Science the new religion

Ok. I know this will earn me ever more flames (not to mention more rheotoric cast my way) but I think it is painfully obvious that science is a religion. Sure, a religion that denies religion but a religion all the same. It has it's saints (Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc and so forth), it has its men of the cloth (scienctists). And it has its fanatics (agressive atheists). Heck, it even has its denominations (the various theories and whatnot that some accept and others don't). It attempts to ease that age old malaise that all men posess, that is the fear of the unknown. We fear what we do not understand and hate what we fear. So we try to classify it, to know it and in some measure in our minds give ourselves control over it. Science like religion is a construct of mankind and that fear and want for control that mankind has. We do not know for certain a lot but many people would have you believe we do. Case in point the theories about soo many things that we have no way of TRULY proving. How can you prove what resides in the center of a star since we have no way of getting inside? Or what truly causes the formation of a blackhole? Simply put if we aren't there how can we truely know for sure? Or even what is the basis for matter when we can't even see atoms, even with our most powerful microscopes we can't see into matter. Sure the evidence may point a certain way but how many people have gone to jail innocent for the crimes of which they were accused only to be later exonerated? Simple fact is a theory is guess work, sure educated guess work but guess work all the same. Yet so many theories are accepted as fact.

Well I could go on for hours and deeper and deeper into my thoughts on this but it's late so let me just say this. Science is just another attempt by humanity to shed light on his existance and make it less scary for him. Just does not include a powerful being causing it to happen. And what we think we know today could for all we know be wrong.

P.s.= And to clarify I am on neither side of the science versus religion debate. We live in a grey world and when people polarize they are trying to make it black and white, through shear force of stupidity.

Painfully obvious to whom? Only people who do not understand science or what it is think it is a religion.

Science is not a religion.

Religion is:

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

Science does not deal in the supernatural. Science is:

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

You can do the semantics dance all you like but science and religion are not the same. Science is the opposite of religion. It is interested in how the world works using EVIDENCE not FAITH.

Square pegs do not go into round holes, sorry.


[edit to clean up ex boxes. D'oh]


[edit on 19-8-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

LoL! I knew someone would chime in with dictionary definitions to back a rather flimsy attempt to rightously disagree.
And I might add you REALLY should include all the information to be found in that dictionary entry. But before I get into that one. Let me add this little quip. Yea, evidence can't be misinterpted, can't be manufactored and can't be changed to suit whatever. Some ohh no "magic" (he said it ) field protects it.

3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
**Wraith's Comments**
A set of beliefs hmmmm. What is ANY view on the world but a belief? You BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, otherwise would would not be having this convo. Thusly it is a belief. Sure I leave out the rest of the it but belief is not a fact as you scienceheads like to point out. And you have just as much a problem admiting when you are wrong as the religiousheads. It's human nature. Science still places entirely TOO MUCH stock on what humans are capable of understanding.
4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
**Wraith's Comments**
Isn't science a cause? Isn't it principles? And is it not an activity pursued with zeal and conscientious devotion? Considering the fact you've even answered to the defense of science shows something.

And to add more since you felt the need to omit parts of your source material.

1. a set of **beliefs** concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

**Wraith's Comments**
Read the first part of that sentence and let it sink in. I understand it may take you a while even if you bother to think about it at ALL. It says especially but it doesn't say without the stuff after especially is intrigal.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

**Wraith's Comments**
Once again read the first part of that sentence. Sounds like popular science at large to me.


3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

**Wraith's Comments**
Once again the first part sounds like popular science to me.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Ok. Now, lets see. Don't accuse someone of "dancing" with semantics when you are just as guilty of doing it yourself and omition too none the less. Religion is a belief. Science is a belief. GET OVER IT and yourself.
They are both human constructs made in attempts to understand the world we live in and our place in it. And since we are the dictionary look-up and throwing kick shall we look at belief.

1) The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
***key point lies here within***2) Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. **
**3) Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. **

And ALSO it's all subject to human slant (all semantics all of it can be twisted). What was supernatural back in the middle ages is science now. So don't give me that supernatural BS. People of the time define the supernatural as something we don't understand at current.









[edit on 19-8

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Science and Religion do have there similarities but, they do have certain differences that seem to matter more.

Religion is a belief in God(s) or higher entities as far as I see people believing. They believe and pray to these higher beings to help them surpass their fears and achieve their goals. This belief seems to be fueled by fear of the unknown, a feeling of someone watching them or, what ever reason, this is not important to my point. Religion is and idea of place as far as I see it used, under that of god(s).

