Is science a religion?

[Ella S.]

"Religion" is, admittedly, a nebulous term with many conflicting definitions.

If religion is about normative values, such as in NOMA, then science and religion do not overlap, because science is about facts.

If religion is about the sacred, then science cannot be a religion because it questions everything and leaves nothing sacred.

If religion is about shared cultural practices, then science is not a religion because it is a global body of knowledge comprised of people from many different cultures from around the world.

If religion is about supernatural forces, then science is incompatible with religion because science uses methodological naturalism.

If religion is about the mystical alteration of consciousness, then maybe there is some overlap with neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology, but they would still be distinct.

If religion is about setting forward doctrinal dogma, then science is not a religion because it is constantly changing, challenging, and questioning itself and its foundations.

There are many other definitions of religion we could get into, but I think this demonstrates that science and religion tend to be separate categories.

 

[Whateverist]

I think it's pathetic of you to slip that part in there. We all know what you are implying here.

Just another day at the office for a troll.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Not true at all. If anything does exist that science can't apparently relate to then I would hope some appropriate evidence would be there - apart from the wishful thinking and beliefs of so many humans. And if this was reality then they might at least coincide as to beliefs over such - but where this is not happening.

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.

Well one would have to be rather inward looking if one didn't see the problems that so many religions cause - and mostly because they won't accept evidence from progressive knowledge but would rather stick to some particular dogma, and such being evidenced by a solitary text all too often. True believers in what too?

One must remember that science mainly uncovers reality, it doesn't invent it, and if we misuse any of this it is still down to humans making the errors - not science.

 

[Secret Chief]

No.

Apologies for being so verbose in my response.

We're used to it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The reason you didn't understand anything I posted above

Who said I didn't understand it?
I understood very well. You were just wrong about most things. You misrepresent how we ACTUALLY view science.
And you seem to do it on purpose as well.

I'm just asking why you do that.

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.

Says the guy who insists on misrepresenting how people view science.
When you say such things, all I can do is correct you and / or ask for clarification.

All you can do in response is defensive drivel and these types of accusations.
This is your problem, not mine.

When I don't understand something, I ask questions.
When someone misrepresents someone, I correct them.

And again, as a result you learn nothing new or different.

Says the guy who will not care AT ALL that he completely misrepresented how people view science and WILL NOT correct his false views even after multiple people pointed it out to you.

So why would anyone bother trying to teach you anything when you ask for clarification?

LOL!

When someone doesn't understand something and then asks for clarification... why wouldn't you clarify?
Asking for clarification is a bad thing? Apparantly so, in your opinion.
I think it's hilarious how you first complain that I am dismissive and in the next breath that you won't bother clarifying when I ask for it.

If I don't understand something, what else can I do but to ask for clarification?
If I am dismissive, why would I ask for clarification?

It's hilarious how you contradict yourself....
But *I* am the one who's wrong here, ha?

For crying out loud............

Your projection is hilarious.

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.

Again with the projection.
You are describing yourself here.

I just pointed out multiple times how you misrepresented how people look at science and evidence.
I'll bet a million dollars that you'll just double down on that strawman and repeat those false claims.

 

[exchemist]

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?

No of course not. The two things serve entirely different purposes. Science is about understanding nature. Religion is about guidance to help you live your life.

 

[Audie]

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?

It's dumb

 

[Audie]

Who said I didn't understand it?
I understood very well. You were just wrong about most things. You misrepresent how we ACTUALLY view science.
And you seem to do it on purpose as well.

I'm just asking why you do that.



Says the guy who insists on misrepresenting how people view science.
When you say such things, all I can do is correct you and / or ask for clarification.

All you can do in response is defensive drivel and these types of accusations.
This is your problem, not mine.

When I don't understand something, I ask questions.
When someone misrepresents someone, I correct them.



Says the guy who will not care AT ALL that he completely misrepresented how people view science and WILL NOT correct his false views even after multiple people pointed it out to you.



LOL!

When someone doesn't understand something and then asks for clarification... why wouldn't you clarify?
Asking for clarification is a bad thing? Apparantly so, in your opinion.
I think it's hilarious how you first complain that I am dismissive and in the next breath that you won't bother clarifying when I ask for it.

If I don't understand something, what else can I do but to ask for clarification?
If I am dismissive, why would I ask for clarification?

It's hilarious how you contradict yourself....
But *I* am the one who's wrong here, ha?

For crying out loud............

Your projection is hilarious.


Again with the projection.
You are describing yourself here.

I just pointed out multiple times how you misrepresented how people look at science and evidence.
I'll bet a million dollars that you'll just double down on that strawman and repeat those false claims.

