NationStates Jolt Archive

theres loads of religeous v science questions around so i thought id pose an arguement that one of my friends teachers has posed.

Science is a religeon (for the masses) because a) In general they are believing either what they are told or what they have read b) it cannot actually PROVE anything. (e.g. there are at least two different theories of gravity).

This is a watered down version and ill have to get my friend to explain in more depth...

Now i shall await the flames that are probably gonna come at me.

wait how is science a religion you lost me up there.

no. way.

1. science has no morals.
2. science does not involve a higher being - we just revolve around ourselves.
3. science cannot make you feel emotionally better.
4. science cannot turn you away from sin.
5. science cannot guarantee life after death.

now again. is science a religion?

sci·ence

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

We're believing what we have been told, yes, but for anyone industrious enough to get off their butts it's simple to prove science for yourself.

Sitting in a room listening to someone interpret a confusing mess of words written thousands of years ago, the way he thinks, can never be backed up or proven. Especially when there are millions of guys in millions of rooms all saying different things.

Yeah i dont believe science is a religion thing, i just wanted to see how he thinks it is.

OH NO!! IT'S A CASE OF BAD GRAMMAR!!

*sirens sound*

Don't worry, the Grammar Police are here to the rescue!

theres loads of religeous v science questions around so i thought id pose an arguement that one of my friends teachers has posed.

This is so bad!! Are you like in remedial English or something?

You should have written: There are plenty of Religion vs Science arguments around, so I would like to present an argument that my friend's teacher posed.

Science is a religeon (for the masses) because a) In general they are believing either what they are told or what they have read b) it cannot actually PROVE anything. (e.g. there are at least two different theories of gravity).

Did you have your head up your ass when you wrote this? This is so bloody incoherent!

You should have written: Science is a religion because people who follow science believe what they are told and/or read; this is very much like the masses of various religions. Similarly, science, like religion, can't prove anything ie: there are conflicting versions of the theory of gravity.

This is a watered down version and ill have to get my friend to explain in more depth...

Now i shall await the flames that are probably gonna come at me.

A watered down version would have been coherent; this was the ancient ruins of a watered down version.

And yes, flames will come your way.

Now that I've discredited you in the area of grammar and spelling, I shall discredit your argument, which has more holes than swiss cheese.

It's impossible for science to be religion for the simple reason that the two have always been in conflict and they are blatant different; they contradict each other.

Science doesn't have "beliefs", they have "theories" and "facts"; science has no god; religion has "beliefs", "morals" and a "god(s)".

Also, religion also contradicts itself, especially the bible; ok, so that is the only thing that is actually the same as science.

Thank god you came Kryozerkia! I had no clue what he was saying!!!

Thank god you came Kryozerkia! I had no clue what he was saying!!!
We're the world's Grammar Police! ;)

Taking that idea and expanding it to its logical conclusion yields Nihilism almost directly. If we consider science (which, by the way, is a process and not a static idea or object) to be the same as religion because people are put in the position of believing what they read or are told, then we can take that a step further and say that perception is the same as religion because people believe what they see and hear. It is unreasonable, I think to go down that road, but in the same sense it is unreasonable to say that the scientific method of finding proofs (nothing can be truly proven, except to differing degrees based on different purdens of proof or levels of believability) to the religious method is absurd. The scientific method trusts only in the accuracy of observation, and even questions that much of the time while the religion method often prohibits questioning at all. The scientific method demands reproducability for its proofs that way unknown variable can be better accounted for while the religious method offers nothing to match reproducability while demanding "faith" in acts and events that can neither be demonstrated to have happened or to have not happened. Science, as a method is used for determining everything in daily life, though most people don't realize it. Everyone uses the scientific method every day when they determine what they are willing to believe and why. Trusted sources of information, like the senses and close, trustworthy, friends are considered good sources of data while untrustworthy people or clearly skewed receptors are ignored entirely. At the same time each new experience is cross-referenced agaisnt old experiences to see if they make sense. A person can watch a TV show and see something that could not happen and say "That could not happen" because they have applied the scientific method and determined that it breaks a fundamental law of physics or another law determined by years of meticulous work by thousands of dedicated scientists around the world.

In conclusion, to call science religion is to call perception faith and the universe absurd. Most people don't like that proposition, and I think with some thought you'll realize that the idea is silly at best.

The difference between science and religion can be summed up thus:

Overturn a central tenet of a religion, and the Faithful will persecute you (to say the least).

Overturn a central tenet of science -- using internationally accepted standards of proof, and providing others with the information to repeat your findings -- and they'll give you the Nobel prize, shower you with other accolades and honours, and make you a hero.

no. way.

