Thread: Is science a religion?

Obviously, science discredits the idea of a God. It needs physical, reproducable 'proof' in order for it's practitioners to believe anything. Whereas religion has the concept of faith i.e. believing without proof.[/b]

Science doesn't discredit the idea of a god. Science can be a tool used to show inconsistancies in certain religious beliefs. Certain others (such as deism, pantheism) are completely compatable with any scientific discovery.

Hell, even christianity doesnt have to be at odds with science - its just when its adherents stubbornly... adhere.. to beliefs contrary to scientific discoveries. They all eventually got over a round-earth, I'm sure they'll all eventually get over evolution (which doesn't really imply anything about god, but thats another story) as well.

I'd say philosophy was just an equal tool for showing inconsistancies in particular faiths, why give science special status?

Then there is the question of whether Scientific Proof is actually proof at all, or just evidence which makes a hypotheses 'plausible', but doesn't prove it. [/b]

When you observe the constant effect of gravity millions of times - is gravity proved? Or is it merely a very plausible theory?

-spoon

"When you observe the constant effect of gravity millions of times - is gravity proved? Or is it merely a very plausible theory?"


Personally, philosophically speaking, it doesn't prove it. Althought that doesn't mean Im going to try to fly a million times in the hope that gravity will fail ;D

I was intrigued when a certain woman said "You know what my religion is? 'My children should pick up their socks.'"

Science is great, it helps (and hurts) But it's merely an observation, analyzation, and the charting of knowledge about the physical world (unless more worlds are explored). It's used for technological advances, but does nothing really, to change the universe, in an ultimate sense.

Depending on your definition of God, what do you mean by trying to prove God? If you hold in mind of Him as a tangible being being the goal of proof, then you will probably never succeed.

I don't think Science discredits the idea of a God. It merely does not mention God most of the time. God is a touchy subject for most people, so to enter that into this cold academic field would slow down intellectual progress. Inversely, a lack of knowledge in science doesn't necessarily boost faith in God. Besides, believing in God doesn't necessarily deprive one from studying the universe. For some, faith aids their learning in science, and for some, it may not. Also, depending on their motivation for studying science will influence their progress.

Remember this one distinction. Just because something cannot be proven, does not mean it's not true. And the requisites for proof are oh, so relative in the eyes of every person. For some, the magnificence of life is enough to believe in God, as well as the suffering of life being enough to believe in no God or a hateful God. And in no way am I asserting the idea of God to anybody. God and science are allies, I believe.

my dad is a scientist and even he thinks that a lot of theories have only found evidence to support them.... i mean, why would you create a theory only to go and find stuff that doesn't support it.

Originally posted by Maystar
my dad is a scientist and even he thinks that a lot of theories have only found evidence to support them.... i mean, why would you create a theory only to go and find stuff that doesn't support it.

You aren't really understanding the scientific method very well. Theories are only \"created\" after evidence (direct or indirect) has been found that supports them. Later on, if something is observed that contradicts the theory, it must be re-worked or tossed out completely. Take Newtonian physics, when certain observations were inconsistent with Newton's laws (which had been widely accepted for about 300 years) Einstein formulated the theory of relativity based on these new observations. Newtonian physics are still applicable in certain situations but relativity is a more complete theory. However, there are aspects of quantum mechanics that conflict with relativity, so one of those very reliable models of the world will have to be adjusted at some point (ie. to explain how matter and energy behave when enormous masses are condensed into tiny spaces (ie. the Big Bang, black holes)).

So to summarize, observation (and in recent times mathematics) come before theories, not the other way around.

Originally posted by AirRick101+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AirRick101)</div>

Science is great, it helps (and hurts) But it's merely an observation, analyzation, and the charting of knowledge about the physical world[/b]

Merely?

<!--QuoteBegin-AirRick101
God is a touchy subject for most people, so to enter that into this cold academic field would slow down intellectual progress. Inversely, a lack of knowledge in science doesn't necessarily boost faith in God.

I agree with the first part, and disagree with the second. Lack of knowledge leads to belief in a \"god of the gaps\". If you can't explain something, it's easier to say \"God did it, of course\". This is the trap that humans fell into a few thousand years ago, and we are just starting to climb out now.

Originally posted by LewisM
Obviously, science discredits the idea of a God. It needs physical, reproducable 'proof' in order for it's practitioners to believe anything. Whereas religion has the concept of faith i.e. believing without proof.

Kind of...I would say that science discredits the idea of a God in the same way that it discredits the idea of magical, invisible pink unicorns of the sea. It's not necessarily impossible, but it's completely untestable and pretty comical if you step back and look at the idea.

