Science is Religion (1 Viewer)

[Mickyjaystoned]

Title: Science As Religion


These two ideals are not similar in the way they are, but they are identical in the way that ignorant and weak minded people use them as a basis for a better future.

The main religious ideology of the 20th century was that prayer and life with Faith was the best way of ensuring us a better future, a future of peace under Divine law, now this Ideolgy has evolved into an apocalyptic confrontation where Iran and Americas respective leaders both believe they are doing the bidding of God in their attempts to wipe "Evil" from the world.

The reason this political Ideology has gained so much steam is; The promise of a better future.

This is also the reason science has become such a popular alternative to mysticism and more understandably Religion, but is Science so differant?

What is the main force driving science?

Simple; technological advancement as the means to make a better world than anyone has ever experianced before, many say that science will bring an end to famine with GM crops, will bring an end to terrorism with hi tech surveillance, will bring and end to poverty with deforestation and planting of plantations for trade, will bring an end to war with the threat of Nuclear Weapons.

So science is perhaps the Rationalists religion, wherein people can put faith into scientific facts and then project these facts as a means of preserving or perfecting the human race's future, this is a completely unjustified and pretty much outragous claim, what has scientific/technological advance got us so far?

Well a few examples, Cancer, Global warming/climate change, decrease in biodiversity, two world wars, one cold war, the energy wars in the east, war, war, war, and war, Business run government,24hr surveillance, genocide, homocide, high rates of infant/child mortality, propaganda media outlets, internet terrorism recruiting, H.I.V and the bayne of my life, 24hr mindless consumerism and electric billboards.

If this is the kind of "progress" these rationalists believe will make the world a better place then by all means i think many who support science are as deluded as the Jews who think they are gods chosen people.

As long as scientists accept that they can not give us all the answers and that science can offer us no better a future than the apocalyptic religious/political designs of current world leaders then i hope the people will take responsibility for their own future and make peace.

Micky Jay

 

[Engimo]

Science is not religion because there is no supernatural entity or worship involved in science.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

So what do you say to people who hold the FAITH that science can offer them a better future?

Out of interest whats the Latin mean?

 

[Engimo]

So what do you say to people who hold the FAITH that science can offer them a better future?

Out of interest whats the Latin mean?

Faith does not entail religion. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, do you not? You have faith that you will fall if you jump off of a building - do either of those things constitute a religion?

There's a difference between belief and religious belief, you should make that distinction.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum (QED) means "that which was to be demonstrated".

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

Faith does not entail religion. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, do you not? You have faith that you will fall if you jump off of a building - do either of those things constitute a religion?

There's a difference between belief and religious belief, you should make that distinction.

Faith does entail Belief though, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow, i accept the fact that this is part of a cycle, a cycle that one day will come to an end.

I do not have Faith that i will fall if i jump off a building, i accept that Gravity affects the manner in which my physical body behaves on this planet.

There is a differance between belief and religious belief, there are also similarities.

My post was intended to be called Science AS Religion just to clear up, i know that science is not a religion, but Science DOES align itself with the very Christian belief in altering the planet to create a better world.

This is a point that you have chosen to ignore twice now, why?

What do you say to people who invest faith in Scientific progress offering us a better world for our future?

Do you think that is a realistic belief?

Then i put it to you that years of science repressing natural human need for religion has culminated in you actually adopting the core belief of christianity, that being that altering the world with your respective faith will create a better world.

 

[Engimo]

Faith does entail Belief though, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow, i accept the fact that this is part of a cycle, a cycle that one day will come to an end.

I do not have Faith that i will fall if i jump off a building, i accept that Gravity affects the manner in which my physical body behaves on this planet.

There is a differance between belief and religious belief, there are also similarities.

And that acceptance is based on an inductive faith that the laws of physics will continue to operate as they have been.

My post was intended to be called Science AS Religion just to clear up, i know that science is not a religion, but Science DOES align itself with the very Christian belief in altering the planet to create a better world.

This is untrue. There is nothing about the scientific method that contains an inherent belief that anyone should make a better world. Hitler's scientists used the scientific method to test horrific things and to sterilize an entire race of people - does that count as creating a better world?