1. science has no morals.
2. science does not involve a higher being - we just revolve around ourselves.
3. science cannot make you feel emotionally better.
4. science cannot turn you away from sin.
5. science cannot guarantee life after death.

now again. is science a religion?

Not a single one of those is in any way necessary for a religion...

OH NO!! IT'S A CASE OF BAD GRAMMAR!!

*sirens sound*

Don't worry, the Grammar Police are here to the rescue!



This is so bad!! Are you like in remedial English or something?

You should have written: There are plenty of Religion vs Science arguments around, so I would like to present an argument that my friend's teacher posed.

Did you have your head up your ass when you wrote this? This is so bloody incoherent!

You should have written: Science is a religion because people who follow science believe what they are told and/or read; this is very much like the masses of various religions. Similarly, science, like religion, can't prove anything ie: there are conflicting versions of the theory of gravity.



A watered down version would have been coherent; this was the ancient ruins of a watered down version.

And yes, flames will come your way.

Now that I've discredited you in the area of grammar and spelling, I shall discredit your argument, which has more holes than swiss cheese.

It's impossible for science to be religion for the simple reason that the two have always been in conflict and they are blatant different; they contradict each other.

Science doesn't have "beliefs", they have "theories" and "facts"; science has no god; religion has "beliefs", "morals" and a "god(s)".

Also, religion also contradicts itself, especially the bible; ok, so that is the only thing that is actually the same as science.

i dont care about grammar unless its necessarry, i know what i should have typed if i chose to use standard english. I said that the arguement was put forward by my friend's teacher and by my friend so poke as many holes as you wish :)

oh and by the way theories arent ever proven that why they're not theorems
so as such its just a belief, but other than that I dont care. i just wanted to see how people would react to the theory, now explain why your grammatical snobbery shoild make a difference to how i write outside of essays, stories, RP or official documents?

In general I Accept both arguements and choose to sit on the fence, like i said above i was just curious what others think.

I believe my dishwasher will clean my dishes..

OMG, my dishwasher is a religion! :D

The operative concept here is not science, but Science For The Masses. Take a deep breath and relax.

Now first we should define religion, so we'll know one when we see one. Anyone? I could define relgion as "a framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world", but that just plays too easy into the argument that Science For The Masses (SFTM) is a religion, so what is a religon?

That's probably one of the best posts in this thread.

What is religion? What is science?
What is all this?
Who are all you people?
Where am I?

Ok.. ok...

Just because Science and Religion have always been in conflict, doesn't prove they are not the same.
Loads of religions are in conflict as well... does this mean they are not religions?

Science is a religion,
not because it has a God, obviously
but because it was marketed as our saviour, i.e. "we can find the answers!"

not because it has morals, obviously
but because it affects the morals of the culture and society in which we live.

not because it can gaurantee life after death, obviously,
but because it gives the promise that one day it might be able to give us eternal life, so that we may never die (dog forbid)

anyhow, no religion gaurantees this, they just say so, and you 'believe' it, or have faith in it. Just like you have faith that Edison was correct, and Tesla was a lunatic... except, hangon, what's this? Edison needs to use many patents to transmit radiowaves, patents established by Tesla, on Teslas discoveries and inventions. It just so happened that you can make more money with Edisons ideas, so entrepreneurs invested in him and not Tesla.

anyway...

not because it... ok, yes, because it makes you feel emotionally better.
especially when you text your friend, drive around in your car and use your computer to have debates with people from around the world.

finally, Sin isn't a pre-requisite of religion.

Homework:
Go look up things like verisimilitude, incommensurability, and other fun philosophical investigations into 'science'... the 'new' religion.

Sidenote:
This is the post-modern era... why can't you all catch up yet?
There IS no answer! (except, maybe, that one... or any answer we care to make up... which leads us to meaninglessness and beyond)

What about scientology? Isn't there a church of scientology or something?

Well, there's one in New York anyway.

I don't actually know what it is, but it as something that sounds like science in it, and its affiliated with some sort of church, which is generally connected to religion...

I think this warrants a google search.

I am not "religious" but I almost agree with you there. Science is a religion in a sense that it is something I believe in and live my life by. The only difference is that science has a lot more believable things in it and it doesn't tell me what to do like a lot of religions do. Also it is OPEN TO NEW IDEAS. It doesn't rely on something written hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Okay, I think this (http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/background-origins/index.html) may clear up some of the argument. Or more likely add more fuel to it.

From what i've read on that site, scientology is at least partly a method of providing modern day answers to philosophical and/or religious questions, using the "same advances in knowledge that led to the understanding of nuclear physics" (quote from the link provided above). If that is true, then is it not an example of a religion (note, scientology, at least according to its website, is a religion) using scientific methods to provide answers to religious/philosophical questions?

