, but I would hazard it is more than that.
You only know that Dr Who is airing on Saturday because someone has told you so, or you read it in a paper by an anonymous journo. What happens if it isn�t aired? Do you assume the information was wrong, and that you were wrong to believe it? Or do you doggedly say that your information was right but there must have been a hiccup at BBC HQ. I don�t see anything scientific in that. You say that your daughter says �quack�, I have not witnessed this therefore would I be right in not believing it? My daughter has an imaginary friend called Sally who sits down with her to share her dinner, read stories and play in the garden.
What about love? Is the �evidence� based solely on someone telling you they love you, or is there more to it than just that. Do we have faith in being told the truth, or is it an assumption based on cold hard (mundane) facts?
You only know that Dr Who is airing on Saturday because someone has told you so, or you read it in a paper by an anonymous journo. What happens if it isn�t aired? Do you assume the information was wrong, and that you were wrong to believe it? Or do you doggedly say that your information was right but there must have been a hiccup at BBC HQ. I don�t see anything scientific in that. You say that your daughter says �quack�, I have not witnessed this therefore would I be right in not believing it? My daughter has an imaginary friend called Sally who sits down with her to share her dinner, read stories and play in the garden.
What about love? Is the �evidence� based solely on someone telling you they love you, or is there more to it than just that. Do we have faith in being told the truth, or is it an assumption based on cold hard (mundane) facts?
Octavius If you believe in something that is incomplete, then aren�t you asserting some semblance of blind faith as well? Aren�t we all seeking the ultimate truth?
I don't believe in Science, but I respect its ability to admit that it's sometimes wrong, and I admire (and am very grateful for) its continual thirst for knowledge. There can be no comparison between science and religion, since science brings progress and is an undeniable fact of life.
I don't think we are all seeking the ultimate truth. People of religion don't seek to discover anything that may fall beyond the bounds of their faith. Their belief tells them they already know all the answers.
Would you say that believing in the spiritual (ghosts) is also blind faith....?
My belief in ghosts is based upon the evidence of my own eyes, and is therefore not blind faith. To those who have no personal experience, yet still believe, then yes, I would say that is blind faith.
Keyplus I have no doubt that it would happen one day and in fact has already started happening.
I see no evidence of that at all. How has that already started happening? The religions are as far apart as they always were. Leaders may talk together, but they are all just as devout as each other in their own beliefs, so there is little possibility that any of them will ever embrace, or accept, alternative philosophies.
I don't believe in Science, but I respect its ability to admit that it's sometimes wrong, and I admire (and am very grateful for) its continual thirst for knowledge. There can be no comparison between science and religion, since science brings progress and is an undeniable fact of life.
I don't think we are all seeking the ultimate truth. People of religion don't seek to discover anything that may fall beyond the bounds of their faith. Their belief tells them they already know all the answers.
Would you say that believing in the spiritual (ghosts) is also blind faith....?
My belief in ghosts is based upon the evidence of my own eyes, and is therefore not blind faith. To those who have no personal experience, yet still believe, then yes, I would say that is blind faith.
Keyplus I have no doubt that it would happen one day and in fact has already started happening.
I see no evidence of that at all. How has that already started happening? The religions are as far apart as they always were. Leaders may talk together, but they are all just as devout as each other in their own beliefs, so there is little possibility that any of them will ever embrace, or accept, alternative philosophies.
I believe the majority of people look on science as true pure and honest, and in general it is is. I don't believe anybody deliberately sets out to mislead, but a more balanced emphasis would be deisirable where uncomfortable facts don't fit the accepted wisdom. For example:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-9/60546.htm l
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-9/60546.htm l
"So belief is a type of emotion that is either black or white, and ne�er the twain shall meet Waldo?"
Not in all circumstances but clearly you don't actually believe (that damned word again) that 'belief' when used to describe the notion that when I walk outside my office, I can have a to-all-intents 100% certainty of the layout of the room I am walking into means the same as 'belief' when used to describe something for which there is no independently verifiable evidence, such as 'If I commit murder, I will go to hell.' If you say there is, I call you a fool and a liar, and I do not believe you to be either. I do think you're being deliberately argumentative though.
"You make science sound mundane, but I would hazard it is more than that."
It's mundane in that it's material and based on evidence that can be reviewed and one can determine its truth (or otherwise) to one's own satisfaction.
"You only know that Dr Who is airing on Saturday because someone has told you so, or you read it in a paper by an anonymous journo."
Correct.
"What happens if it isn�t aired? Do you assume the information was wrong, and that you were wrong to believe it? Or do you doggedly say that your information was right but there must have been a hiccup at BBC HQ."
I say there was a hiccup at the BBC, obviously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is there seriously anything extraordinary about claiming a programme that has been extensively trailered on the BBC for two weeks will be aired on Saturday?
Your life must be a constant source of terror, trying to establish whether there really is a kettle in the corner, not a starving lion; whether it's actually a real paving slab you're about to step on to; whether you can trust your wife not to dissemble into her constituent atoms if someone mentions the word 'begonia'.
Not in all circumstances but clearly you don't actually believe (that damned word again) that 'belief' when used to describe the notion that when I walk outside my office, I can have a to-all-intents 100% certainty of the layout of the room I am walking into means the same as 'belief' when used to describe something for which there is no independently verifiable evidence, such as 'If I commit murder, I will go to hell.' If you say there is, I call you a fool and a liar, and I do not believe you to be either. I do think you're being deliberately argumentative though.
"You make science sound mundane, but I would hazard it is more than that."
It's mundane in that it's material and based on evidence that can be reviewed and one can determine its truth (or otherwise) to one's own satisfaction.
"You only know that Dr Who is airing on Saturday because someone has told you so, or you read it in a paper by an anonymous journo."
Correct.
"What happens if it isn�t aired? Do you assume the information was wrong, and that you were wrong to believe it? Or do you doggedly say that your information was right but there must have been a hiccup at BBC HQ."
I say there was a hiccup at the BBC, obviously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Is there seriously anything extraordinary about claiming a programme that has been extensively trailered on the BBC for two weeks will be aired on Saturday?
Your life must be a constant source of terror, trying to establish whether there really is a kettle in the corner, not a starving lion; whether it's actually a real paving slab you're about to step on to; whether you can trust your wife not to dissemble into her constituent atoms if someone mentions the word 'begonia'.
"I don�t see anything scientific in that."
I said that the sense of the word 'belief' was the same, not that those things were the same, but in the sense that it's easily tested, it's not dissimilar.
"You say that your daughter says �quack�, I have not witnessed this therefore would I be right in not believing it?"
It's up to you whether you choose to believe it on the basis of not having had personal experience of it, but "Does Waldo's daughter say 'quack' a lot?" is an entirely and easily testable hypothesis, isn't it? If you chose not to believe it, it would be simple to construct a means by which you could determine the truth.
"My daughter has an imaginary friend called Sally who sits down with her to share her dinner, read stories and play in the garden."
I can understand that you can't distinguish between your daughter's belief in Sally's existence and your own religious beliefs, but should we actually understand you don't think it's reasonable to distinguish between either of these and my daughter's 'quack'..?
Again, I don't think for one second you actually hold it to be true that these two uses of the word 'belief' are the same.
"What about love? Is the �evidence� based solely on someone telling you they love you, or is there more to it than just that."
You can't see radio waves, as Jake has already said, but you can still observe the effects of these radio waves and make a determination from that. Love is the rather the same - the love of a wife, say, is evident in their actions toward their husband. It's regularly claimed that God loves us, but there's no unambiguous, detectable signs of this love.
I said that the sense of the word 'belief' was the same, not that those things were the same, but in the sense that it's easily tested, it's not dissimilar.
"You say that your daughter says �quack�, I have not witnessed this therefore would I be right in not believing it?"
It's up to you whether you choose to believe it on the basis of not having had personal experience of it, but "Does Waldo's daughter say 'quack' a lot?" is an entirely and easily testable hypothesis, isn't it? If you chose not to believe it, it would be simple to construct a means by which you could determine the truth.
"My daughter has an imaginary friend called Sally who sits down with her to share her dinner, read stories and play in the garden."
I can understand that you can't distinguish between your daughter's belief in Sally's existence and your own religious beliefs, but should we actually understand you don't think it's reasonable to distinguish between either of these and my daughter's 'quack'..?
Again, I don't think for one second you actually hold it to be true that these two uses of the word 'belief' are the same.
"What about love? Is the �evidence� based solely on someone telling you they love you, or is there more to it than just that."
You can't see radio waves, as Jake has already said, but you can still observe the effects of these radio waves and make a determination from that. Love is the rather the same - the love of a wife, say, is evident in their actions toward their husband. It's regularly claimed that God loves us, but there's no unambiguous, detectable signs of this love.