Science is a tool, not a belief, people say they believe in science but, what they are really saying is that they believe in other people. This is what I note to be the big difference compared to religion. Science is a process in which people observe, test and apply to get by in reality. Each person uses what they find from using the scientific method to build a picture in there mind to use as a tool to survive. Then there are the people who pass on what they know or have found by this method to others. It is then up to the individual do either believe in the person passing the knowledge or not. Since, people like Newton and Einstein prove to be more knowledgeable people, most people choose and believe in what they have said.

Both are completely based on belief but, Religion is a belief in something other then people and science is a belief in people. In reality I have learned one thing, people are here and we live together, I think it is more wise to take each others word over that of a so called god who is not us and looks down on us from a place we can't reach.

This is just my opinion but, I much rather believe in the people around me over someone or something I never have met and most likely never will. After all god can just end up being a story but, my family and my friends are right here, right now, I choose to believe in them.

Originally posted by halfmask
Both are completely based on belief but, Religion is a belief in something other then people and science is a belief in people. In reality I have learned one thing, people are here and we live together, I think it is more wise to take each others word over that of a so called god who is not us and looks down on us from a place we can't reach.

This is just my opinion but, I much rather believe in the people around me over someone or something I never have met and most likely never will. After all god can just end up being a story but, my family and my friends are right here, right now, I choose to believe in them.

I think I find what I see to be hole. Oh and please don't take this as an attack this is all based on me and not by any means am I going to say this is the only way it can be or that you are wrong just that I think you are. I am looking for dialogue not attacks like whats-his-nuts purpetrates.
I think its rather silly to put your faith in anyone or anything but yourself and even then you, being human are thusly falable and susceptical to being misled or even misled by yourself (what you want to believe, or for whatever reason can't). This means simply that people lie, people cheat and twist facts to suit their own purposes. And that comes into play with both the paths you have laid out. My family and my friends are alot to me as well, but I fully acknowledge that they are human and thusly falable.
And I might add, when you decide to follow a established religion you are not following what a god says. You are following what someone says a god says. Sometimes that person is thousands upon thousands of years dead which of course is affected by the human failings I have said above.

You see what I am saying?

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

And it occurs to me major. You didn't read anything in my post beyond the title and the first few lines. Or didn't bother to even think about what I have said, not being able to get past the opening mentally. Religion doesn't corner the market on closeminded BS. That being said sir I would like to ask you to kindly just avoid even looking at any discussion I wish to start as it is obvious you are not willing to even try to look beyond your prepackaged (emphasis on prepackaged) and very probly safe view on the world. It's all well and good to sit on your throne of "I am sure this is how it is so thusly this is all it can be". But I will never try to take a seat there.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Yep I completely agree. Science is a religion, global warming, political correctness, right/left wing politics and Christian/Islam/Budist etc.

They all share the same characteristics, if you so much as disagree with them you'll cut you down in a hail of abuse and you'll be no better than a heratic if you so much as dare to have your own opinions. This is being displayed right now by certain members - how dare you suggest that science is a religion you HEATHEN!

[edit on 20-8-2007 by dodgygeeza]

As long as they don't try to burn me at the stake.
I can deal with browbeating from the close minded but being roasted well, thats hard to get used to.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Ok. I know this will earn me ever more flames (not to mention more rheotoric cast my way) but I think it is painfully obvious that science is a religion. Sure, a religion that denies religion but a religion all the same.

science is a religion like my not collecting stamps is a hobby. (idea taken from Max Beran)

It has it's saints (Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc and so forth), it has its men of the cloth (scienctists).

you mean it has pioneers and researchers.

And it has its fanatics (agressive atheists).

....
aggressive atheists are no where near as horrid as your christian or muslim fanatics...
and when was the last time we killed anyone?

Heck, it even has its denominations (the various theories and whatnot that some accept and others don't).

...no it doesn't. see, those theories are all considered based on the amount of evidence they have. the only areas where there are truely competing theories are in the realms where we don't have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion yet, but when we have enough evidence all but one of those theories disappears.

It attempts to ease that age old malaise that all men posess, that is the fear of the unknown.

yes, through reason and understanding, not by making up answers like religion does.

We fear what we do not understand and hate what we fear.

actually... science has no problem with what we don't understand... for if there was nothing left that we had yet to understand they'd get bored.