The scientific method does not have any inherent belief system or world-view. You can be a Christian scientist, you can be a humanist scientist, you can be a scientist that thinks that everyone should be killed - it has nothing to do with science as itself.

 

[Gardener]

Let's not confuse pure science with applied science.

The first considers the question "how does this work?" while the latter considers "how do we use our knowlege of how it works to good use?".

Pure science relies on a specific lack of faith. One might possibly argue that applied science involves the faith that the applications will prove benificial, but in neither case does science really resemble religion.

 

[robin]

Science is evidence based, religion is faith based. They are diametrically opposed. Science is NOT religion.

 

[Engimo]

But what about the basic assumptions made by science, i.e. the laws of physics have always been the same (along with other assumptions that I've since forgotten). This means that science is faith based,

Inductive faith and religious faith are two entirely different things, galenrox.

Sure, my belief that the laws of physics will continue to act as they have been is one of faith - but inductive faith. Every single time that I've done something in my entire life, the laws of physics have held and I am therefore justified in my belief of future actions adhering to the laws of physics.

Scientific faith and religious faith cannot be equivocated.

 

[Engimo]

The basic assumption is also that the laws of physics always were as they are now. Most science on how things have worked in the history of the world are based on this assumption. Now it's a reasonable assumption, I won't deny that, but it is still an assumption, and thus belief in science is indeed faith based,

This seems like a meaningless statement to me. Most everything you do has some element of "faith" inherent to it. When you flip on a lightswitch, you have faith that it will work (most of the time), when you walk on the ground you have faith that it will not collapse under you. This sort of "faith" is absolutely essential to get anything done. If you don't assume that the world is consistent, how would you go about doing anything?

Yes, it is an assumption and requires "faith", but it is the most minimal amount of "faith" that one could require. Faith is not even a good word for it.

and it is a matter of interpretation whether or not it is religion.

Unless you're using some wacky definition of religion, science is by no means religious.

 

[robin]

But what about the basic assumptions made by science, i.e. the laws of physics have always been the same (along with other assumptions that I've since forgotten). This means that science is faith based,

Next time an apple falls on your head, try telling yourself that the laws of gravity are merely faith based.
The spectral balance of light from galaxies billions of light years away indicates that atoms behaved in an identical way that long ago & that far away, to how they do here & now.

 

[Engimo]

But I beg to differ, once again. From what I cabn tell, your stance on what seperates day to day faith from making something actually faith based is that one is faith based on evidence and the other is faith based on faith. Just as there is no evidence that there is a God, there is no evidence that the primary scientific assumptions are true either, and yet all of science derives from these assumptions.

No. Every single time that I have dropped a ball in my entire life, it has fallen. That's evidence, and that's where science and religion differ. Science asks for the acceptance of its principles on the basis of inductive reasoning and experimentation, religion asks for it based on... nothing.

So what seperates the two, on this most basic level? I personally believe in science, but we need to address things as they are. My outlook on the world is shaped by my faith in God, and your outlook on the world is shaped by your faith in these assumptions. You cannot argue the merit of assumptions with no evidence backing them, since factually they are equal, and thus your outlook on the world is equally faith based as mine, since our perceptions of things that are not blatantly clear, due to life experience (i.e. the ground won't collapse, light switches usually turn on the lights, etc.), are shaped based on our faith in these assumptions.

Like I said, scientific assumptions are based on inductive evidence.

I don't think so. I think science could very easily be interpretted as religion. It is a faith based group of people who believe certain things based on that faith. I don't think it would require too much wackiness to interpret it as religion.

There are no requirements to believe in anything if you are a scientist. You can be a Christian, Satanist, Jew, Atheist, Existentialist, whatever and still be a scientist. There is no world-view or morality or anything attached to the scientific method.

Also, there is no worship of a deity - that's pretty integral to the definition of a religion.

 

[128shot]

Science and how the world uses its abilities to create are 2 different things. Just because science helped commit x during a particular war doesn't make science bad, it makes people bad.

 

[CaliNORML]

Science demonstrates a cause and effect on a physical level, we can see it and demonstrate it in a physical way. Gravity, the orbits of the planets, even the weight of the Earth, though one never truly sees the force, the results are accepted.