If you're really interested in this subject, I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's a classic about the process of science-- how discoveries are made, how theories are developed to match those discoveries, how science progresses. It also lays out the human side of science—how groups of scientists can become married to their theories and are reluctant to accept new, contradictory observations. However, science, unlike religion, is ultimately answerable to the observed universe. For that reason, although scientists do occasionally relinquish objectivity in favor of an almost religious adherence to a pet theory, science is not a religion. Most scientists, in fact, would rather know the truth than be right. Religion can claim anything it wants and use faith as its support. Any yokel with the gift of gab can start his own invisible pink elephant religion, but an invisible pink elephant theory in science would be sunk before it even hit a peer reviewed journal.

Originally posted by Maystar
my dad is a scientist and even he thinks that a lot of theories have only found evidence to support them.... i mean, why would you create a theory only to go and find stuff that doesn't support it.

On top of what brady said, this explains scientific method quite well

-spoon

There are times when theories are made first and then evidence found to support it later. I can't divulge but speaking from my dad's experience (who strongly believes that it shouldn't be this way for any theory) it does happen.

I know that what I'm saying sounds quite odd - Bradybraker, I agree that observation must come first before a theory is formulated. But, sometimes evidence is 'fixed' to meet the required theory and moulded to fit what has been stated.

Originally posted by Maystar
There are times when theories are made first and then evidence found to support it later. I can't divulge but speaking from my dad's experience (who strongly believes that it shouldn't be this way for any theory) it does happen.

I know that what I'm saying sounds quite odd - Bradybraker, I agree that observation must come first before a theory is formulated. But, sometimes evidence is 'fixed' to meet the required theory and moulded to fit what has been stated.

Sometimes certain predictions of a theory can't be tested at the time of that theory's conception due to technological limitations. Quantum entanglement, predicted by QM, was only tested and confirmed within the last 10 years or so. However, if you're talking about entire theories being proposed before there's any evidence whatsoever, you're going to need to give an example. This "can't divulge" stuff sounds an awful lot like a rather weak excuse for not doing your own research before posting and now finding your bluff called. Divulge or step down. If these are respected scientific theories about which you're speaking, they should be published in peer-reviewed journals, making them far from classified.

By definition
[size=18]Religion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[size=18]Science

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

By the book they are not at all alike. However I think some aspects of religion and science can go hand in hand.
Some aspects of both are based on beleif. More so with relgion. But many scientist spend their whole life trying to prove somthing that may be proved otherwise.
They both can become obssesive and reqiure deep study.
Both at times are rooted in blind prejudice.

Do not devout scientists also live by a deep faith? What is so mundane about faith that it should be placed below a man of science? Who says faith has to be faith in God or something transcendent to this reality. Do not many scientists live and work by a deep faith that there are laws of Nature to be discovered?

Isn't faith just being devout in something, in the sense of not doubting objects or goals which are not capable of rational foundation? I have faith that one day I will meet the right person and be married. There is no rational foundation to my belief in that, but there is nothing "religious" about it either if by religion we mean only a set of beliefs in God. It could be "religious" in the sense that it requires faith to believe it, continue believing in it, and working towards it.

All the scientists now working towards finding a unified theory, surely they must have great faith. If they did not have faith that it could be discovered, why would they be so devout in their work towards discovering it? Why would they work at all towards that goal?

What is a man of science without faith, but just clog in an assembly line?

I think it was Einstein who said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Now before we start having wars over the definitions of science and religion and in what sense Einstein was using them, just take a minute to think about what it says.

If I had my bluff called and was using weak excuses I would admit it. I'll step down because I can't add any more to this subject as some lines of work that people do really aren't divulged to their close families. I just thought that I would try and put a different perspective on things, having had a small snippett of information from someone that has worked within the scientific community. These theories etc are not going to be the mainstream ones that you find in books and publications, but stuff that is worked on behind the scenes - my main point being that sometimes theories (dare I say it) can be corrupt.

Stepping down.......!

dream-scape:

There is a difference between faith and religion. Religion implies a set of dogmatic beliefs while faith does not. Also, the issue was not whether scientists can be faithful, but whether science itself qualifies as a religion. Sure, I know many faithful and even religious scientists, but just because the field of science is inhabited by some religious people does not make science as a discipline a religion.

