Is science a religon?

[klubbhead024]

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Much as I disagree with Dawkins in some things, I think he's also right about a great deal. I'm with him that science is not a religion. I may think he's a bit delusional about human nature and has altogether too much faith in humans' rationality (I'm not quite sure where he got that idea from, to be honest), but it is not a religion. As he points out, it can fullfill some of the same needs religion fills, but religion is more than what needs it addresses.

 

[PureX]

Those who claim that science is a religion are trying to claim that one must have "faith in" the scientific process to "believe in" the outcomes of the experiments. And to some degree I suppose this is true. But everyone has faith in logic and reason, and everyone trusts in outcomes based on the evidence of experience. So if we're only going to say that these are "religion", then what isn't religion? Driving your car would be a religion, because to do that you have to trust in reason and the evidence of experience. Practicing medicine would be a religion, because you have to trust in reason and the evidence of experience to practice medicine. playing the stock market would be a religion, because you have to trust in reason and the evidence of experience to play the stock market. I mean, what human activity wouldn't be a religion by this definition?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Maybe it's the religion of atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that science is a religion seems to me to be based more on wishful thinking than on evidence.

 

[Pah]

Maybe it's the religion of atheists.

And humanism is another denomination?

 

[d.]

is that even a serious question?

or rather, why would i take that question seriously?

 

[michel]

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence.

I think that encapsulates the whole subject; I am surprised that someone even thought there was a need to spell it out.

 

[KingNothing]

A major difference b/t science & religion for me is that science can be duplicated. Two completely isolated civilizations can reach the same conclusions about electromagnetism, cell development, star formation, etc. Religion dates back to times when most civilizations were isolated. As far as I know, no two came up with the same religion.

I also really liked this point Dawkins made:

The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play. What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence.

Reminds me of people who have Christian cats, Jewish Dogs, etc..

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And humanism is another denomination?

It's a cult, I just know it! Don't drink the Kool-aid at the group meetings.

 

[Yerda]

I personally couldn't care less if people want to label science a religion. The value and validity of the methodologies would stand regardless.

 

[SB Habakuk]

Science is a part of empirical truth-truth that can be proven by terms and method- it is a lurid doctrines of proven solutions not a mesh of irrevocable facts
Science is However has a basis in Christian thought as it does not disapprove what is written in the Bible- in most cases-
Even Christ was scientific in the way he thought-his parables are ful of the horticultural ,astronomical and physics.

(To Every priest his Staff and to Every Philosopher his alchemy)

 

[gnomon]

Science is a part of empirical truth-truth that can be proven by terms and method- it is a lurid doctrines of proven solutions not a mesh of irrevocable facts
Science is However has a basis in Christian thought as it does not disapprove what is written in the Bible- in most cases-
Even Christ was scientific in the way he thought-his parables are ful of the horticultural ,astronomical and physics.

(To Every priest his Staff and to Every Philosopher his alchemy)

Does this post come with a decoder ring.

 

[SB Habakuk]

SCience is a rational of succesive thought- as emotion is to the Body so is reason to the soul.
Scientific fact = Biblical truth
Just as History bears up the Bible so does Science like when Isiah said - God sitteth upon the Circle of the earth
or Enoch failing to mention Earth among the planets
in both cases thousands of years after the given facts Science has come through to approve these statements

 

[Ozzie]

Science, for those that endorse it unquestioningly is as much a religion as any other in that it is a worldview based theory built from observation.

 

[Pah]

Science, for those that endorse it unquestioningly is as much a religion as any other in that it is a worldview based theory built from observation.

One of the solid cores of science is doubt. No scientist takes only the word of another scientist. The supporting data and conclusion from the "other" scientist must be reproducible by a scientist. Peer review is also a skeptical process. Science is NOT unquestioned and thus is NOT a religion.

 

[klubbhead024]

One of the solid cores of science is doubt. No scientist takes only the word of another scientist. The supporting data and conclusion from the "other" scientist must be reproducible by a scientist. Peer review is also a skeptical process. Science is NOT unquestioned and thus is NOT a religion.

If religon could be proved, would it still be a religon?

 

[klubbhead024]

With fact being the higer power, could it not be said that science is the truest religon??

 

[Ozzie]

One of the solid cores of science is doubt. No scientist takes only the word of another scientist. The supporting data and conclusion from the "other" scientist must be reproducible by a scientist. Peer review is also a skeptical process. Science is NOT unquestioned and thus is NOT a religion.

So right. That is why 'unquestioningly" is important. To the layman, science is a religion no? Just as much as a Christian faith born of familial induction is?

 

[Ozzie]

If religon could be proved, would it still be a religon?

If religion could be proved, it wouldn't be religion or science.:yes: