• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Science a religion?

C

ColdSteel

New member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
16
Reaction score
3
Location
Look to your right... I'm not there either.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
 
No.

Science deals with the known and the provable via a structured process.

Religion is faith, even if it is something impossible.
 
Oh where to begin.

Religion requires faith.
Science requires evidence and never shall the twain shall meet.

Religion is never wrong even if evidence proves it to be so.
Science is presumed wrong and thoroughly tested until little doubt remains. Science is never considered completely right because we have not even scratched the surface of scientific knowledge despite everything we have accomplished as a species.
 
ColdSteel said:
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
Click to expand...

Science isn't, Scientism is.

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
it's just me said:
Science isn't, Scientism is.

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Not sure how much I agree or disagree with this definition.

But meanwhile :

It is hard to knock a tool like the scientific method when it has demonstrated, time and time again, to be the most effect tool humans have to help understand reality. The scientific method has a feedback loop that religion lacks. The scientific method questions everything and religion usually discourages questions or doubts, even to the extent of prescribing the ultimate corporal punishment for things like heresy or apostasy.

However, like any tool, the scientific method can be misused. Don't blame the tool.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Not sure how much I agree or disagree with this definition.

But meanwhile :

It is hard to knock a tool like the scientific method when it has demonstrated, time and time again, to be the most effect tool humans have to help understand reality. The scientific method has a feedback loop that religion lacks. The scientific method questions everything and religion usually discourages questions or doubts, even to the extent of prescribing the ultimate corporal punishment for things like heresy or apostasy.

However, like any tool, the scientific method can be misused. Don't blame the tool.
Click to expand...

Scientific method is pretty great at helping us understand the physical world. It is inapplicable to the spiritual world.
Reading the bible, it was a very long time before I actually grasped the significance of this narrative on the physical world:

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them."

...this thread is going to get booted to philosophical for sure. :)
 
it's just me said:
Science isn't, Scientism is.

Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

For the incurious who won't click:

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."[2] The term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable."

Emphasis on the dogmatic endorsement and reduction to only that which is measurable.
 
Science damn you!

otters.jpg
 
What I've never understood is the assumption that a person of faith rejects scientific evidence. Scientific fact is what it is, and I've never experienced any tension at all between my faith and my understanding of science. In fact, I find every scientific discovery yet another testimony to the limitless imagination of our Creator. No conflict at all.
 
ColdSteel said:
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say science if a full religion but it depends on what you are refering to.
when you get into things like how the universe started and how life began and how life developed then science is no better off than religion. it has it's own explination but it isn't observable or recorded it is simply a theory of how it started therefore it takes a good amount a faith.

religion is a set of beliefs.

science tends to deal more with the physical reality than the metaphysical or spiritual reality like religion does.
 
nota bene said:
What I've never understood is the assumption that a person of faith rejects scientific evidence. Scientific fact is what it is, and I've never experienced any tension at all between my faith and my understanding of science. In fact, I find every scientific discovery yet another testimony to the limitless imagination of our Creator. No conflict at all.
Click to expand...

you are not alone in this.
 
nota bene said:
What I've never understood is the assumption that a person of faith rejects scientific evidence. Scientific fact is what it is, and I've never experienced any tension at all between my faith and my understanding of science. In fact, I find every scientific discovery yet another testimony to the limitless imagination of our Creator. No conflict at all.
Click to expand...

When a very large percentage of americans believe that the universe/earth is only 6000 years old, you might then understand why that assumption is made about americans.
Not to say americans or even religious people are unique in this rabid disbelief of provable, demonstrable, predictable events or phenomena.


When you just reject scientific evidence just because a book written by nameless desert nomads says otherwise....
 
RogueWarrior said:
Not sure how much I agree or disagree with this definition.

But meanwhile :

It is hard to knock a tool like the scientific method when it has demonstrated, time and time again, to be the most effect tool humans have to help understand reality. The scientific method has a feedback loop that religion lacks. The scientific method questions everything and religion usually discourages questions or doubts, even to the extent of prescribing the ultimate corporal punishment for things like heresy or apostasy.

However, like any tool, the scientific method can be misused. Don't blame the tool.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the idea that religion discourages question, my religion (At least) encourages questions.

I do know, however, that if you question scientism orthodoxy (like global warming) you will be deemed anathema.
 
nota bene said:
What I've never understood is the assumption that a person of faith rejects scientific evidence. Scientific fact is what it is, and I've never experienced any tension at all between my faith and my understanding of science. In fact, I find every scientific discovery yet another testimony to the limitless imagination of our Creator. No conflict at all.
Click to expand...

ludin said:
you are not alone in this.
Click to expand...

Americans


Just multiply those percentages by 330 000 000. That is a lot of stupid.
 
beefheart said:
No.

Science deals with the known and the provable via a structured process.

Religion is faith, even if it is something impossible.
Click to expand...

ok i see what you are saying about some religious ideas, but then what about string theory? we haven't proved it yet, we don't really have an idea how to even try. Yet it is a large and accepted part of science. So is cold fusion and even the theory of relativity. Isn't that faith in science?
 
ColdSteel said:
ok i see what you are saying about some religious ideas, but then what about string theory? we haven't proved it yet, we don't really have an idea how to even try. Yet it is a large and accepted part of science. So is cold fusion and even the theory of relativity. Isn't that faith in science?
Click to expand...

