AnthonyGiarrusso
Member
Is science a religion? I've seen a couple of people claiming the "Science is my religion". I don't think science is structured enough to be classified as a religion. What do you guys think about this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is science a religion?
- Thread starter AnthonyGiarrusso
- Start date
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Well, science isn't a religion.
gnostic
The Lost One
Only science illiterates, (woo-woo New Age) quackpots and creation propagandists would say something so utterly stupid as "science is religion".
AnthonyGiarrusso
Member
I never thought science could be a religion, just like a man can never be a woman.
No unlike religion l science operates on observation and evidence.
Science can make that change from man to women or vice versa
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
Who, where and in what context?
I'm sure some buffoon might have said it and actually meant it.
Doesn't mean it is actually a religion though.
**mod edit**
Last edited by a moderator:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I think it's pathetic of you to slip that part in there. We all know what you are implying here.
PureX
Veteran Member
Science is becoming the replacement for religion for a significant number of people. They see it as the source of their understanding of reality and truth, as opposed to the divinity of a God.
I believe they have short-changed themselves, though, by adopting the failed ideology of philosophical materialism to help them justify having made this choice. They are making way too much of science, and way too little of existence. And such a warped viewpoint will inevitably have a bad result.
No, science is by no means a religion.
But not for a lack of structure, which isn't at all a requirement for religion to begin with.
There are mythologies that want to be recognized as somehow scientific, however. They are very easy to distinguish from science with the use of a modicum of intellectual honesty.
But in any case, you really ought to specify what is meant by "religion" whenever you want to discuss it. The word is nearly meaningless.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What does that mean?
Explain in practical terms what it means.
Science as a methodology has very good track record of coming up with accurate answers to questions about reality, yes.
Do you disagree with that?
Do you know of a method with a better track record?
What does that mean? Is that a method of inquirey alternative to science?
How does it work? Does it achieve equally good, or better, results as science or worse?
If you think it's at least equally good, care to give an example?
What are you talking about? I though you were talking about science, which is a method of inquiry. Why are you know suddenly talking about "philosophical materialism"? Do you think it is synonymous with science?
What does that mean?
Can you give an example of such a bad result?
Well we know which one has better descriptions of reality - which is the sole aim of science. As to the divinity of God - which one and with what result? Divine as to what?
Bad result? Since when have religions produced much else - and continuing to this day. And all pretty much unevidenced, unlike science. Religions are still one of the major dividing belief systems - and possibly this being because some have rather warped viewpoints as to reality.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
No, science is not religion, but there are those (you’ll find plenty on here) who afford a kind of religious authority to their conception of science.
Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia once said “science students are distressingly willing to receive the word from professors and texts.”
Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia once said “science students are distressingly willing to receive the word from professors and texts.”
PureX
Veteran Member
The fact that you didn't understand a single point I made illustrates the great harm being done to people who are foolish enough to adopt this new pseudo religion of 'scientism'/philosophical materialism. And the more it spreads the worse it will get.
PureX
Veteran Member
Reality is comprised of far more than material physicality, which is all science can investigate and illuminate. And the fact that you completely ignored this to justify adhering to this new god of science only serves to show how blindingly dangerous this false idolization of science is.
Ah, yes. The worship of "evidence" as the currency of all truth and righteousness. That's gonna bite humanity in the butt, too. But the true believers will not be deterred. As they never are.Bad result? Since when have religions produced much else - and continuing to this day. And all pretty much unevidenced, unlike science. Religions are still one of the major dividing belief systems - and possibly this being because some have rather warped viewpoints as to reality.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And it doesn't occur to you that perhaps I didn't understand it because your post is drowning in vaguery and badly explained opinion?
I asked you questions to clarify.
Maybe you should get of your vague high horse and instead try to clarify.
I wasn't the only one with the same type of questions.
When multiple people have the same issues with your post, perhaps you should look at yourself first. Or at least also.
BTW: I explicitly rejected your comment about "philosophical materialism". Previously I have also explicitely rejected "scientism".
None of those reflect my thinking.
But you don't care, do you?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
For example?
I can assure you that nobody here looks at science as a "god" or whatever.
You are misrepresenting everybody involved in this conversation.
Do you care about that or not?
You seem to insist on telling us what we believe instead of asking us.
Do you consider that an honest debating strategy?
Nobody here "idolizes" science to my knowledge.
For me, science is to questions about reality as a hammer is to a nail.
A useful tool.
I no more "idolize" science then I "idolize" hammers.
And more such dishonest misrepresentation.
How?
Do you think valueing evidence is a bad thing?
That is true.
All the evidence in the world is not going to change their mind.
As Dr House once said: you can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.
PureX
Veteran Member
The reason you didn't understand anything I posted above is because when I've posted this information in the past, all you did was fight to dismiss, discredit, and disregard it. You never even thought to try and understand it. So as a result, you learned nothing from it.
Whenever you encounter something you don't understand, you immediately assume that there is nothing there to be understood, and you dismiss it as "gibberish" because you can't accept the idea that someone else may know something more than you, or something different from you. And again, as a result you learn nothing new or different. So why would anyone bother trying to teach you anything when you ask for clarification? They already know you have no intention of actually learning anything, and that you'll simply do as you always do and immediately fight to discredit and dismiss anything anyone else posts by calling it gibberish.
You really need to do something about this habit of yours before your mind ends up imprisoned by your own unassailable self-righteousness.