NationStates Jolt Archive

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?

I believe in both.

There is a God.
There was a big bang.
There is evolution.

Science is not a religion.

It's missing the core element of what makes a religion a religion . . .

And there's no leaps of faith, because there are experimentations that can be done to prove something.

Is science a religion?

No, but it operates on the basis of certain primitive assumptions.

I believe in both.

There is a God.
There was a big bang.
There is evolution.

K. While that doesn't make sense, ok. Care to elaborate?

Me, I believe that God has control, but chooses not to exercise it too often. How we came about, and how the earth came about, I don't know for sure, but I believe God had at least something to do with it.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?
science isn't a religion, that has to be the most rediculous thing ever.

for one thing, science has no strict dogma, sure there are some assumptions, but work is done to verify those assumptions and such assumptions are only really in place because they seem to work in the first place, they aren't baseless.

you don't believe in physics, you learn physics and understand it.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?

The idea behind science is to make as few assumptions as possible and to collect facts to then create a theory that fits the facts, nothing in science is ever deemed an absolute truth, only a theory the fits the known facts. How can science be a religion when all it believes in is, um, nothing?

For the most part, science is based on the best available evidence, and adapts as new evidence is found. Most scientists would change their beliefs if contrary evidence was discovered. I'm sure there are also some who wouldnt change their thinking no matter what .... :headbang:

Also, there in no reason that people cannot believe in god and science (i do)

I believe in both.

There is a God.
There was a big bang.
There is evolution.

K. While that doesn't make sense, ok. Care to elaborate?

Me, I believe that God has control, but chooses not to exercise it too often. How we came about, and how the earth came about, I don't know for sure, but I believe God had at least something to do with it.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?
Science is not a religion. Science is open to questions and provides evidence for everything it claims to be true. Science makes no claims that anything is ever 100% fact. It leaves everything open to testing and revision. How is that anything like a religion?

Science is not a religion. Science is open to questions and provides evidence for everything it claims to be true.

No, it doesn't. Take for example the law of the excluded middle.

K. While that doesn't make sense, ok. Care to elaborate?

Me, I believe that God has control, but chooses not to exercise it too often. How we came about, and how the earth came about, I don't know for sure, but I believe God had at least something to do with it.

Your definition of God is not the only definition out there.

Is science a religion?

No.

A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith.

It doesn't even require little leaps of faith.

So, why do you science people believe in it?

Long story short: It delivers on it's claims.

The keyboard you're typing on? Product of science. The computer it's plugged into? If Quantum mechanics was wrong you wouldn't be using it right now.

Modern medicine.
Space program.

I'm going to have my eyesight surgically corrected by laser later this year... thank you very much science. Until then I'll be using my glasses to see clearly. Thank you again science. I'm 27 and I am NOT considered to be past the halfway mark of the average human lifespan with the odds being I have less years ahead of me than behind me, unlike if I had lived a couple centuries ago. If science was a person I'd send it a very nice thank you card. Probably with a cheque inside to help it keep up the good work.

You want precision... Quantum physics predicted the anomolous magnetic moment of the electron to a very precise value... when it was measured the measurement agreed with that prediction to 14 decimal places. And the equipment was only capable of accurately measuring... to 14 decimal places.

When you find a means of gathering knowledge that can rival that kind of reliability and performance be sure to let me know, until then I'm sticking with the method with the incredibly proven track record.

Science can be a religion. When it is, it excludes the supernatural and makes man God, or on the way to being God.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?

It's not a matter of "belief." The scientific method has proven repeatedly that it is the best method for hypothesizing, investigating and proving facts about the universe. Belief =/= proof.

Science can be a religion. When it is, it excludes the supernatural and makes man God, or on the way to being God.
Science is a way of studying the natural world around us. By that very definition it cannot make claims about the supernatural. Science excludes the supernatural in it's studies because it's not set up to learn about that. For instance would you use a thermometer to measure a fluid's viscosity? No. It's the wrong instrument.

For instance would you use a thermometer to measure a fluid's viscosity? No. It's the wrong instrument.

You obviously haven't heard the story about the man being asked to measure the height of a building with a barometer.

It depends on your definition.

If you base a religion as being a system of beliefs, then yes it is a religion. Since it is organized by a body of leaders and adhered to by other subordinates. Of course in science there is a lot more room to breathe than in most other religions of this definition since we haven't figured everything out yet so we have to be open-minded to new discoveries.

If you base a religion as being a spiritual exercise, to advance the spirit... Not in its current state, currently we are still trying to figure out the physical, so it is non-spiritual since we aren't focusing on soul mechanics, only body mechanics and physical mechanics. It will in time reach a point where it can explain soul mechanics.