Scientific theories aren't made up out of whole cloth. They are hypothesized using existing knowledge.

Lots of things were hypothesized and later proved when new evidence was discovered.

No, faith in science is an oxymoron, as faith is believing something that can never be proved.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Americans


Just multiply those percentages by 330 000 000. That is a lot of stupid.
Click to expand...

Well seeing how the knew higgs bosen theories claim the big bang was not possible this was backed up by several famas physic scientists years before.
i don't think it is a lot of stupid.

The problem is that science is fallible. why? because it is reliant on imperfect beings to guess what is going on.
I personally think science is great at explaining observed and physical reality. beyond that it does a poor job more so when you get outside the realm of observation.

evolution has yet to be right in determining how we got here and how exactly a single cell organism can just decide to evolve into something more complex on it's own.
scientifically it is impossible.

evolution is no different than a tornado going through a junk yard and putting together a functioning plane.
adaptation inside of a species is possible and very much real and i doubt you will find anyone that says otherwise.

however macro evolution simply is not possible scientifically.
 
ColdSteel said:
ok i see what you are saying about some religious ideas, but then what about string theory? we haven't proved it yet, we don't really have an idea how to even try. Yet it is a large and accepted part of science.
Click to expand...

String theory is not a "large and accepted" part of science. It's widely criticized within the physics community for its lack of falsifiability.

ColdSteel said:
So is cold fusion and...
Click to expand...

No, cold fusion is not widely accepted at all.

ColdSteel said:
even the theory of relativity.
Click to expand...

Both theories of relativity have been extensively tested and supported by the results.
 
ludin said:
Well seeing how the knew higgs bosen theories claim the big bang was not possible this was backed up by several famas physic scientists years before.
i don't think it is a lot of stupid.

The problem is that science is fallible. why? because it is reliant on imperfect beings to guess what is going on.
I personally think science is great at explaining observed and physical reality. beyond that it does a poor job more so when you get outside the realm of observation.

evolution has yet to be right in determining how we got here and how exactly a single cell organism can just decide to evolve into something more complex on it's own.
scientifically it is impossible.

evolution is no different than a tornado going through a junk yard and putting together a functioning plane.
adaptation inside of a species is possible and very much real and i doubt you will find anyone that says otherwise.

however macro evolution simply is not possible scientifically.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
ColdSteel said:
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
Click to expand...

I think it could be. There are plenty of folks on DP that seem to worship it and believe in its infallibility. Science is always right and anything else always wrong. So in that aspect I think it would qualify as a religion. What they fail to understand is science and its theories are ever changing. Yesterdays scientific facts are replaced by todays which will be replaced by tomorrows as we learn more and more and gain knowledge.
 
ColdSteel said:
So a buddy of mine posed this question to me. He's not a big fan of begin called a atheist because he claims that science is a religion making him... i don't really know what, theist seems more like deity-related religions, maybe scientist?...

Anyways, an official definition of a religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

So is Science a modern religion?
Click to expand...

Science has absolutely nothing to do with religion but almost all scientists rely on a similar faculty to realize their views, the imagination.
 
Perotista said:
I think it could be. There are plenty of folks on DP that seem to worship it and believe in its infallibility. Science is always right and anything else always wrong. So in that aspect I think it would qualify as a religion. What they fail to understand is science and its theories are ever changing. Yesterdays scientific facts are replaced by todays which will be replaced by tomorrows as we learn more and more and gain knowledge.
Click to expand...

That is a very stupid thing to say... Science uses processes and methods to determine what is true, often finding out that previously hypothesized things were wrong. No one "worships" science, what a dumb thing to say.

Science is about proving things wrong, it is not an ego based thing. Unlike religion, which can never ever accept any new truths which might contradict their old myths.
 
ColdSteel said:
ok i see what you are saying about some religious ideas, but then what about string theory? we haven't proved it yet, we don't really have an idea how to even try. Yet it is a large and accepted part of science. So is cold fusion and even the theory of relativity. Isn't that faith in science?
Click to expand...

String theory certainly is not a large and accepted part of science. Currently the world of academia it is actually looked at with a sense of bemusement, in my undergraduate years I was really into it (I fell into the pop.science trap of "11 dimensions! cool!!") and my professor basically laughed at me. Despite the math working (and work undertaken in string theory has actually helped out other theories), it has failed to make a single testable experimental prediction.

Scientists dismissed cold fusion about 25 years ago, when no-one could replicate the original experiments undertaken by Fleischmann.

The theory of relativity is a well accepted part of science because it has given us incredibly accurate predictions and measurements of the universe. It exponentially improved on the accuracy given by Kepler and Newtons laws.

edit: I see the_recruit got there first...
 
Last edited:
RogueWarrior said:
When a very large percentage of americans believe that the universe/earth is only 6000 years old, you might then understand why that assumption is made about americans.
Not to say americans or even religious people are unique in this rabid disbelief of provable, demonstrable, predictable events or phenomena.

When you just reject scientific evidence just because a book written by nameless desert nomads says otherwise....
Click to expand...

How do you define "very large percent"?

How many Americans actually believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom