SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Science and religion are 2 opposite things, they contradict each other in many ways, religion is essentially something you believe in...and some people believe in science therefore i think science is a religion and it may be the biggest religion on earth. Even many religious people agree on some scientific theory, science is everywhere it taught in all schools ( I think) however religion isn't taught in many schools... Science is growing and i think it is overtaking christianity, islam etc...the main distinguishing factor between science and religion is that religion is based on the questions and science is based on the answers...religion is fighting a losing battle against science... agree, disagree?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,526 • Replies: 21

No top replies

I think we cannot consider science as a religion because the religions you are stating as examples base their system on the belief in the existence of a particular god, and science is a completely different thing, it's the knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts. Unless you use 'religion' as a particular interest or influence that is very important in someone's life. Besides, as you said, religious people believe also in science, so I don't think it will substitute actual religions, principally because religion is where science can't explain events. I suppose religion will always be filling gaps, and I think gaps will always exist. :wink:
cyn*

0 Replies

a black man wrote:

religion is essentially something you believe in...and some people believe in science therefore i think science is a religion

By that definition, justice, fortune cookies, acupuncture, intellectual property law, the Loch Ness Monster, racial profiling, the G-spot, bad luck, free jazz, communism, restrictive clauses, New Year's resolutions and the use of instant replay for sports referees are all religions as well, since those are all things that people believe in. Do you really think this is useful way to define religion?

a black man wrote:

the main distinguishing factor between science and religion is that religion is based on the questions and science is based on the answers

When theory and reality come into conflict in the world of science, reality wins; the theories are revised or abandoned accordingly. When theory and reality come into conflict in the world of religion, theory wins; reality is ignored or re-represented accordingly.

0 Replies

Re: SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

A black man wrote:

Science and religion are 2 opposite things, they contradict each other in many ways, religion is essentially something you believe in...and some people believe in science therefore i think science is a religion and it may be the biggest religion on earth. Even many religious people agree on some scientific theory, science is everywhere it taught in all schools ( I think) however religion isn't taught in many schools... Science is growing and i think it is overtaking christianity, islam etc...the main distinguishing factor between science and religion is that religion is based on the questions and science is based on the answers...religion is fighting a losing battle against science... agree, disagree?

You would do well to research the definitions of both 'science' and 'religion', then start over.

0 Replies

So civil rights would be a religion? Laughing

0 Replies

Science is not a doctrine. If somebody provided strong scientific evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, then scientists would have to reject the theory of evolution - Science would have "changed its mind."

Religions don't change their minds.

Science is not a religion; it is a method of acquiring knowledge about the world.

0 Replies

I believe in meat loaf sammiches, but it ain't gonna be no damned religion, because i don't intend to share.

0 Replies

I believe that free love is priced right.

0 Replies

RELIGION: A PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF FAITH AND WORSHIP, OR A PURSUIT OR INTEREST FOLLOWED WITH DEVOTION.

That is the disctionary definition for religion and I believe it is quite similar to Science, science is a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. Many scientists are extremely devoted to their work. Scientists also have faith, they BELIEVE and TRUST their SYSTEM of facts etc etc. They believe their conclusions are correct. Scientists don't really worship bacteria or atoms but they do have a passion and admiration for their physical and natural world.

You may disagree that science is a religion but i think that science and religion have been fighting against each other for a long time, The church took 500 years to apologise to galileo. Science and religion are like cats and dogs they don't like each other and i think this time around the church is losing to science.

0 Replies

I believe in the g-spot. And if you don't, my wife will kill you.

All in the name of religion, of course...

0 Replies

I am a Buddhist. The more science advances it only serves to prove the validity of Buddhism.

0 Replies

A black man wrote:

You may disagree that science is a religion but i think that science and religion have been fighting against each other for a long time

Certainly they have. No one here is contesting that. We're just objecting that science doesn't fit either of the definitions you posted: "a particular system of faith and worship" is way too specific to be applied to science since, as you mentioned, scientists don't worship science; "a pursuit or interest followed with devotion" is way too general to mean anything because it can be applied to anything.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I am a Buddhist. The more science advances it only serves to prove the validity of Buddhism.

Science only proves that buddism is some crazy stuff that it greater than we think.

Science is not religion....B/c you can believe science and religion, You cant be a muslim and hindu. But you can be a christian scientist. Calling science a religion is just a stupid saying to make the "god spot" more valid.

0 Replies

A black man wrote:

RELIGION: A PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF FAITH AND WORSHIP, OR A PURSUIT OR INTEREST FOLLOWED WITH DEVOTION.

That is the disctionary definition for religion and I believe it is quite similar to Science, science is a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. Many scientists are extremely devoted to their work. Scientists also have faith, they BELIEVE and TRUST their SYSTEM of facts etc etc. They believe their conclusions are correct. Scientists don't really worship bacteria or atoms but they do have a passion and admiration for their physical and natural world.

You may disagree that science is a religion but i think that science and religion have been fighting against each other for a long time, The church took 500 years to apologise to galileo. Science and religion are like cats and dogs they don't like each other and i think this time around the church is losing to science.

Truth does not have to be accepted on faith. Scientists do not hold hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! Amen.
Dan Barker, former evangelist and author

P

0 Replies

A black man wrote:

I believe it (religion) is quite similar to Science, science is a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. Many scientists are extremely devoted to their work. Scientists also have faith, they BELIEVE and TRUST their SYSTEM of facts etc etc. They believe their conclusions are correct. Scientists don't really worship bacteria or atoms but they do have a passion and admiration for their physical and natural world.