For me science is supplementary, everything can be explained by science, it is only a matter of time. It though should not rule the beliefs, since there are some thing science hasn't explained, so it is incomplete.

You obviously haven't heard the story about the man being asked to measure the height of a building with a barometer.
Ok, but do you get my point? It's only set up to study the natural world.

Science isn't a religion, but some people believe in it religiously.

For example, not everyone knows quantum mechanics; I certainly do not. But what little I do know about it leads me to believe its viable as a Science. I have faith that it seems logical enough, I have faith that were I to learn more about it I would not discover that quantum mechanics was inherantly flawed.

That is my leap of faith, that something I don't personally know to be true is true. Science differs from religion in that at any time I can go and CHECK and MAKE SURE its true. Religion you go on faith, because how do you find out that you're right or wrong?

Ok, but do you get my point? It's only set up to study the natural world.

This does not prevent it attempting to find methods applicable to the supernatural: if we were to discover a scientific method for measuring souls, for example, then they would no longer be part of the supernatural world, and instead become part of the natural one.

That is my leap of faith, that something I don't personally know to be true is true. Science differs from religion in that at any time I can go and CHECK and MAKE SURE its true. Religion you go on faith, because how do you find out that you're right or wrong?

Nah, you can find out whether you're right or wrong. Post on the NS forums and have Bottle&Co. tear you up.

Science differs from religion in that at any time I can go and CHECK and MAKE SURE its true.

Nope: the only thing you can do with science is check that the hypothesis hasn't yet been disproved, which is not the same thing.

for one thing, science has no strict dogma, sure there are some assumptions, but work is done to verify those assumptions and such assumptions are only really in place because they seem to work in the first place, they aren't baseless.

you are suggesting that outside of science, everything else is baseless?

You obviously haven't heard the story about the man being asked to measure the height of a building with a barometer.
but that could actually work...

science and religion, while in some people function together, are generally separate entities being that one, science, is based on fact and all that can be proved, while one, religion, is based on "faith" as well as the word of others, who, notably, often lie.
science takes something, tests it many times until it is agreeably proven true.
religion takes something, says its true and says you'll find out..."later."

science dabbles into the supernatural as well, you cannot forget experiments that are being done involving ghosts and attempting to prove their existence.

one of the most major differences, however, is that religion is easier than science, and thus will always attract a certain group of people to it. something like losing someone to cancer will always be easier under the guise of "god chose to do this" because it makes things seem more purposeful while science can only offer that the tumor took over and his body systems failed.
the more we dig for answers and truths the better off we are.
religion should not be so afraid of the sciences....unless they have something to hide....

you are suggesting that outside of science, everything else is baseless?
no, i'm saying that unlike religion, if a scientific assumption is proven unfeasable or simply not true, it will get changed to something that is true. religion is a little more written in stone (well, organized religion at least, one's own personal set of beliefs tend to be more fluid.

but that could actually work...

Oh yes, in at least five different ways other than using the barometer to measure the atmospheric pressure - I'm sure that we could probably come up with a workable method of measuring the viscosity of a liquid with a thermometer if we wanted... I will leave this to someone that has a firmer grasp on exactly how viscosity is scientifically defined.

science dabbles into the supernatural as well, you cannot forget experiments that are being done involving ghosts and attempting to prove their existence.

..generally those don't really count as terribly scientific.

..generally those don't really count as terribly scientific.
Yeah, that's more in the shady realms of psuedoscience and parapsychology.

Science is not a religion in the slightest. It is a study of the physical world, and does not concern spirituality. Unlike the laws of any particular religion, the laws of science can knock you on your ass in THIS life. Defy the laws of say, Judaism, and covet your neighbor's possessions. What happens to you? Well, nothing really. Defy the laws of science and attempt to challenge gravity by jumping from the Transamerica Pyramid, and you go splat.

We do not know what happens in the afterlife if we say, break the ten commandments. However, we can be almost (keyword there) entirely sure of the consequences of attempting to defy the law of gravity.

I myself accept the reality of science, and at the same time, am religious. I believe in a supreme being. I do not believe that being has as much power in the physical as other seem to, but I believe he/she/it has absolute power in the spiritual realm. Science is fact, God is faith.

Oh yes, in at least five different ways other than using the barometer to measure the atmospheric pressure - I'm sure that we could probably come up with a workable method of measuring the viscosity of a liquid with a thermometer if we wanted... I will leave this to someone that has a firmer grasp on exactly how viscosity is scientifically defined.
?

well, you could measure the atmospheric pressure at the base of the building and at the top of the building and if you knew how much the atmospheric pressure on the earth declines as a function of height, then you could calculate the height of the building.

of course you would need a reasonably tall building and a very accurate barometer to do so.

alternately you coudl stack a series of barometers of a known height until they reached the height of the building.

the only way i can thinl of measuring the biscosity of a liquid with a thermometer is if you knew what the liquid was and how temperature affected its viscosity.