Mind you, there's no evidence that it is successful or that the answers it produces are particularly good.

define religion: A belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers, to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe.


define science: systematised knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried out in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.


Science has no superhuman powers, no divine powers, no mysticism, no tokens of faith. Science does not need to be obeyed, has no system of worship, and has no 'god' TO worship.

Religion has no adherence to the scientific principle, does not derive information from observation, or from study, or from experimentation. There are no 'tests' to determine the nature of reality, there is no research into the principle that governs all... all these questions are answered instead, by scriptural faith.

You could possibly argue that science was a religion, if it were not pursued scientifically - which is why almost everything "Creation Scientists" do is a mockery, immediately discredit by the science community, and often, discredited by the religious community too.

science itself is not a religion, but some of the things that we americans consider to be "sceince" are. evolution is a religion. people believe it and it can't be proven beyond doubt. most people you'll talk to think it's a fact but statistics show that 52% of americans believe in some form of creation rather than evolution. it's just another religion. the big band theory is a religion as well. the reason that you people think that science is not a religion is that there is no diety, but in reality the idea of science revolves around a worship of self. the idea that humans are in controll of their own future is why scientific theories like evolution and the big bang theory have caught on. i rest my case.

I'd just like to point out that comparing Science and Religion is bad, simply because Religion has it's views and if one hasn't been raised to believe strictily in the religion one can't believe all of it. Same goes for Science. One just should believe in little bit of both or in neither, whichever makes more sense.
Some Examples:
Only an idiot will believe that Earth was created in 7 days.
Also is there Heaven? Hell? There isn't either a Scientific or Religious proof. I mean the church person says so, he also said that all the money goes to God, yet he always drove the newest BMW or a Mercedes.

So in conclusion. Believe in whatever you think is best, or makes sense.

If you look at it from the angle of, for example, creation, then both science and religion attempt to provide answers.

Christianity tries to claim that it was made in 6 days (+1 days rest and relaxation) by some incredibly proactive god, and people, especially earlier in history (before science became as influential) found it easy to accept. This is probably because it provided solid "fact", that you could easily understand.

On the other hand, science really delved deep to try and figure out how the universe was created, and in the process discovered that it really was rather incredibly complex. Because of this, science is still trying to answer the question of creation.

In my opinion, the only difference between the views of creation that christianity holds and the views of creation that science is still trying to find out is a couple of thousand years of advances in technology.

Maybe if the founders of christianity had the chance to really examine the world they lived on, using the methods we take for granted today, then perhaps they would have come up with an answer (or lack of) similar to what we have today.

I guess that this is a bit off topic, because it doesnt really answer whether science is a religion or not, but oh well.

you say that only an idiot would think that the earth was made in 7 days. mabey if you're thinking along the lines of normal human comprehention. but you're forgetting that people who believe the earth was made in 7 days would also believe that God is omnipotent. and therefore can do whatever he wants. you also said that there's no religious evidence to back up hell... what! there's no such thing as religious evidence. it's called faith you moron!

Somehow, these things seem totally antithetical to me.

Yes, some people take the reults of science as shown to them and simply accept it as fact without proof - which could be construed as a form of "blind faith". However those people are not scientists. They are simply uninquisitive.


However the process of science itself involves questioning EVERYTHING, which is totally antithetical to faith.

Indeed, scientists changes theories as often as they change their underwear - which is a sad commentary on their personal hygene....

But a process intended to define and describe phenominon is not a religion. Accepting the current body of scientific knowledge as a bible of truisms and refusing to search further could, however, push it into the realm of dogmatic belief.

But that seems unlikely to happen.

you say that only an idiot would think that the earth was made in 7 days. mabey if you're thinking along the lines of normal human comprehention. but you're forgetting that people who believe the earth was made in 7 days would also believe that God is omnipotent. and therefore can do whatever he wants. you also said that there's no religious evidence to back up hell... what! there's no such thing as religious evidence. it's called faith you moron!

A day is the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate. So the earth cannot be created it 7 days since before it was "created", it did not exist and therefore could not rotate. So before the earth, there was no such thing as a day. It's called logic, you moron!

no. way.

1. science has no morals.
2. science does not involve a higher being - we just revolve around ourselves.
3. science cannot make you feel emotionally better.
4. science cannot turn you away from sin.
5. science cannot guarantee life after death.

now again. is science a religion?

exactly, DB
science doesnt deal with the spiritual realm at all

Science is not a religion

First, and most important, science is not about faith. Science is a method, and science is true in the sense that the scientific method is both real and that it is working. Science gives us answer about our reality in a form that explains how things work and makes us able to predict how things will be in the future. Science does not give us absolute truths about the world, it sometimes gives false answers and wrong theories. These does not make science untrue, rather they are limits of science. And science acknowledges and accepts these limits.