Maystar:

Then what your Dad is probably dealing with are hypotheses. Theories in science must meet a much stricter definition than in the common vernacular. A scientific theory requires a rigorous formulation and significant supporting evidence that has been review and replicated by other reputable scientists. Technically, Einstein's relativity is a "theory" although most people outside of science would call it a "fact". Hypotheses are generally borne of a "I wonder if this could be the explanation..." train of thought. However, the peer reviewed aspect is one of the safety and honesty-maintaining mechanisms within science. You're right that theories would most definitely become corrupt if no one had to prove the validity of their hypotheses and theoretical formulations, but that's why scientific ideas have to run the gauntlet before they are awarded with the title of "Theory".

Originally posted by Peregrinus
dream-scape:

There is a difference between faith and religion. Religion implies a set of dogmatic beliefs while faith does not.

That is only one meaning of the term "religion" and as I already said, I am not about to get into an argument over linguistics... they are pointless.

I would say that while science may not be a religion in the traditional sense, it has largely taken the place of religion in the lives of westerners today. I would furthermore argue that it is in fact a dogmatic code of empiricism, which is itself a blind faith in the accuracy of perceptions. I wouldn't call it a religion, but I wouldn't say that it isn't something similar.

Originally posted by Belisarius
I would furthermore argue that it is in fact a dogmatic code of empiricism, which is itself a blind faith in the accuracy of perceptions.

Oh no, not again.

the way i see it, both science and religon are tools.

tools for predicting the future (or small parts of it, to be precise)

they just typically have different scopes in what parts of my future they predict.

- science predicts my future upto the point i die, e.g. i throw a ball, i can predict roughly its trajectory.

- religion predicts my future from then onwards, e.g. after i die, i go to valhalla.

a scientific belief is typically based on a reasonable amount of positive evidence and negligible contradictory evidence. religious belief is typically based on no evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by dream&#045;scape+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dream&#045;scape)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

dream-scape:

There is a difference between faith and religion. Religion implies a set of dogmatic beliefs while faith does not.

That is only one meaning of the term \"religion\" and as I already said, I am not about to get into an argument over linguistics... they are pointless.[/b]

That is the difficulty with these type of subjects. You almost have to explore the the study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology,semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics in order to get to the root of the topic.

But in the end you still have people on two sides of the fence with their own beleifs. So these topics will most likey end up where they began.

Originally posted by Howetzer
That is the difficulty with these type of subjects. You almost have to explore the the study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology,semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics in order to get to the root of the topic.

But in the end you still have people on two sides of the fence with their own beleifs. So these topics will most likey end up where they began.

Well I have been down the road before, and in some cases it may be done in an attempt to get to the root of the topic, but it never does. And argument over language is a side-step down a road that leads to nowhere. Arguments over language usually stem from one or more parties being unaware of how another uses terms and blindly assuming that the way the other uses them must be the exact same meaning they have envisioned. If both were to realize this, they would see there really was no argument to be had.

I do think there is a place for linguistics, semantics, etc... However, I do feel that when an argument gets to the point that it becomes an argument over these things, it is pointless and meaningless, and really serves no purpose, because if everyone is mindful of the way others speak and careful not to get caught up in their own usage of words, it is clear to see that the argument never had to happen, because really there was no argument to be had.

If that does infact apply the the topic at hand is also a disagreement that should have never happened. As I stated in my earlier post, In the end you still have people on two sides of the fence, with their own beleifs. So these topics will most likey end up where they began.

I don't see how a topic of this sort would have went down any other road. Do you?

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

I see! Not a handicap? It is one of my biggest. I can see new patterns in
anything. I hate to be fixed. I have trouble and don't even want to trust
the ground I walk on. To me there is no difference between knowing the
earyh supports my body and the next minute it falling away. I mean i can
get my head around a comet striking earth and knocking the eart away of
gravity stopping to exists. because I lack information that such things
don't happen or when I do have tat info I can still find a loophole. i take
nothing for granted. Just because something the like the sun going up every
day doesn't mean we can rely on it to do so again, that is ajust a chance
game for me in ways. And mostly I go along with the predicted chance but if
the sun doesnt come up I wont' be as shocked.

Think of me this way: I ask you: \"Did you ever see a gnome?\" Your answer
will be \"no\". Then I say: \"If you never seen one then how do you know they
don't exist?\"

To me that is flawless logic. What does that mean to you? Am I right? You
have to admit I am right. There is something about that that is pure and
beautiful.
[/b]

- Vaipen from the schizotypalpdclub yahoo group (msg #717)

schizotypal's apparently have faulty pattern recognition, sometimes either seeing pattern where there is none, or no pattern where there is one (as exampled by the above).

but when one stops to think about it, how justified is all this confidence that we place in reality (i.e. science)? all the little things we take for granted and rely on, that all individually _must_ have some teeny but finite probability of being wrong or spontaneously changing. the sheer number must start adding up to some heavy duty numberage.