Can science be a religion?

reply to post by karl 12


Pardon me if I am mistaken on the "Ego" thing, but I think I know why it was said.
Evolution states that we are "evolving" and getting closer and closer to perfection.
Religion (most of them) states that somehow or another man messed up along the way and now we are "infected" with sin and the only one that can cleanse us is a deity.

Is that was was meant by science appealing to the ego?

I really like the discussion that went on here while I was asleep lol.

You have made me re-formulate my thoughts on this.
The consensus seems to be that science is a religion for only *some* people. The ones that tend to put their blind faith in scientist and don't examine a theory or law for themselves.

I agree.

Many of you also stated the religious people sort of break when presented with facts or ideas contrary to what they believe.

Untrue (for some anyway)

Who's to say that the only beings created are the ones currently on this planet? What an ego most people that believe in an eternal God mush have to believe that God waited for eons and eons just to make US!

Who's to say He didn't create a world of dinos and let that play out before He created man?

I do believe in the Bible. However, I also know that the book of Genesis was written for ignorant people. They had no idea of what we know now.

I don't have much respect for people that don't allow their beliefs (whatever those might be) to evolve with whatever information they collect and there are many other examples of me changing (bits and pieces) of what I believe over the years.

Originally posted by sisgood
Evolution states that we are "evolving" and getting closer and closer to perfection.

No it doesn't - that is a common misconception.



As for the thread topic -these quotes by astronomer Carl Sagan make for some pretty interesting reading:

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Carl Sagan



"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"
Carl Sagan



"There has been a long and painful history of erroneous claims which religions have made about the nature of the world…There is hardly an organized religion with a firm body of doctrine which has not at one time or another persecuted people for the crime of open inquiry."
Carl Sagan



"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Carl Sagan

atheism.about.com...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by sisgood


No, science is not a religion.

A religion postulates an absolute truth, for instance, the beginning of the universe was created by an all powerful omnipotent supernatural entity. This absolute truth goes with out question to it's validity, it is automatically assumed to be true without testing to be true.

Science on the other hand is a method of discovery, it never postulates an absolute truth. Of all the thing's we do hold as true, none of them are held as absolutely true as new discoveries and observations could denounce the validity of what was previously held as truth.

Seeing as how science can not and does not hold anything as an absolute truth, it is inherently separated from any form of religious faith that naturally assumes absolute truths.

I personally find those whom hold faith in absolute truths to be more lazy in scientific discoveries and advancements. One can not properly understand the universe or our existence if one holds an absolute faith in nothing more than an assumption that one thing is true and can never be false nor has ever actually been attempted to be proven.

Reality is, religious doctrines are dangerous. At the time of monotheistic birth, the God of the bible was a just God as how the people and culture existed in that period of time and acted accordingly to mans laws and thoughts. Nowadays, not a single religious person would claim that the justifications of that God are moral enough to carry out. We've abolished slavery, we've abolished child abuse, we've abolished oppression of women etc. etc. etc. Those were all 'good' and 'just' thing's according to the biblical God.

Which is why I find it rather odd and funny that those of religious leanings tend to write atheists off as the evil people who reject God. I can't recall a single atheist mass grouping who has committed genocides in the name of atheism, but this is certainly a trend of violent actions committed by the religious folks. Certainly, one would assume that one's group actions shows the true nature of that group. When a religious group can justify horrific atrocities as being 'just' and 'right' according to their God, then who are the real evil ones?

reply to post by sisgood


Well, I'd disagree with saying Atheism is a religion; it's more of a point of view(just as monotheism, polytheism, etc. aren't religions per-say).

That said, I do think there's a danger in the 'cult' of science. What I mean by cult of science is the offhand dismissal of anything which doesn't fit a person's world views, especially the moving of the scientific bar for subjects a person doesn't like(e.g. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."). So many seem to forget that science is constantly evolving, and that a stale, fixed mindset means the death of real science.

This is really the major problem that humanity has been plagued with since the dawn of history, though, and is not a failure of science but of the human mind. If someone comes up with something we don't like, we move the goalposts; or we attack them instead of the claims; or we go to war with them, and so on.

So it goes.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Core90]