If you take something science tells you and claim that it's the absolute truth, then you're making science into a religion. So it is possible to create a religion based on science, or treat science as your religion, but science in itself is no religion.

Okay, I think this (http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/background-origins/index.html) may clear up some of the argument. Or more likely add more fuel to it.

From what i've read on that site, scientology is at least partly a method of providing modern day answers to philosophical and/or religious questions, using the "same advances in knowledge that led to the understanding of nuclear physics" (quote from the link provided above). If that is true, then is it not an example of a religion (note, scientology, at least according to its website, is a religion) using scientific methods to provide answers to religious/philosophical questions?

Mind you, there's no evidence that it is successful or that the answers it produces are particularly good.

scientology is big business masquerading as religion for the tax breaks

However the process of science itself involves questioning EVERYTHING, which is totally antithetical to faith.

That's called philosophy. Science requires you to prove everything.

b) it cannot actually PROVE anything. (e.g. there are at least two different theories of gravity).


What do you mean it can't prove anything. If science hasn't proven anything then how the heck did we get past sticks and stones.

anyhow, no religion gaurantees this, they just say so, and you 'believe' it, or have faith in it. Just like you have faith that Edison was correct, and Tesla was a lunatic... except, hangon, what's this? Edison needs to use many patents to transmit radiowaves, patents established by Tesla, on Teslas discoveries and inventions. It just so happened that you can make more money with Edisons ideas, so entrepreneurs invested in him and not Tesla.

i have "faith" that george washington really existed but history isnt a religion
i have "faith" that 2+2=4 but math isnt a religion
i have "faith" that toby keith exists but country music isnt a religion

that i have no more understanding of electricity or radio waves than i have of the trinity doesnt mean that my faith in my toaster making me breakfast in the morning is religious.

That's called philosophy. Science requires you to prove everything.


More accurately, Science requires you to TEST everything.

Religion, on the other hand, generally stops at the hypothesis stage.

Or when it does test, it tests in a manner inconsistent with the scientific method.

It does no good to say, as one "test" has, that people in hospital seem to get better faster if other people pray for them, unless you've tested to see whether prayers to God, Allah, Buddha, Odin, The Great Spirit, and Hugo the Great Eternal Platypus all have similar effects.

Actually there is a hypothesis that we have gravity, there is also an hypothesis for an expanding matter theory, both fit circumstances, but cannot be proven. Science is basically a vast amount of guesses which people seem to think they have right.

Add:

Maths requires you to prove everything by logical.

Science mostly just has a which fits best system.

Religion and Science must be defined. This is the only clear unblurred definition I can come up with.

When I use the word religion, I refer to organized religion, not individual spirituality. I put such individual thought in the realm of philosophy (the progenitor of science, Science is the philosophy of the physical world). Religion by my definition is used to instill common beliefs in a populace, and essestially to prevent rebellion. (Divine right of Kings, for example, or the Mandate of Heaven) By drawing the line between religion and philosophy at the point where the goal becomes explaining a preconcieved conclusion and not the furtherment of knowledge, we allow for metaphysical challenges to be engaged in the same arena as the rest of philosophical discourse. This puts metaphysical questions to the test of skepticism, whihc I as a philosopher belive is a good thing. Religion is a tool that is often misused for such ends as the rallying of armies, I would say that it is this very misuse that places it under the term religion; If it were used in an individualist manner, I would place it well within the bounds of philosophy.

yeah, but science USES maths, especially physics. Yeah it has an element of trial and error, but its wrong to describe it as a which fits best system.

Actually there is a hypothesis that we have gravity, there is also an hypothesis for an expanding matter theory, both fit circumstances, but cannot be proven. Science is basically a vast amount of guesses which people seem to think they have right.

Yes, but unlike religion, Science encourages us to TEST each hypothesis to see which one is the truth.

It is in the encouragement of testing their hypotheses in which the two differ.

And there is no "hypothesis" that we "have gravity." The existence of gravity is a fact. You can test this by releasing a brick over your noggin. There are hypotheses as to WHY we have gravity.

There is, as yet, no "Test for God." (Well, there's the Great God Contest, but as yet no deity has been observed to take it.)

i have "faith" that george washington really existed but history isnt a religion
i have "faith" that 2+2=4 but math isnt a religion
i have "faith" that toby keith exists but country music isnt a religion

that i have no more understanding of electricity or radio waves than i have of the trinity doesnt mean that my faith in my toaster making me breakfast in the morning is religious.