So we try to classify it, to know it and in some measure in our minds give ourselves control over it. Science like religion is a construct of mankind and that fear and want for control that mankind has.

again, not the same. religion seeks to do so with the supernatural, science with an examination of the natural.

We do not know for certain a lot but many people would have you believe we do. Case in point the theories about soo many things that we have no way of TRULY proving. How can you prove what resides in the center of a star since we have no way of getting inside?

...ok, i'm not expert on this, but we have ways of measuring the composition of stars. and just because we can't do it yet doesn't mean we'll never be able to do it.
and again, if 99% of the evidence points towards something in science, it's essentially truely proven

Or what truly causes the formation of a blackhole? Simply put if we aren't there how can we truely know for sure?

well, on that one we don't have a way to do so YET. we can examine the mechanics of the universe and theorize for now, but we don't consider it anything past the realm of the theoretical for now.

Or even what is the basis for matter when we can't even see atoms, even with our most powerful microscopes we can't see into matter.

oh, that one is easy. matter behaves in the exact matter we'd expect it to were all the theories we have about the composition of atoms correct. radiation, ionization, etc all work as if an atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Sure the evidence may point a certain way but how many people have gone to jail innocent for the crimes of which they were accused only to be later exonerated?

yes, that's how science works too. if there is more evidence that changes the story, we agree that the story is changed.

Simple fact is a theory is guess work, sure educated guess work but guess work all the same. Yet so many theories are accepted as fact.

no, in the initial stages theories are simply guess work, then they shift as the evidence grows. only once we have sufficient evidence to back up a theory do we accept it as fact.

key point: m theory vs string theory.

nobody accepts either as fact.

P.s.= And to clarify I am on neither side of the science versus religion debate. We live in a grey world and when people polarize they are trying to make it black and white, through shear force of stupidity.

no, the sheer force of stupidity lies outside reason, which is what science is based off of...

anyway, you are incorrect. science is not a religion, it has no dogma.

WA I did read your post, and found it to be nonsense.

You clearly don't understand what science is or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim.

Religion deals with the supernatural.

Science has nothing to do with the supernatural, and only observes natural law.

Spare me the dictionary baloney, please, because I left certain lines out of my definitions that didn't have to do with the discussion at hand.

If you don't understand the difference between science and religion that is your problem, you can't make it so just because you don't get it.

At the risk of being warned for a personal attack (which this is not exactly meant to be) saying science is a religion is extremely ignorant. I recommend a good course in introductory biology.

The only people who want to claim science is a religion are those who WANT it to be a religion so that they can dismiss it like they do all religions except for the one they happen to belong to.

Again, square peg does not fit in round hole.

If science is a religion, you'd best get to worshipping your computer. I hear they like blood sacrifice when you get the blue screen of death.

And you are not guilty of wanting to keep apart for your own reasons sir? Methinks I hear a bit of pot calling the kettle black.
Ok. I am guilty and wrong, but I can I admit where I am wrong, it is to me the only way one can grow, not continuously attempting to back what I believed before. Not of what you are saying I am guilty of but I will get to that later.
I was attacking what is largely a umbrella term. Science is NOT a religion it is in fact a tool if used purely (and without bias though I find that unbiased is largely an illusion "see star below") as it is intended. But, it CAN be a religion. When someone attempts to answer a religious question with any sort of answer even if that answer is a resounding no, it is still an attempt to answer what is a religious question, thusly falling into the category of religion. Not to mention the zeal with which atheists follow the answer they think is right and act very much similar the religious types, though oppositionally. You are, after all, still answering the question, putting your two cents out there as it is. Atheists use science as a fortress from which they preach that they are not by any stretch religious but yet they are willing to comment on a largely religious question, with the negatory, but still it IS submitting an answer to the question. Just because we have yet to find evidence of something is hardly evidence it doesn't exist, especially when you put it in the perspective that a lot of the major "discoveries" of humanity was billed as impossibilities in the past.
All human institutions are tainted with human failings. Science is a human creation to explain reality just as religion is. Sure I personally find A LOT of religions answers to be a bit out there, with more than a little questionable motives. But so are some of science's findings. Simple fact of the matter is this, my dear dear aggressive atheists. All the information to be found has been passed to you by human hands no matter what it is says. Case in point, Christianity (oh how they love to annoy me) has PEOPLE (not gods) saying this or that god says this or that so thusly it is true, but it is still a human saying it, suposedly speaking for the deity as a matter of course.
And by the same token the information available by science. Let me as you this, did you do any of the experiments and postulating and etc to come up with the theories and laws that is considered true? Sure, I will give you the benefit of the doubt say you have done some. But the answer for the most part is no, you did not do all of it. Someone (through books, speaking or the internet) said it was such and you chose to agree or disagree. Sure they probly included the golden word "evidence" but that is subject to misinterpretations accidental as well as intentional by whomever to put a slat on the information in the direction they think to be right or even just beneficial to themselves or their affiliations. Spin doctoring is a human trait. Information can be spun.
You people like to claim there is no proof of a god or afterlife thusly it does not exist. Yet it leaves one to wonder that if there was a higher power that did not wish to make itself known and it had the power to hide itself or even is in a sense hiding do you honestly think we, the little specks of dust on the endless beach that is our universe would ever find anything? We are not all powerful in any category, yet we like to forget that. If there is a god (or gods) out there and he/she/it/them wished to hide both itself and the existance after this life is gone we would NEVER be able to find proof of it. I am not saying this is the way it is but I allow for the possiblity since we are falable. And everyone is subject to the possiblity they are wrong.