Religion too demonstrates cause and effects as well, only on an individual level, we see results of principle applications physically here as well, yet they remain unaccepted.

Science says, "If I drop this, it will fall," gravity. Religion say, " if I help other without expecting a reward," that you and those around you will be happier and healthier. It also says, "have compassion," it is benificial both to yourself and others. The science of medicine proves these true today.

When practiced in science I am supposed to concieve of huge astronomical numbers in my mind, and believe in forces I can not see, except for physically.

Religion says practice these steps and you will enact a force you can not see, except for the proof before your eyes when you do. What was expected to happen when applied correctly, happens. Those around you are happier, and your body reacts positively to the actions.

Like science religion has to be practiced CORRECTLY, if you did a science experiment with out following and understanding all the steps in the procedure, (wrong numbers in a calculation), it will not work either.

Science has never seen the Earth on a scale, by understanding principle of our physical world we got the answer to how much it weighs, though not with our own two eyes. Scientists accept and believe it must be true as it works in the larger scheme of calculations, it must be true.

Religion says an invisible force will effect us in our physical state and enviorment if done in this way, exactly. I have seen this be true among people who apply it correctly, and it works in the fitting with the overall understanding of our world.

Science has been applied incorrectly, so has religion. Citing one or the others failed applications does not mean they are groundless, it was a misapplication of data in both and as such ended in failed results. This means there is not a problem with the reasoning and logic behind both, just the "experiment" was flawed.

KMS

 

[Tashah]

Science is a physical endeavor and relies on experience, critical thinking, mathematics, experiment, observation, and empirical evidence. Religion is a metaphysical endeavor and relies on faith and supposition.

One can prove neither the validity nor the invalidity of religion. By its very nature religion is subjective, and quite impossible to quantify. Science on the other hand is objective, and its very purpose is to quantify. Although religion and science possess philosophical tangents, they are not similiar nor equitable... hence the distinction between the physical and the metaphysical realms.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

The basic assumption is also that the laws of physics always were as they are now. Most science on how things have worked in the history of the world are based on this assumption. Now it's a reasonable assumption, I won't deny that, but it is still an assumption, and thus belief in science is indeed faith based, and it is a matter of interpretation whether or not it is religion.

Science depends on empirical data ie the observable. Religion depends soley upon feelings, emotions, and unverifiable opinions and beliefs. Science is not faith based..science is based on assumptions which are derived from observable phenomemon. Faith is based on nothing but emotions, opinions, and beliefs which are not testable and are not observable. That is the difference between faith and assumption and that is the difference between science and religion.

 

[Mickyjaystoned]

This is untrue. There is nothing about the scientific method that contains an inherent belief that anyone should make a better world. Hitler's scientists used the scientific method to test horrific things and to sterilize an entire race of people - does that count as creating a better world?

Yes but Hitler's whole thing was about creating a better race of humans to inhabit this world, although when we look at what he did we are brainwashed to think everything he did was for a horrific cause, however we do not mention that Joseph Mengele, Hitlers chief scientist and the aptly titled angel of death was accepted into America after the war to continue his work and perfect the mind control techniques that he worked on in Nazi Germany.

Hitler was working to make a better world, by genetically engineering Humans which is currentley a big scientific goal.

I stand by what i said originally, i see science as an alternative for people who would love to invest their faith in creating a better future but who don't like to believe there is anything more powerful than they're own will.

IMO science is as faulty as religion, science is limited by perception and is now being used to limit and control the human race.

We are seeing DNA from children being saved, we are seeing the NSA spying with hi tech surveillance on the american public, we are in the age of terror whereby anyone can obtain instructions on carrying out a terrorist attack, we are living in a heavily industrialised society that values the progress science has given us more than what is real in this world, we are investing our faith in science which IMO runs parallel to Natural Law.

I personally see Religion and Science as two sides of the same perception limiting coin, both these control systems require a heirarchy to tell us what is possible and what isn't possible, i don't believe mainstream science deals with reality, this is a conclusion i have made after finding out personally about our earth and the electromagnetic structure, geomancy and the study of earths natural energies a whole subject that science disregards as superstition, i believe the next ten years will see a return to Intuition and Ancient Mystic methods of investigation, as our perceptions highten and the earth begins to change drastically.

Science IMO has ****ed this world up, this is why i think people should question it as much as religion, regardless of alternatives i would rather be faithless than accept Science as a progression from religion.

 

[tecoyah]

Science has been applied incorrectly, so has religion. Citing one or the others failed applications does not mean they are groundless, it was a misapplication of data in both and as such ended in failed results. This means there is not a problem with the reasoning and logic behind both, just the "experiment" was flawed.

KMS

I suppose this leads to an obvious question:

If indeed science and religion have been applied incorrectly, what parameters do we use for correct application. In science I can see a concensus of language (Mathametics/Physics....etc) which can be used to set the basis for experiment, and eventual correction. But, What of religion.....what is the language of concensus, how do we come to agreement on a "correct" application of religion, when no one can agree on the language in the first place?
This is the underlying failure of religion as a whole. Faith creates dissent amongst the parties involved, and puts entire populations at odds.....simply because the books they use define the "Laws" differently. Whereas science will lead to unending experimentation designed to build agreement based on the observed outcome.
In short....one field is designed to clarify and eventually create a clean path....the other seems designed to make agreement on Data virtually impossible. So I am forced to ask myself a simple question:

Which path will lead to increased knowledge?

 

[Engimo]

Which path will lead to increased knowledge?

There is no way to glean new information from religion, it is static because of its inherent reliance upon dogma-based assertions. It's not as if you can subject the Bible to experiments that will somehow reveal more fundamental truths or better ways to be a Christian - all the information pertinent to being a Christian has already been revealed in its entirety.

 

[tecoyah]

There is no way to glean new information from religion, it is static because of its inherent reliance upon dogma-based assertions. It's not as if you can subject the Bible to experiments that will somehow reveal more fundamental truths or better ways to be a Christian - all the information pertinent to being a Christian has already been revealed in its entirety.

I would have to agree for the most part, though I have gained interesting perspective thru biblical scholars. Truthfully study of the Vedas was very enlightening on a deeper level...so I can see some gain from religious study. The issue comes from blinders placed upon the mind when Dogma replaces imagination, and growth. There are Many religions in the world....and I have found much in each of them. Thing is....Science has much more to offer for an inquisitive mind.....and makes for a far more interesting life.

 

[Tashah]

Yes but Hitler's whole thing was about creating a better race of humans to inhabit this world, although when we look at what he did we are brainwashed to think everything he did was for a horrific cause, however we do not mention that Joseph Mengele, Hitlers chief scientist and the aptly titled angel of death was accepted into America after the war to continue his work and perfect the mind control techniques that he worked on in Nazi Germany.

Doctor Joseph Mengele never set foot in America. Can you provide any bona-fide citations that stipulate this?

Wikipedia - Joesph Mengele

 

[UtahBill]

Science IMO has ****ed this world up, this is why i think people should question it as much as religion, regardless of alternatives i would rather be faithless than accept Science as a progression from religion.

Would you rather live like we did a thousand years ago? Religion via the Popes did its best to keep science at bay, but failed.
Without the progress of science, we would still be living in huts owned by the lord of the manor, sleeping on bags of straw, infested with all kinds of critters in our one and only coarse woolen garment, no underwear, no soap, no bathing, etc, etc, etc. The land owners had the right to kill a peasant for as little as poaching a rabbit. Peasants ate gruel for nearly every meal.
Our lives would be as they were then, brutish and short. Infant mortality would be 50% or better. Only the very, very rich would be enjoying life, the rest of us would be suffering through it.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So what do you say to people who hold the FAITH that science can offer them a better future?

Out of interest whats the Latin mean?

We can say to them look here and learn English.

 

[stsburns]

Science is not religion because there is no supernatural entity or worship involved in science.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Yes their is...Charles Darwin worshiped, but not supernatural.

Also Atheism is a religion without a supernatural being or worship.

Anything else?

 

[CaliNORML]

Yes their is...Charles Darwin worshiped, but not supernatural.

Also Atheism is a religion without a supernatural being or worship.

Anything else?

Please, can you define for me the principles of "belief" or principles Atheism involves?

I seem to have a problem grasping this concept, as I personally only hear what it is not, not too often what it is exactly that Atheists truly think of this world.

KMS