Hehe... everything you think you know is simply a "belief". So to have a serious discussion, you have to define religion as something other than "belief". Otherwise someone gets to PROVE to me that the sky is blue. ;)

Religion: describes spiritual world, outside observable experience
Science: describes physical world, uses observable experiences

What do you mean it can't prove anything. If science hasn't proven anything then how the heck did we get past sticks and stones.

We haven't proved things like gravity, the theory just seems to agree with the world as far as we need it to. Believing in gravity is technically an act of faith, which is the basis of religion, but science doesn't require belief, it just presents useful assumptions. You might not believe in evolution, but the scientific system of classification that divides up the animal kingdom into ever-decreasing groups proves extremely useful in analysing the world. You might not believe in gravity, but it's a useful idea to be aware of when building a house of cards.

As for these big theories about were the universe comes from and how it started, saying you believe them is an act of pure faith, unless you happen to be Stephen Hawking or sim'lar. You may well have better reason to trust the scientific community than any religious group, but you are still trusting.

And there is no "hypothesis" that we "have gravity." The existence of gravity is a fact. You can test this by releasing a brick over your noggin. There are hypotheses as to WHY we have gravity.


It is not possible to have a noun specifically. Science just describes the world in a way that appears coherent. Perhaps there is a god out there who causes the brick to bust my head open, but since the theory of gravity describes what happens are far as it effects the brick and my head, we don't need more than that.

I actually took a course in college (a state college, not private) that argued this very point that religion and science are essentially the same thing, a core set of beliefs about how the world and people exist. It's been almost 20 years since I took the course and the notes from it are buried in a box somewhere, but let's see if I can remember some of it:

Not all religions believe in a supreme being (Buddhism for example), but the ones that do say he/she created the world, man, and the laws man lives by, which gives the reason man must do what the religion says, but also sets aside man's fears by offering explanations for the unknown. Science also offers an explanation for the creation of the world (Big Bang is one of them), the creation of man (evolution), and the laws we live by (sociology/psychology), and tries to offer explanations to everything else.
Religion has continually questioned it's own beliefs, even Galileo was working under the aproval of the Catholic Church when he theorized that the earth revolved around the sun, until he declared his theorum was absolutely true. There have been religious councils often through Western History, and I'd suppose Eastern too though I don't know for sure, which "upgraded" what was known or found to be false. These changes, and conflict over them, led to the spawning of new religions and the divisions of old ones. For example, Judaism led to both Christianity and Islam, Christianity divided into Catholic and Orthodox, Catholic spawned various Protestant sects, etc. Science also questions itself (one of the basics of science) and has led to splits within the scientific community, like the possibility of travel faster than light, what gravity is, and the true origin of man's evolution. Read a scientific journal on something like how old various Native American ruins are and you begin to see how heated they can get over that, let alone over who's god created what.
Both work on "proof" as well as faith. Religion's proof is the beauty of the world and its interconnectivity of all things. Faith comes in believing what can't be seen, but can be theorized by what is seen. Science's proof is what can be reproduced to show its connectivity and what can be seen, even if it takes powerful machines like electron microscopes to see it. Science also works on faith...it was only recently that atoms could be seen, up until then they were only a good guess based on how matter worked. Mars was obviously covered by canals and supported life, till it was found to be too cold, but now again may support life since new microorganisms were found able to live in such extremes, and may again be proved not to exist.
Bleh, this is getting longer than I wanted it to (sorry), but hopefully that helps explain how science and religion can be considered the same thing.

Science isn't a religion because it's built on proofs, concrete laws that define the natural world and explain its occurences. It's not a faith, a question of wanting to or not wanting to believe it. It's also not mutually exclusive with any religion.

If you can make the stretch that science is a religion, then...well, you ought to enroll at MIT or Princeton and educate yourself a bit more in science.


It is not possible to have a noun specifically. Science just describes the world in a way that appears coherent


Gravity is defined in the theory of relativity, so unless you are know the theory of general relativity like the back of your hand and can recite it backwards, you have no basis to call it as such.

You can argue over definitions however you want, but there is no denying that science and all the religions are very, very different. Show me a religion that basis itself on math and observation, rather than sacred scripture.

1. science has no morals.
2. science does not involve a higher being - we just revolve around ourselves.
3. science cannot make you feel emotionally better.
4. science cannot turn you away from sin.
5. science cannot guarantee life after death.