*From my perspective it is impossible to truly be unbiased because being human we draw opinions (from the very moment and before we are exposed to whatever) on everything we come across and that colors our response to anything. Factors such as whether or not we like the person giving us the information, what we think of them, how they look, how the person conveyed what they are trying to say, whether or not we WANT to believe the information, and even what we gain or lose from said information.
Case in point. I THINK you Major are a pompus bunghole that is so sure your right you will not even entertain the thought you are wrong (like a lot of religious and atheistic types I have and had the misfortune to come across and deal with, being pagan you tend to get spit on by both sides). I could be wrong and I allow for that. But since I think these things of you, little of what you have to say has any impact to me. And I admit I am undoubtly biased in the negative towards you..

And another thing where do you get off saying that it’s nonsense? Makes perfect sense AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED if you bother to think about it. Just because you disagree with something does NOT mean it doesn’t make sense.


[edit on 20-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

First, I'm not a sir, thank you.

Second, if you are entitled to call science a religion, I am entitled to call it nonsense. That's the First Amendment for you, go figure.

It's not a matter of belief or opinion, it is a FACT. Science is not a religion.

If you're offended by that, I don't know what to tell you, except sometimes the truth hurts, I guess.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

If science was a religion, it must be the most tolerable religion ever, because you can practice/use it with or without any other faith.

Should christians, and other theists who use science be considered to be practicing 2 religions instead of 1?

For that matter, if science was a religion, it has been practiced by all of mankind from the dawn of our tool using ancestors till now, (the religlion the all modern mankind practices), because even the cavemen who made fire and weapons, used sicence to create them sucessfully and repeatedly without needing any modern knowledge of physics or chemistry.

I don't think they prayed to and ask for these 'gifts' from whatever it was that they may have prayed to at that time.

Try not using science and living in the wild without any tools, sleeping in caves without constructing artificial shelter, clothes or items, this way the theist can be sure that he/she is not 2 timing his/her own religion with the science religion.

-------------------------------

Curiously I am interested to turn science into a religion, but who do I pray to and worship for salvation? Should I idolised the holy science book or the advanced skynet computer system? Which dead or living pioneer, leader, genius, inventor, scientist should be prayed to and worshipped?

What should the divine commandments of the science religion be?

example: Thou should not interbreed with people from the direct family (incest) because without new useful genetic information (from other more different people), harmful inbreeding mutations are concentrated and repeated in later generations?......

...at least it gives a reason/explanation even if it was not fully understood....

(sarcasm)

[edit on 21-8-2007 by ixiy]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
First, I'm not a sir, thank you.

Second, if you are entitled to call science a religion, I am entitled to call it nonsense. That's the First Amendment for you, go figure.

It's not a matter of belief or opinion, it is a FACT. Science is not a religion.

If you're offended by that, I don't know what to tell you, except sometimes the truth hurts, I guess.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Offended? LoL!!! Believe whatever you want. You didn't even bother to touch any of my points in any sense but the broadest and then go off on a it's fact and it's truth, flimsy defense. Funny. Christians do the same thing. Hmmmmm. By all means continue to follow your nice prepackaged belief system without an original thought out of line with the beliefs you are parroting (quite well I might add) but welcome to ignore so I will not be responding to you nonsense any longer. Yet another fault yes I know but if I see your repetative condensending rhetoric again I will be compeled to respond and that gets me no where.




