As I went through the various post today and (quickly) began to shake my head at the stupidity of some posters. I began to wonder...

If atheism can be classified a religion (and I have heard it classified as such) then could a concrete belief in a specific classification of science be a religion?

Could some people worship at the church of Steven Hawking? (Who, by the way, recently had to retract a theory of his that he had defended for years.)

Do people who believe that science could not possibly be wrong and anyone that doesn't believe in everything that science says is a theory or a law is illogical?
Could these people worship in the church of science? Is the Discovery channel their bible?

Isn't it dangerous to put too much trust in any idea? To refuse to believe that you could... maybe, just possibly be incorrect?

I would love to know your thoughts on the matter.

I disagree, science could not be a religion. Reasoning?

Scientific theories are fluid & organic by nature in that scientist's must question and deliberate, calculate and assess, re-assess, summarize and distribute their thesis, which will be either accepted, re demonstrated and re thunk by the target audience (other scientists) or criticized en large, proven false and dismissed.

Religion involves steadfast idea's that often will not lend themselves and indeed make no sense in a modern society. There have been very few 'new' religious ideas that have been accepted, each faction sticking often rigidly to their original texts dating back 2000 years and beyond.

You can argue that cult's and newer religions (Scientology for example, which having read some of Ron L. Hubbard's musings, is not the most scientific religion I've heard of!!) are proof of organic movements, but they suffer the same rooted grounds as those ancient, flawed religions. A number of writers may contribute to a religious work, and if accepted by any number of target audience (congregation) their idea's will not be challenged by this inner circle, and when faced with critisism will not be investigated scientifically.

Once you set down a belief system based on faith it becomes and immovable mountain. If you chip away at one side of it and discover the whole mountain is actually made of marshmallow and not rock as was thought, you lose the entire system of faith and belief wains. So to disprove a religion, is to undo it. To disprove the set laws of scientific study, is simply, in my opinion, advancement.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Pr0t0]

The problem with science is that it feeds the "Ego". Science is currently moving at a very slow rate compared to our brains capabilities and technology.

One day in the near future, the Ego will be gotten rid of, and it will be replaced by all of us realizing the infinite.

One.

I believe science and religion can go hand in hand. The problem is not science or religion but the people who are practicing science and religion. Instead of getting along they compete and that makes it difficult to agree on anything.
Both camps have supporters that fight for knowledge. And they both fight for a knowledge they dont understand. If they just had the brains to work together they would learn and agree a lot more.

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
The problem with science is that it feeds the "Ego". Science is currently moving at a very slow rate compared to our brains capabilities and technology.

Ok, please, stop my laughter!

Show me the evidence for this!

I can show you quite the contrary!



HAHAHA

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Republican08]

Science can become a religion to some folks when they limit their beliefs to that which science accepts.

Those people would scoff at the thought they might be considered 'religious' but their minds are so trapped they do not understand they are becoming exactly what they despise.

Hahaha, I may have to concede ... perhaps in the face of overwhelming evidence!?!?

Blind faith may win the argument... momentarily.

I will still disagree and say it cannot be religious; without religion we would still have science... but then would science be the sole religion? I don't know for sure. In true scientific fashion I won't bow out gracefully, however. If science is made up of beliefs, which I hope for the sake of all of us it isn't for the most part, we can of course make religious comparisons. But science continues to be re-written and regardless of the dogma associated, once a theory is demonstrably disproved or a law broken in repeatable experiments, the Ideas and Understandings and hopefully not 'beliefs' can, and will, alter. This breaks the dogmatism, regardless how long it may have existed.

I have to be honest and say, despite best efforts, I am still a touch stumped for the time being! Thanks

So we agree, that your 5-a-day and much less belief is good for everybody?!

And though science, may to some be a religious belief, it will never to me.

Oh, and I am an atheist, and consider myself completely non-religious about that too. I have ideas and theories, and they evolve. Open mindedness allows me to accept evidence for what it is - not so much that my brain falls out though.

I won't dismiss your religion to smite, there's over 6,600 of them, and I respect that choice of faith and would do nothing to attack an others beliefs, faiths or ideas. When asked, I won't sit on the fence either.

We should embrace the two and build spaceships to break the current laws of physics, and go in search of whichever God one hope to find. If we don't find him we can have a nice cup of Gliese 581 C coffee, and make some new friends, with some new ideas perhaps

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
The problem with science is that it feeds the "Ego".
One.

Thats hilarious.

Couldn't it be said that members of religious cults who beleive they are somehow more holy/saved/chosen/special/superior to other human beings are feeding their egos as well ?

If atheism can be classified a religion (and I have heard it classified as such) then could a concrete belief in a specific classification of science be a religion?

Atheism can be classified as a religion because it is nothing more or less than a belief about gods, that is, a belief about essentially religious subject matter.

It is much harder to make anything like that kind of argument about science. Obviously, parts of science impinge on religious concerns, but so do parts of history, sociology, geography... any and every field of human inquiry. There is nothing essential to science in its overlap with religion. Nor does it overlap with all religions, that is, with religion as such.

People sometimes reject the classification of atheism as a religion because there is no component of worship in atheism. There is no worship in science, either. It just doesn't come up.

Science, then, seems less likely to be classified usefully as religion than atheism. Atheism, in turn, is a religion only with an asterisk.

On other matters arising:

I admire Stephen Hawking; I don't worship him.

People who believe that the consensus of scientists can't be wrong misunderstand science, and are also deficient in history, as well.

Of course Hawking withdraws a defeated theory. Scientists do that all the time.

His original advocacy of the theory advanced science by making it possible to test the theory, and by showing that it was a worthy thing to test. Tests cost time and money, selectivity is needed.

The tests came out as they often come out: back to the drawing board. Well played, Steve. Well played, science. The growing store of human knowledge has been successfully defended from corruption by an attractive, but incorrect, idea masquerading as truth.

Talk about the difference between science and religion: scientists learn something when their best ideas collapse in the face of contrary facts. Religion? Observed facts don't seem to play any essential role, and certainly not a teaching role.