1) Pure science has morals, just as pure religion does... Someone who takes for granted the power they have (whether scientist or priest/pastor/etc) is no longer 'moral'....
2) Not all religions have higher beings...
3) If you worked all you life towards one scientific goal, and eventually gain it, would that not make you 'feel emotionally better'?
4) Anything can turn you away from sin, it's just a matter of disciple and method, religion is not a fool-proof method in avoiding sin...
5) For any religion to say "beyond a doubt" that there is life after death is beyond the scope of their teachings... Many do, I don't deny that, but it is inconceivable that any one religion can be 100% sure that their way is the only way... Who's to say that it's not scientist who reach the afterlife...

Okay, enough ripping apart this poor soul's response (I apologize) and say that www.dictionary.com refers to religion as (def #4) a cause, principal, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. That would lead me to believe that any scientist who truly loves their work and devotes their live to it is proving that science IS religion.

Thank you

Science isn't a religion because it's built on proofs, concrete laws that define the natural world and explain its occurences.

proofs and concrete laws like:
1) The Earth is flat (proven by science)
2) oops... The Earth is round (proven by science)
3) oops... The Earth is oval (proven by science)

Science is a system of theories and beliefs that have been 'proven' but at any moment could be wiped away by a new 'discovery'...

Religion is also just a system of theories and beliefs that many hold as 'true without proof'... not exact, but similar enough...

The earth is flat wasn't proven by science; it was actually from religion, I believe, because we had ancient Greeks/Romans (forget which) approximating the circumference of the earth...may have been something different, don't recall...but it depends on which ancient civilization you ask about the earth's roundness. It wasn't scientific. It was faith.

The earth isn't oval. It's round...I find your argument and examples very unconvincing. We discovered that the shape of the earth was round, and then we figured it out scientifically to exactness and factored in the bumps and such and figured out that it was not a perfect sphere.

Proofs and concrete laws such as Newton's laws, Einstein's theories, Quantumn Mechanics, and the String theories...Relativity replaced the Newtonian model much as it replaced the Copernican model (although Copernicus didn't really use science, more of the Greco-Roman style of figuring things out by thinking a lot)...because science keeps evolving and getting better, explaining more...the Newtonian laws aren't wrong, but the Einsteinian ones are better...

Find me a religion that basis itself on math and observation. You can't. That's why science is different from religion, and why science is secular. This is a trivial argument really, science is clearly a different thing from religion, as people who get degrees in theology can't pop into an astrophysics job and a biologist can't just become a minister.

People always like things that sound nice, neat, and pretty, so if you want to make the huge stretch that science is similar to religion, go ahead. I can make a similar stretch that elephants and birds are really quite the same thing, 'close enough.' Science and religion are different...if you want to classify them as the same, go ahead, but they're still different.

Religion isn't based off of theory and belief, it's based off of belief and relies on faith. I don't have a problem with it, but there's no testable theory in religion...

It's more based on your interpretation of what a Religion is.

If it is something of spiritual signifigance, than science doesn't follow, simply because it has no absolute tennants. Everything is theory.

The problem I see is that, like religion, many people who ascribe to science as a "belief" dont know what they are talking about. There is no reason that science should be against religion, since they try to do compleatly differant things.

Science: How
Religion: Why

Proofs and concrete laws such as Newton's laws, Einstein's theories, Quantumn Mechanics, and the String theories...Relativity replaced the Newtonian model much as it replaced the Copernican model (although Copernicus didn't really use science, more of the Greco-Roman style of figuring things out by thinking a lot)...because science keeps evolving and getting better, explaining more...the Newtonian laws aren't wrong, but the Einsteinian ones are better...


Still waiting for unified field theory baby!!!!!!

A day is the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate. So the earth cannot be created it 7 days since before it was "created", it did not exist and therefore could not rotate. So before the earth, there was no such thing as a day. It's called logic, you moron!
The sphere called the earth was created "in the beginning." Then the days are listed. So it did exist and could rotate. It's called reading, you moron.

can't you chumps even spell your own insults correctly?! my lord, the founder of this thread needs to remember Step One in the Big Book Of How To Write English Good: remove head from sphincter before opining on any subject.

no, science is not a religion, because, unlike religion, science doesn't CLAIM to prove anything. science does not make truth claims that cannot be directly backed up by evidence, and even then it usually doesn't make truth claims because human perception can never be completely accurate. no true scientist takes science on faith, no true scientist accepts any dogma (scientific or otherwise), and no true scientist feels an entrenched loyalty to tradition or established doctrine...all those things are, by definition, incompatible with being a scientist. scientists do not worship their theories, they test and attack them.

this crap about science being a religion isn't original. it's been tried by many people before, and it's always been just as stupid a topic. please just let it die, people...somebody is sure to make another of these in a few weeks anyway, so why bother responding now?

Find me a religion that basis itself on math and observation. You can't. That's why science is different from religion, and why science is secular.

Scientology.... it's not my idea of a fruitful religion, but it is a growing vision in religious circles... it's a religion based on scientific progress...

And since this is not a discussion of whether the earth is round or oval (disregarding the bumps...), I'll continue to let you believe that the earth is indeed a perfect sphere...

Sorry I can't stick around any more today, but I must now leave work and go out into the world... The perfectly spherical world... Night folks...

Scientology.... it's not my idea of a fruitful religion, but it is a growing vision in religious circles... it's a religion based on scientific progress...

LOL, Scientology is NOT, in any way, based on science. Scientology employs allegedly "scientific" methods that have long since been uncovered as utter quackery. it's utter science fiction, using scientific-sounding terms to tell a nice make-believe story. it is no more founded on actual science than Back To The Future was founded on actual physics. here's a summary of Scientology:

Scientology has (approximately) three stages of belief on what is called "The Bridge to total freedom". The final stage is secret, to be revealed only after sufficient "preparation".

The first stage of belief is essentially a pop psychology, as described in the book Dianetics-The Modern Science of Mental Health. Dianetics asserts that the mind has two major components (the unconscious reactive mind and the rational mind), and that all mental and physical ailments are the result of the reactive mind retaining and reacting on bad memories, called engrams. Dianetics claims that the cure to all these ailments is to rid the reactive mind of the engrams by a process called auditing, thereby enabling the rational mind (which is perfect) to take control. The auditing process is reminiscent of Freudian psychoanalysis, and requires the practitioner to think back and locate these memories, whereupon their effect is eliminated.

The second stage of belief is what most practicing Scientologists know. It ascribes the reactive and rational minds to a spiritual entity called the thetan, that is immortal and reincarnates through many lives. The auditing process introduces the use of a simple galvanometer, called the e-meter, to (supposedly) assist the identification of engrams, and extends the location of engrams not just to past this-life experiences, but to experiences in previous lives as well. This process is supposed to produce a "clear", a person with perfect memory and health, clairvoyant, and of immense intelligence.

The final (secret) stage of belief asserts that in fact people are composed of clusters of thetans that are the spirits of dead space aliens, who were brought to earth 75 million years ago by an evil intergalactic tyrant named Xenu (or Xemu), and who were killed with hydrogen bombs in volcanos by him. These spirits were captured afterwards by Xenu on electronic ribbons, and were given implants (a form of engram) that kept them from remembering any of this. Since each of these thetans has a reactive mind, auditing must be performed on all of the millions or billions of these to get them to "blow" (be exorcised), at which point the primary (or operating) thetan controlling the body will realize his godhead, with power over matter, energy, space, and time (MEST), including the power to create galaxies and life.

Science isn't a religion because it's built on proofs, concrete laws that define the natural world and explain its occurences. It's not a faith, a question of wanting to or not wanting to believe it. It's also not mutually exclusive with any religion.

Gravity is not a concrete theory: You're own citation of the Theory of Relativity proves that. What's wrong with Newtonian gravity that laymen and engineers use? It describes the effect of gravity in a way that is coherent with it's usage. The Theory of Relativity describes the effect of gravity in a much more complex way that is coherent to high physics. It says it causes space to curve, but it doesn't say whether it's gravitions or whatever. These are two different definitions of gravity.
If all the cups you'd ever seen had a capacity of 200ml and were red, you'd define a cup as a red vessel that holds 200ml of fluid. That doesn't mean that the white vessel with 'I love tea' written on it and a capacity of 450ml that I'm drinking from isn't a cup, it just means your definition needs widening. Physicists hadn't seen an instance where anything more than Newtonian gravity was required until Einstein correctly(within bounds of accuracy) predicted an apparent anomaly in Mercury's orbit, which wasn't anomalous using the theory of gravity put forward by the theory of relativity.

no, science is not a religion, because, unlike religion, science doesn't CLAIM to prove anything.

You're confusing fundamentalist Christians and Muslims with religion as a whole. When people asked Buddha about the teaching of other scholars, all he said was 'I don't teach that'. He didn't say it was wrong, he didn't say it wasn't useful. It's just that he had come to several conclusion he believed and that these conclusions would be useful to people. Scientific fundamentalism is inexcusable: At least you should know better.

Religion proves nothing and was a tool, much like money was, of the nobility (in many historic occurances and not all) to control the populus while expanding their power. Sciences strives for knowlege and understanding of what things are and how they work and most of all why. This is a deep contrast to religion which usually states things, which can never be proven, and doesn't want them to be challenged.