...i've been doing mechanics for an hour, i'm in a bit of an equation mood.

science and religion, while in some people function together, are generally separate entities being that one, science, is based on fact and all that can be proved, while one, religion, is based on "faith" as well as the word of others, who, notably, often lie.
science takes something, tests it many times until it is agreeably proven true.
religion takes something, says its true and says you'll find out..."later."

science dabbles into the supernatural as well, you cannot forget experiments that are being done involving ghosts and attempting to prove their existence.

one of the most major differences, however, is that religion is easier than science, and thus will always attract a certain group of people to it. something like losing someone to cancer will always be easier under the guise of "god chose to do this" because it makes things seem more purposeful while science can only offer that the tumor took over and his body systems failed.
the more we dig for answers and truths the better off we are.
religion should not be so afraid of the sciences....unless they have something to hide....

No, you guys are forgetting things, religion has fact too. And it isn't easier to accept "god chose to do this" then "the tumor took over". In fact it is proven that it isn't easier because many people leave God when the troubles hit.

?

well, you could measure the atmospheric pressure at the base of the building and at the top of the building and if you knew how much the atmospheric pressure on the earth declines as a function of height, then you could calculate the height of the building.

of course you would need a reasonably tall building and a very accurate barometer to do so.

alternately you coudl stack a series of barometers of a known height until they reached the height of the building.

The classical answers are:

1. tie the barometer to a length of string, lower from top of building until barometer reaches ground. Length of string + length of barometer = building height.

2. mark barometer-height units on the walls as you climb up the building. Barometer-height units * height of barometer = height of building.

3. Determine length of shadow cast by barometer. Determine length of shadow cast by building. Work out ratio and multiply by height of barometer.

4. Attach barometer to piece of string at base of building and operate as a pendulum. Repeat this at the top of the building and calculate the difference in the restoring force due to the distance from the centre of gravity of the Earth.

5. Drop barometer from top of building. Time how long it takes to reach ground. Calculate height from this, given that acceleration will be given by G.

6. Offer the barometer to the building's superintendent if he will tell you how tall the building is.

the only way i can thinl of measuring the biscosity of a liquid with a thermometer is if you knew what the liquid was and how temperature affected its viscosity.

...i've been doing mechanics for an hour, i'm in a bit of an equation mood.

Would measuring how long it took a given amount to drip off the thermometer, compared to a given amount of water or some other substance (assuming that we know the viscosity of water or some other substance) work?

No, you guys are forgetting things, religion has fact too. And it isn't easier to accept "god chose to do this" then "the tumor took over". In fact it is proven that it isn't easier because many people leave God when the troubles hit.
what facts are the belief in god based on, please enlighten me.

and it is easier to say it was god's will then renegade cells took over, reproduced excessivley, spread and shut down important organs for no apparant reason. it is a lot easier to think "well, they're in a better place" than "well, they're rotting in the ground" don't give me this "people turn away from god when bad things happen" it's been my experience that the opposite is true. people cling tighter to their god when bad things happen.

The topic name implies that the topic creator doesn't believe in science. I'd be interested to know where the computer they typed that on came from..?

Would measuring how long it took a given amount to drip off the thermometer, compared to a given amount of water or some other substance (assuming that we know the viscosity of water or some other substance) work?

(the barometer ones made me chuckle)

and that might work, though i think viscosity may be more a measure of how quickly a fluid spreads out than how quickly it drips... perhaps stick the thermometer through the middle of a circle with a diameter the size of the thermometer and then pour the liquid in the middle and measure how long it takes to spread to the outside...?

(the barometer ones made me chuckle)

and that might work, though i think viscosity may be more a measure of how quickly a fluid spreads out than how quickly it drips... perhaps stick the thermometer through the middle of a circle with a diameter the size of the thermometer and then pour the liquid in the middle and measure how long it takes to spread to the outside...?

We could always break both ends off the thermometer and empty out the mercury, giving us a graduated tube through which we could pour the liquid, measuring how long it takes to reach each graduation, and then compare this to the results from another known liquid.

what facts are the belief in god based on, please enlighten me.
There are threads on that, I am tired.


and it is easier to say it was god's will then renegade cells took over, reproduced excessivley, spread and shut down important organs for no apparant reason. it is a lot easier to think "well, they're in a better place" than "well, they're rotting in the ground" don't give me this "people turn away from god when bad things happen" it's been my experience that the opposite is true. people cling tighter to their god when bad things happen.

Not in my experience. Where you live? If there was actually no God, I would rather here the truth than some lie.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?
Science is not a religion. It doesn't have a belief system, a dogma. Science is not even a philosophy. Science is simply a method to find out how things work and it's based on observation, coming up with explanations and testing them. So you don't have to have faith in anything science says, you can put it to the test yourself.

