Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: BO XIAN

Please tell me which deity scientists pray to and hope to please in order for their metaphysical and non-material "soul" to be saved through?

I have yet to meet one scientist who prays to Louis Pasteur by talking to themselves inside their head:

"Please Mr. Pasteur, save my soul and forgive my mistakes and misdeeds! Please help me conduct this experiment correctly!"

*eye roll*

Louie Nye the science guy and Neil degrasse Tyson!

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: BO XIAN

That's a classic.

I can tell you my friend that science is nothing more than a demonstration of human curiosity and intelligence.

I think it MAY have started out that way.

Funny thing happened on the way to the ivy covered cathedrals of the Religion of Scientism.

They GOT RELIGION! Big-time.

. . . or . . . more likely . . . morphed into it step by step.

Of course there are scientists out there who have agendas to make them more money, fame, whatever, I'm not going to argue that. You could make the same argument about economics, but it's not economicsism is it, except perhaps for a few weirdos, which by the way is statistically inevitable. The same could also be said about science, but we are talking about little more than an aberration, not carte blanche.

Wellllllllllllll I didn't say EVERY scientist was gah-gah enraptured with the Religion of Scientism.

However, among liberal types . . . I'd guesstimate that the percentage is well above 51% that demonstrate SOME of the features of RELIGION in their worshipful attitude toward science.

Even on one of the largest, mostly Christian, conservative sites, it was a shocking number out of the total.

There is one bizarre human construct on this planet that shouldn't however, by it's own doctrines, be subject to such human failure or even statistical inevitability of failure, but yet over the centuries and to this very day it continues to demonstrate it's abject failure with despicable repetition. And that construct would be religion.
Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

That's not my observation nor my perception. Quite the opposite, actually. Though, actually, I'm using your probable definition of religion.

Actually, God hates religion as demonstrated by Christ's attitude toward the high priests of his earthly pathed days.

God is interested in RELATIONSHIP--NOT religion.

Ask Galeleo about about science and religion.

I suspect that those that call science a religion, do so out of fear.

Fear of what, I'm not sure.

Fear of their chosen religion being snuffed out?
Fear that real science trumps their pseudo-scientific beliefs?

I will venture that the OP takes a little from column A and a little from column B.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Those who venerate science are usually not those who work in it. It is full of fraud, deception, egos and illogic.

It is also about fashion. Ideas come and go and wax and wane in popularity as public or academic interest dictates.

Science can be an intellectual tool, or make one an intellectual tool.

EXCELLENT POINTS.

And some scientists KNOW that and make adjustments and allowances accordingly.

And some deny it and pretend the sun rises and sets on their worshiped values system.

Science AS PRACTICED in our culture can not only make on an intellectual tool--it can make one an intellectual FOOL.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Nonsense.

It just gets pathetic and wearisome to observe sooooooooooo much RELIGIOUS fervor

based on extremely flawed junk pretending to be quality science.

originally posted by: Chadwickus

Fear that real science trumps their pseudo-scientific beliefs?

Contrary to popular belief, the scientific method is admittedly flawed:

Diagram of Cancer Studies

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Yeah . . . I actually enjoyed my science rich PhD Dissertation research. Have long wanted to analyze the other 996+ variables I never quite got around to after the PhD. LOL. Life has a way of racing on by with higher priorities.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BO XIAN

Does a religion begin with observation of natural phenomena?

Actually, mine did. And, my heritage has been a long one keenly interested in what was demonstrably valid, applicable, functional, true, worthy, enduring, eternal.

Does a religion form an hypothesis to explain these phenomena?

Mine did and does. And, thankfully, the explanations for the hypotheses have persistently been far more on target than not.

Does a religion devise a means of falsifying that hypothesis under controlled circumstances?

It somewhat depends on how one slices it. But the story of Gideon in the Old Testament would answer an emphatic YES.

And, one time . . . we were in desperate need of the drying hay to stay dry in spite of a rain storm coming up the river as it typically did. Mother prayed. It rained on 4 sides of the drying hay but not on the drying hay.

Does a religion reject that hypothesis if it is falsified by these experiments?

Yeah. If a prophet claims to be of God but speaks falsely, he tends to be wholesale rejected as invalid and not of God.

Does a religion insist that all such experiments and observations be repeatable?

Some are and some aren't.

Does a religion reason from the specific to the general?

It can go both directions. But there's plenty of specific to general.

Does a religion modify its body of knowledge based upon new information?

Sure. There's lots that 'we see through the glass dimly' about. And hypotheses about such things are offered up and discarded routinely.

Does a religion encourage everyone to apply these methods in order to solve problems in their daily life?

Of course. Christians--authentic Christians are not interested in sham, false, ineffective, unworkable, religious hoop-jumping. We want a vibrant, active, functional, effective, intimate relationship with Creator God Yehovah, Abba, Daddy.

If the answer to all of these is "yes," then yes, science is a religion.

Science is a religion to the degree that too many people have elevated it to the place God has in the lives of authentic Believers.

And that without sufficient evidence warranting such a lofty status for such a flawed system peopled by corrupt jerks who falsify data; report untruths as facts etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: damwel

NOPE.

NOT by a huge long shot.

In contrast to your post, actually.

originally posted by: frenchfries
Yes Science is a religion , the worst kind.
All religion is Bad .
believing in something is good.
experimenting is good.

Science is incomplete and doesn't tell the truth to the general public.
Science doesn't question fundamental problems.
Science excommunicates members of it's community that are too radical.
Science is no solution for a better life.

GREAT POINTS.

Thanks.

I think science CAN offer conveniences and other THINGS that CAN make life somewhat better.

Sadly, even the conveniences and labor saving stuff end up diminishing intimacy and dialogue with those we love. I don't exactly call that "better."

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Chadwickus

Fear that real science trumps their pseudo-scientific beliefs?

Contrary to popular belief, the scientific method is admittedly flawed:

Diagram of Cancer Studies

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

And that's just ONE FAIRLY THIN SLICE out of ONE major scientific discipline of medicine.

It could be considered to be the tip of the iceberg.

*sigh*

Religious people just can't wrap their head around the fact that some people don't NEED to have faith in something they can't nor ever will be able to verify, measure or observe.

So, in response they grasp at straws in an attempt to attribute something else to these people. . .

I know! It's gotta be science! Science is their religion! Everyone has to have some kind of religion in their life!

No.

In the words of Mr. Dawkins:

Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren’t for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. (As James Randi has pointed out, this is one reason why scientists are so often fooled by paranormal tricksters and why the debunking role is better played by professional conjurors; scientists just don’t anticipate deliberate dishonesty as well.) There are other professions (no need to mention lawyers specifically) in which falsifying evidence or at least twisting it is precisely what people are paid for and get brownie points for doing.

Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith. But, as I pointed out, science does have some of religion’s virtues. Religion may aspire to provide its followers with various benefits — among them explanation, consolation, and uplift. Science, too, has something to offer in these areas.

Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it’s just bad science. Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.

Link

Science isn't a religion, but in fact religion is a form of terrible science.

And there is good science and junk science. Honest science and twisted science. It takes a scientific mind to discern what is being studied and reported on honestly. Any good scientist doesn't take someone else's "facts" on faith. They try and reproduce the experiments.

I don't see anyone else trying to replicate the feeding of the 500 or 5,000 or whatever. I don't see anyone trying to duplicate any of the miracles of the world's religions. Those are just accepted "facts" based around blind faith without any quantifiable evidence or proof.

Sure, some scientific concepts haven't been proven or observed, but people arrive at those theories by standing on the research that came before. Theories are built around previous experimentation and current models of understanding. Once technology or methods for experimentation are found, fundamental models of understanding are changed.

I don't see people re-writing the Bible every few years to include new insights....

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Ask Galeleo about about science and religion.

I suspect that those that call science a religion, do so out of fear.

Fear of what, I'm not sure.

Fear of their chosen religion being snuffed out?
Fear that real science trumps their pseudo-scientific beliefs?

I will venture that the OP takes a little from column A and a little from column B.

Ya right.

Science is just trying to figure out how God did it.

a reply to: BO XIAN

I love how you completely ignored my question in my previous post...
IF Science were in fact a religion how does that in anyway effect the centuries upon centuries of findings that we have accumulated to be invalid...? You seemingly imply with the creation of this thread that because science is religious in nature,certain aspects of knowledge would therefore be invalid. Could you name a few examples..?

I could name example after example as to some of the claims religion has made that have proven to be out right false.
One right off the top of my head,the earth being flat,the Sun revolving around the earth,Earth was the center of the universe and etc. The list could go on for pages,many of these claims were made with absolutely no evidence to support them. Yet some how you equate Science with these same religions as being just as faith based...# the anti-science sentiment on this site!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Not really, they are trying to figure out how it really happened.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: BO XIAN

religion of scientism.

That's a classic.

I can tell you my friend that science is nothing more than a demonstration of human curiosity and intelligence.

Of course there are scientists out there who have agendas to make them more money, fame, whatever, I'm not going to argue that. You could make the same argument about economics, but it's not economicsism is it, except perhaps for a few weirdos, which by the way is statistically inevitable. The same could also be said about science, but we are talking about little more than an aberration, not carte blanche.

There is one bizarre human construct on this planet that shouldn't however, by it's own doctrines, be subject to such human failure or even statistical inevitability of failure, but yet over the centuries and to this very day it continues to demonstrate it's abject failure with despicable repetition. And that construct would be religion.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

You serve a religion you cannot even see, or speak of, and it controls your "science" wholly.

What is truly despicable, is that you actually believe, because of your religion, that somehow science escapes the grasp of those same controllers....................

a reply to: BO XIAN

If it goes against what your god says does that make it untrue?

I've been thinking about this a lot actually and what I feel is that too many subjects are shot down as "Pseudo-science", I feel that science reduces everything down to " tangibles", "logic" and a series of other analytical terms and conclusions but I think science can only ever prove sciences half of reality and it has little to no way to prove the subtle, intangible and undiscribable side of reality so scientists will write those things off as completely nonexistent plus they make another terrible mistake of reducing reality to statistical averages whilst shrugging the statistical exceptions off as flukes or coincidences, I feel that logic, numbers, structures, objectivity and obsessive compulsive skepticism is the scientists cognitive 'safe space' that protects them from realities opposite side being the chaotic, artistic, uncountable, barely readable, and subjective, I do feel science is a religion to which some of its followers are frightened of that which they do not know outside of academic explanation.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Not really, they are trying to figure out how it really happened.

Yet a material reductionist viewpoint still dominates the field despite exorbitant evidence that matter is an effect and not a cause. When science stumbles onto extraordinary truth, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation, it is simply ignored because it completely contradicts the dogmatic reliance on material studies to explain our world. Science has found many answers, but the scientific priesthood prefers the ignorant materialistic dogma

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
correct me if im wrong but in religion isnt there an entity that is TYPICALLY worshipped? what entity would that be in this case?

The exact opposite entity is typically worshipped............

As well as the belief that all will be figured out if we just stay on the case..........

Science is already hundreds if not thousands of years behind, the same exact forces behind everything else control science.........just look at the health care industry, they will do ANYTHING to not allow the scientists to FULLY understand and fix the humans and everything else.

Way too much COULD be uncovered by science, but will not be, because someone has far too much too lose.............