Science means "process of proving/disproving conjectures via the scientific method". Conjectures are basically untested beliefs. So science (the scientific method) is a way for people to test possible beliefs. The scientific method therefore, can be a process of religion forming, with religion loosely defined as a set of beliefs (leaving out the mystical practice/experience, basis of most religions). If we don't take science (including "personal science") to be "gospel truth" however, then it's not necessarily a religion, just "to have a good idea" about something. It's all in how society/people are affected.

Religion proves nothing and was a tool, much like money was, of the nobility (in many historic occurances and not all) to control the populus while expanding their power. Sciences strives for knowlege and understanding of what things are and how they work and most of all why. This is a deep contrast to religion which usually states things, which can never be proven, and doesn't want them to be challenged.

Actually, religious theory has been updated, there's just disagreement on which theory is correct, just like any new scientific theory isn't immediately accepted. We had the Ancient Hebrew faith which comprised of the Book of Genesis, that was updated by Moses and many other Hebrew prophets, then by Jesus and the Christian disciples, then by Muhammed(pbuh), and then by the ten Gurus in Sikhism. These are all stages of update and clarification of the word of God, if you believe it. Religion isn't some monolith, it's open to interpretation and new revelations.

The only reason there's no one religion is that it's impossible to determine within the bounds of certainty which is the correct theory. Whether Atheism, Christianity, Islam or Shinto is correct, we don't have reliable instruments with which to collect experimental data. These theories are then merely useful, like any unproven theory in science.

The only reason there's no one religion is that it's impossible to determine within the bounds of certainty which is the correct theory. Whether Atheism, Christianity, Islam or Shinto is correct, we don't have reliable instruments with which to collect experimental data. These theories are then merely useful, like any unproven theory in science.

There are mystical paths within every true faith tradition, leading to a common experience - union with all creation. This can be best exemplified by the Golden Rule:
http://www.reconnecting.com/docs/goldenrule.html

Simply wish for others what one wishes for oneself, for THIS ALL is also you.

Sufism, Yoga, Qaballah, Christians like Meister Eckhart, Buddhist practice and Taoist philisophy themselves, etc. all lead to the same mystical experience.

Hmm, what a strange and expensive world so many people here live in.


We are of course talking about science for the masses and comparing it to religion. Now the big difference appears to be that religion is accepted on faith and science is tested and proven. So apparently most of the posters here set up micro-enviroments in their bck yards to test evolution and prove it's validity. A question for you folks though, doesn't the shade from the radio telescope you use to measure the background noise of the universe cause problems?

Well I hate to say this, but from what I underdstand most of us outside of NS don't have supercolliders in our basement to test and prove string theory. I know these basic tools seem commonplace to you folks, but those of us who consitute the masses just don't have the time and resources to test and prove science. Instead we rely on people we call scientists to do our science for us, and have faith in them and thier conclusions. But of course this isn't science, it's just Science For The Masses, instead of the elites who seem to inhabit this forum. So how about you folks get away from you bunsen burners and and put down that text on K-K theory and come join us plebians in a discusion of how science for us resembles religion?

*Throws a science textbook at a priest nearby, and a bible at a scientist.*

I weep for the future of humanity.

*Throws a science textbook at a priest nearby, and a bible at a scientist.*

But ignorance is bliss, and we can't be bothered to actually learn about what we're talking about.

theres loads of religeous v science questions around so i thought id pose an arguement that one of my friends teachers has posed.

Science is a religeon (for the masses) because a) In general they are believing either what they are told or what they have read b) it cannot actually PROVE anything. (e.g. there are at least two different theories of gravity).

This is a watered down version and ill have to get my friend to explain in more depth...

Now i shall await the flames that are probably gonna come at me.
If science is religion and religion is religion and atheism is religion... then what isn't religion? It doesn't make sense, saying something is a religion if theres nothing non-religion to compare it to.

I'd just like to point out that comparing Science and Religion is bad, simply because Religion has it's views and if one hasn't been raised to believe strictily in the religion one can't believe all of it. Same goes for Science.

So in conclusion. Believe in whatever you think is best, or makes sense.You mean like there are at least 10 dimensions we cannot directly percieve, including at least two time dimensions, one of which flows parallel to our percieved time dimension and only affected the universe for approximately .09 milliseconds at the begining of creation?

*Throws a science textbook at a priest nearby, and a bible at a scientist.*

[Old Woody Allen Joke] Thankfully the Bible hit the lucky bullet that I carry next to my heart, thus saving my life. [/Old Woody Allen Joke]

For all of you who read Angels and Demons . . .

Let's all convert to New Physics, the science-religion developed by the late Leonardo Vetra!! and so begins the cult which would overthrow the Catholic Church