A person with anything remotely
worth saying has no need to make things up.

 

[gnostic]

One of the number of things where people equate science with religion, is that they forget that religions are about WORSHIPING some divine & spiritual beings with supernatural powers.

“worship” is one where the believers revere either the spirits or divine being with powers, that often come in the forms of prayers and performing rituals.

Science don’t require anyone to worship, pray or perform rite in devotion of such beings.

Plus, the so-called powers of these beings, are supposedly supernatural.

Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences (excluding Social Sciences) don't research on anything supernatural-related, as they are "unfalsifiable" and ultimately "untestable".

How do you observe and test gods or spirits?

You don't, because they unfalsifiable. Sciences would not be able to find evidence of either...nor would they find evidence for magic or miracles, or for some forms of afterlife (eg resurrection, reincarnation, etc). These only exist in imagination of men, which would include superstitions.

According to Ezekiel 1, four living beings, angels perhaps, each have 4 arms, 4 wings, and one head with 4 faces that of man, lion, eagle and bull, and the feet of calf. Is such a being possible in nature?

How are any of these angels in the bible be any more believable than the Greek Gorgon Medusa or the Minotaur, or the Egyptian falcon-headed Horus or ram-headed Khnum? Would any scientists in their right mind go looking for them?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

Science is very structured, but it is not a religion. It is a methodology. A body of knowledge.

What is this structure you speak of and why do you claim science doesn't have enough of one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.”

I don't know of many on here that fit that description. Not any really.

 

[The Hammer]

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?

No.

Way of investigation.

 

[cladking]

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?

Simply stated science is dependent on its definitions and metaphysics. It has no beliefs.

Many scientists however believe in science rather than understand it.

No. This is not funny! Nothing is funny about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No.

Apologies for being so verbose in my response.

Ya know, for a minute I thought you was gonna pig all the oxygen with that and kill me of asphyxiation.

 

[Eli G]

Even is science is not a religion, some people act like it is ... and the funny thing is that most of them are not even scientists.

 

[Bthoth]

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?

Science is a system of checks and balances encouraging a process of knowledge development. Learning so to speak. Many topics, many theories and yet open to new hypothesis.

The religions of Islam and universalism offer a venue encouraging others to write more or better works. Quran has an precept to that effect and universalism encourages people to add input on a weekly basis at their meetings.

Science has been assimilated to be a religion because of the label Darwinism.

 

[Eli G]

The term "darwinism" has nothing to do with the term science.

Science is a concept that doesn't depend on some kind of tags or labels. As much as an atheist can be a scientist, also a believer can be a scientist: a Hindu can be a scientist, a Catholic can be a scientist, a Buddhist can be a scientist, etc etc etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term "darwinism" has nothing to do with the term science.

Science is a concept that doesn't depend on some kind of tags or labels. As much as an atheist can be a scientist, also a believer can be a scientist: a Hindu can be a scientist, a Catholic can be a scientist, a Buddhist can be a scientist, etc etc etc.

That is true. Anyone can follow the scientific method. As to the term "darwinism" that is usually used by science deniers today. People that do not like the theory of evolution try to refute it by making it personal. Of course that is an error on multiple errors. First off it is just an ad hominem fallacy to go after Darwin for perceived flaws and try to use those to refute Darwin. That does not work. Second evolution does not rely on Darwin. Yes, he started the theory but it is well advanced past the start that he gave it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The term "darwinism" has nothing to do with the term science.

You can pretend, but it won't make it true.

A word on "Darwinism." For some reason, people who reject science seem to favor using this term instead of saying "The Theory of Evolution" (TOE). But the TOE today is not the same thing that Darwin taught. We have a much, much better understanding of what goes on given new evidence from genetics and the like. For example, today the TOE includes Punctuated Equilibrium -- something Darwin knew nothing about. At any rate, the correct term is the TOE, not Darwinism.

I'm sure that won't stop you. I find that it is quite common among creationists to think that mocking science scores points for them.

 

[cladking]

You can pretend, but it won't make it true.

A word on "Darwinism." For some reason, people who reject science seem to favor using this term instead of saying "The Theory of Evolution" (TOE). But the TOE today is not the same thing that Darwin taught. We have a much, much better understanding of what goes on given new evidence from genetics and the like. For example, today the TOE includes Punctuated Equilibrium -- something Darwin knew nothing about. At any rate, the correct term is the TOE, not Darwinism.

I'm sure that won't stop you. I find that it is quite common among creationists to think that mocking science scores points for them.

The ToE isn't all that far from being right. Darwin was completely wrong about everything.

But believers (et al) support the two equally anyway.