There's the basis of your error. Religion is wholly subjective, completely emotional, entirely self-referencing, based exclusively on belief, immune to question, correction or revision. it is by definition irrational. Science, in concept and in practice, is wholly objective, completely dispassionate, wholly dependent on and structured through multiply corroborative cross-discipline validation, based not on belief but on rational, critical, rigorous gathering, comparison, and assessment of data, dynamically self-correcting through continually questioning and revising itself as better data is obtained, it is by definition rational. The religionist is incapable of distinguishing faith and belief from knowledge and understanding, those having knowledge and understanding have scant need of faith or belief.

Quote:

You may disagree that science is a religion but i think that science and religion have been fighting against each other for a long time, The church took 500 years to apologise to galileo. Science and religion are like cats and dogs they don't like each other and i think this time around the church is losing to science.

Science not only has no quarrel with religion, it deals not at all with religion, as religion is purely, functionally, and foundationally metaphysical; the supernatural is by definition un-encompassable within the framework of science. On the other hand, religion perceives itself threatened through science's total, functional, and foundational disregard of the supernatural. Science doesn't give a hoot about religion, but religion has no choice but to oppose science. And, of course, that precisely is why religion is "losing to science"; religion has manufactured, through mere conceptual fabrication, and unreservedly has committed itself to, a fight which doesn't exist apart from religion's belief that there be any such conflict.

0 Replies

A pronouncement of there being no fight between science and religion isn't going to change the fact that scientists have been, and will continue to argue with the religious.

0 Replies

Ach, many scientists have been religious, I posit, though I can't just list them off the top of my head. Of the scientists I worked with, many were religious. No big deal. Some over the ages did have a bit of trouble with the organization of the time, Galileo, for example. Bruno... I forget what Bruno did "wrong".

Not that I know Galileo's innermost thoughts, though I have a book on it I haven't read.

Now then, to quibble - very unusual - with Timber, whose views I usually rubber stamp re religion, I'd say some religious people can change. I'm thinking of theologians who develop and may switch their ideas at some point; again, not that I can name them, but some of them are near scientific, or at least academically philosophic... the presently famous Ratzinger, for example. Not that I can pinpoint where he's changed over time myself. Kung might have. I don't know present theologians names.

0 Replies

Re: SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

A black man wrote:

Science and religion are 2 opposite things, they contradict each other in many ways, religion is essentially something you believe in...and some people believe in science therefore i think science is a religion and it may be the biggest religion on earth. Even many religious people agree on some scientific theory, science is everywhere it taught in all schools ( I think) however religion isn't taught in many schools... Science is growing and i think it is overtaking christianity, islam etc...the main distinguishing factor between science and religion is that religion is based on the questions and science is based on the answers...religion is fighting a losing battle against science... agree, disagree?

There is no dialectic between (real as opposed to I-slam) religion and science per se. There is a problem with evolution, but evolution is not science or any sort of a science theory; evolution is another false religion.

0 Replies

I would say basic science, in and of itself, is not a religion.
But would I say it's been religionized by many? Yes I would.

But hey, that's just me.

0 Replies

Re: SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

snood wrote:

A pronouncement of there being no fight between science and religion isn't going to change the fact that scientists have been, and will continue to argue with the religious.

Not quite right, snood - religion argues against science, science does not argue with religion, science simply presents its evidence and with logic and reason validates the conclusions drawn therefrom.

ossobuco wrote:

Ach, many scientists have been religious, I posit, though I can't just list them off the top of my head. Of the scientists I worked with, many were religious ...

Indeed many scientists have been religious, and many are - deeply so, perfectly honestly so. Those who are realize there is no conflict, they do not pursue the futile, ignorance-based excercize of trying to justify one over the other. Religion and science are two very different things, with very different aims, dealing with totally unrelated realms.

Quote:

Now then, to quibble - very unusual - with Timber, whose views I usually rubber stamp re religion, I'd say some religious people can change. I'm thinking of theologians who develop and may switch their ideas at some point; again, not that I can name them, but some of them are near scientific, or at least academically philosophic... the presently famous Ratzinger, for example. Not that I can pinpoint where he's changed over time myself. Kung might have. I don't know present theologians names.

Not really any quibble there at all - see the above. It is just as possible for a devout, sincerely religious individual to embrace science as it is fror an honest, ethical scientist to embrace religion. Again, all that is required is the understanding that the two are very different things, with very different aims, dealing with totally unrelated realms.

gungasnake wrote:

There is no dialectic between (real as opposed to I-slam) religion and science per se.

Evidently, your depth of ignorance extends to Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Nietsche, Hegel, Kant, James, Chardin, Popper, Adorno, Lyotard, Plantinga ... to name but a few. At least you're honest enough to offer intellectual bankruptcy right alongside moral and ethical bankruptcy ... ignorance and bigotry do so much for one another.

Quote:

There is a problem with evolution,

Only in that apparently it is above your level of comprehension.

Quote:

but evolution is not science or any sort of a science theory; evolution is another false religion.

Props where they're due; that stupid statement indicates a grasp of science is as firm as your well-evidenced grasp of philosophy. You've got consistency going for you ... but then we already know that. Ignorance and bigotry do so much for one another, as evidenced through so much of what you've posted, irrespective of on which side of what proposition you post. Your credentials, in that regard, are impeccable.

0 Replies

SCIENCE IS A RELIGION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know