[edit on 21-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by ixiy
If science was a religion, it must be the most tolerable religion ever, because you can practice/use it with or without any other faith.

Should christians, and other theists who use science be considered to be practicing 2 religions instead of 1?

For that matter, if science was a religion, it has been practiced by all of mankind from the dawn of our tool using ancestors till now, (the religlion the all modern mankind practices), because even the cavemen who made fire and weapons, used sicence to create them sucessfully and repeatedly without needing any modern knowledge of physics or chemistry.

I don't think they prayed to and ask for these 'gifts' from whatever it was that they may have prayed to at that time.

Try not using science and living in the wild without any tools, sleeping in caves without constructing artificial shelter, clothes or items, this way the theist can be sure that he/she is not 2 timing his/her own religion with the science religion.

-------------------------------

Curiously I am interested to turn science into a religion, but who do I pray to and worship for salvation? Should I idolised the holy science book or the advanced skynet computer system? Which dead or living pioneer, leader, genius, inventor, scientist should be prayed to and worshipped?

What should the divine commandments of the science religion be?

example: Thou should not interbreed with people from the direct family (incest) because without new useful genetic information (from other more different people), harmful inbreeding mutations are concentrated and repeated in later generations?......

...at least it gives a reason/explanation even if it was not fully understood....

(sarcasm)

[edit on 21-8-2007 by ixiy]

Geeee. Before you comment READ THE FRIGGIN POST! All of it. Thinking about it is obviously not optional/ You parrots can't seem to get past the title. I guess I should have named the thread Rutabega so I wouldn't get you jokers.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


WraothAscendant, there's a reason why MM hasn't addressed any of your points... she has no need to. i addressed them quite well.... why is it that you've completely ignored my counterpoints?

Science isn't a religion. One can have faith in science in the same way one has faith in a religion, though it should not be the case. Science should be based upon The Scientific Method of observation, data, mechanistic modeling, testing, validation, reproduceability and proofs. Science has been my course of study and profession, through it I believe I'm learning more about the inner workings of God. It's fascinating to see the order and structure in biological systems (as well as in astronomy, chemistry and others). The more I study the understanding of probabilities, the less it appear that "things just clicked by accident". If one is a believer in God, then science is not a competitor against God, rather a set of laws created by Him to give us the consistency we need to be progressive and make sense of our surroundings. Without that consistency, we'd be spending all our time trying to figure out what's going on rather than fulfilling our true purpose.

Originally posted by saint4God
Science isn't a religion. One can have faith in science in the same way one has faith in a religion, though it should not be the case. Science should be based upon The Scientific Method of observation, data, mechanistic modeling, testing, validation, reproduceability and proofs. Science has been my course of study and profession, through it I believe I'm learning more about the inner workings of God. It's fascinating to see the order and structure in biological systems (as well as in astronomy, chemistry and others). The more I study the understanding of probabilities, the less it appear that "things just clicked by accident". If one is a believer in God, then science is not a competitor against God, rather a set of laws created by Him to give us the consistency we need to be progressive and make sense of our surroundings. Without that consistency, we'd be spending all our time trying to figure out what's going on rather than fulfilling our true purpose.

Ok some of that I agree with some I don't. But all I am saying is when you attempt to answer a religious question by the very act of attempting to answer a RELIGIOUS question you are crossing over into religion. IE you can't be in the USA and Canada the same time when your standing in Florida.
And I might I add I completely disagree with some guys assertation the burden of proof rests purely with religion that is simple BS propaganda. If religion does what I say is admittedly impossible for them and simply keep their beliefs to themselves or those that they know to agree with them they shouldn't have to prove anything. I think the burden of proof rests with ANYONE making any sort of claim, and stating it as fact to someone who doesn't agree. If atheists could prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt (which is kinda impossible if you think about it) that some higher power doesn't exist I would admit it. But they can't. So they go on preachy little rampages JUST LIKE THE RELIGIOUS NUTS. People need to remember that lack of proof of existsence is NOT proof of nonexistence. That and well give up the obcession of I have to be right and MAKE everyone see I am right. If you believe your right THATS FINE be right in silence or talk amongst like minded people because everyone is NOT going to agree on everything and all these people that go off on their little preachfests do is cause needless conflict and would NEVER admit even they started to doubt what they believed to be true before.