Why do I believe in physics? I don't believe in physics, it's simply that what physics says happens, happens, and it can be tested.

Nope: the only thing you can do with science is check that the hypothesis hasn't yet been disproved, which is not the same thing.
No. Hypothesis have to be proven. Theories have to be disproven.

No. Hypothesis have to be proven. Theories have to be disproven.

The exact definitions of the pair are not well determined, but the underlying principle: that beyond its primitive assumptions science operates on the basis of falsification alone is.

Science is not a religion. It doesn't have a belief system, a dogma. Science is not even a philosophy. Science is simply a method to find out how things work and it's based on observation, coming up with explanations and testing them. So you don't have to have faith in anything science says, you can put it to the test yourself.

Why do I believe in physics? I don't believe in physics, it's simply that what physics says happens, happens, and it can be tested.

Science can become a religion. Take a secular humanist, he threw some philosophy on it and *blam* you have a religion.

Science can become a religion. Take a secular humanist, he threw some philosophy on it and *blam* you have a religion.

Nope: you have a secular humanist philosophy.

A secular humanist philosophy, that is a religion. it dismantles supernaturality. and makes man God, or on the path to God. man is man's saviour. it is man's choice to became good and stop all badness.

The exact definitions of the pair are not well determined, but the underlying principle: that beyond its primitive assumptions science operates on the basis of falsification alone is.
Huh? Can you elaborate and, if possible, cite a few sources? Especially about the primitive assumptions, I don't know what those are.

From my old days studying physics, the scientific method is observation -> hypothesis -> experimentation -> theory, at which point repeated observation and different experiments may lead to modify or disprove the theory; or to ratify it and then refer to it as law.

But that was some time ago and they may have changed it or I may have forgotten.

Science is not a religion. In the first place a religion is more than a belief system, because otherwise, maths and cooking technology, would be religions.

Religions require 'faith' in the unknown and the apparently unknowable. Science seeks to understand that which can be known and to increase the volume of things that are knowable and quantifiable. It requires no faith, in fact for best practise it requires a lack of faith, ie skeptism.

In science everything true is only true if and only if there is not observable evidence indicating otherwise. Observable evidence indicating otherwise can be introduced at any time, and all related knowledges are consequently adjusted until they are consistent with what is known. The same is not true of religion, as is apparent from reading a 'Flat Earth' or a 'Creationist' account of reality. The sole reason people believe such notions is because they feel to do otherwise would be to introduce a contrary knowledge to established religious doctrine. Such an attitude is not permitted in science (which isnt to say that it doesnt occur, but rather that when it does, this is contrary to science and so is not science, just as a priest molesting a child is not a religious occurence).

Although not every believer of religion (or any particular religion) doesnt necessarily esquew current knowns in favour of religious doctrines, the fact that one can ignore clear evidences contrary to religious assertions, is the defining difference between science and religion. Science is not dependent on some old thoughts and doctrines packaged in such a way that no one can even agree just what is the intended communication, nor is it beholden to truths of yestersday if today the evidence indicates, that yesterday we got it wrong. Science isnt a faith based belief system, it is the opposite of faith based systems. While it's true many people accept science on faith, this is their choice rather than an inherent trait of science. Scientific best practise is to have a skeptical attitude toward everything. Scientific assumptions are assumptions made for the point of further investigation, they are not commandments written in stone.

Something to keep in mind is that people who agree to the general accuracy of science are not always scientifically-minded. Many scientists, even, don't deserve the term. Indeed, anyone trying to call a theory a 'law' shows hints of just that lack of scientific understanding (Technically its the Theory of Gravitation, and so forth, not the Law of it. Laws may exist, if in theory, but it's not technically possible to know a law is a law, even if you do, in fact, come upon it.).

Many people, perhaps simply out of laziness, have some degree of faith in science (However, this can be argued, since one can theorize that if scientific idea A results in X, Y, and Z, then other ideas from the same source are equally capable of predictable results -- a theory that holds until someone screws up).

But, is science a religion? No. It's not even an entity. It's a method and a body of knowledge.

Is science a religion? A rather think it is a belief system of some sort and that it requires large leaps of faith. So, why do you science people believe in it? Especially why do you physics people believe in physics? If anyone here actually dosen't believe in science why don't you?
oh yes science requires HUGE leaps of faith, thats why it uses provable mathematical equations to explain things and researched teories based upon existing laws

oh yes science requires HUGE leaps of faith, thats why it uses provable mathematical equations to explain things and researched teories based upon existing laws
It's often helpful to put "/sarcasm" at the end of such statements; otherwise, people might take you seriously. Tone of voice doesn't translate very well over the Internet.