Should science be considered a religion?

[Scuba Pete]

No Netdoc but you and a couple other theists on this forum have a habit of never saying what you mean or are intentionally as vague as you can possibly be.

I detect animosity my friend. Do you contend that NO ONE worships at the alter of Science?

Obfuscation and shuck & jive.

It gets tired, if you have a point to make please attempt to make it in a clear and concise manner.

What about my rather lucid comment was unclear to you? It is my observation that many DO bow at the alter of Science. Am I not allowed to voice that opinion? Is only YOUR opinion valid? Should I be silent out of respect to your vague sensibilities.

2 minutes with this forums search engine will provide evidence of my lack of guilt.
If thats not enough I`ll paste from a few other forums.

Again, I have not accused you OR anyone in this thread. Methinks thou dost protest too much!

Your broad statement was extremely disingenuous.

What is disengenuous is your contention that I made a broad statement. I did not use the term "most" or "all"... just "many". That is what I believe and I have just as much evidence for that as you have that NO ONE worships at that alter. Get a grip.

You yourself don`t see science as a religion even if some of it`s adherents are devoted in their "belief"

Ah, there you are wrong. Many show more blind faith in their science that I have in my God. In that respect it has all the halmarks of any cult.

You yourself don`t believe Science should be taken from school curriculums.
You yourself don`t think Christianity should be taught in schools in any other sense but philosophically.

Of course I don't. While I don't support his apparent conclusions, I do feel that his premise has merit. That being said, I do believe that his suggestions were made tongue in cheek. You as well as others seemed to have missed the humor of his suggestion and are taking this WAY too seriously. Of course, I find humor in all of this and expressed as such. To which I must repeat myself: Bwahahahahaahah!

 

[gnomon]

Money works because we all believe that paper or metal (or numbers in a computer system, to get even more abstract) has some value beyond simply what you could use to to make or burn or eat or whatever. We've been known to lose some faith in it in the past, too, which takes a while to work back up. Community support, community belief, you can call it what you like

.

Actually I can agree with the concept of faith in the economic system.

Government works because we're most of us willing to buy into (in the case of my country) various democratic ideals that most of us take on faith. Gov't would work whether or not I personally believe in it, true, but if no one believed it, do you think it'd work (obviously that's not going to happen, but that's not my point).

Governments only work based upon the criteria set up for that particular form of government. Despotism works irrelevant to the desire of its people to follow it. Despotism stops working if the people can succesfully replace it. A republic works by the active participation by the people. Not faith. Works.

I'm willing to get onto an airplane because I believe that it will, in a vast majority of the time, remain in the air as long as it's supposed to. If I didn't believe that, you can bet I wouldn't get on a plane except in the direst need. Based on my past experience, planes stay up, and I'm willing to accept that this will continue to hold true in the future.

Experience, not faith. The first time might have been faith. I personally don't fly. In my case it's an irrational delusion.

Science requires the belief that the universe is as it appears to be/can be measured, and not some sort of joke G-d's playing, or some hallucination on our part, or whatever. Have to start somewhere, after all, and that's where science starts.

Science requires nothing of the universe. If it were true that science required that the universe appear a certain way then human beings would have never changed the model of the universe so many times. Cosmologists might be teaching the Ptolemaic system of the universe, for instance. Early scientists started to study the human body without any regard for the universe as a whole. They merely had to overcome taboos against cutting open dead bodies. Science got its start not so much by presupposing a model of the universe but actually measuring observations against earlier concepts of the universe.

 

[gnomon]

I can actually agree with NetDoc on his observation about people worshipping at the altar of science. If people can worship Paris Hilton they can worship anything.

Remember, people are very weird.

 

[linwood]

That being said, I do believe that his suggestions were made tongue in cheek.

You are mistaken NetDoc.

Simply read the posts the author of this OP has made and you will see he is serious.

You do more harm than good.

 

[hero]

Yes.

"The faith that theories can be revised when evidence calls for revision"

The faith you speak of is not the same as religious faith.

You do know the difference between Revealed Faith and Evidenced Faith yes?

The principle lived by is naturalistic, it is not supernatural.
Thats a huge difference

I understand the meaning. But the supernatural faith is not what I was addressing. But by leaving open the option of incorrectness you make yourself vulnerable to falsehood as a previous faith. It seems someone so enlightened would choose a better foundation for what they believe.

 

[hero]

Money works because we all believe that paper or metal (or numbers in a computer system, to get even more abstract) has some value beyond simply what you could use to to make or burn or eat or whatever. We've been known to lose some faith in it in the past, too, which takes a while to work back up. Community support, community belief, you can call it what you like.

Government works because we're most of us willing to buy into (in the case of my country) various democratic ideals that most of us take on faith. Gov't would work whether or not I personally believe in it, true, but if no one believed it, do you think it'd work (obviously that's not going to happen, but that's not my point).

I'm willing to get onto an airplane because I believe that it will, in a vast majority of the time, remain in the air as long as it's supposed to. If I didn't believe that, you can bet I wouldn't get on a plane except in the direst need. Based on my past experience, planes stay up, and I'm willing to accept that this will continue to hold true in the future.

Science requires the belief that the universe is as it appears to be/can be measured, and not some sort of joke G-d's playing, or some hallucination on our part, or whatever. Have to start somewhere, after all, and that's where science starts.

If you spend to much time trying to find what makes up life, you'll forget to live it.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Governments only work based upon the criteria set up for that particular form of government. Despotism works irrelevant to the desire of its people to follow it. Despotism stops working if the people can succesfully replace it. A republic works by the active participation by the people. Not faith. Works.

Experience, not faith. The first time might have been faith. I personally don't fly. In my case it's an irrational delusion.

Science requires nothing of the universe. If it were true that science required that the universe appear a certain way then human beings would have never changed the model of the universe so many times. Cosmologists might be teaching the Ptolemaic system of the universe, for instance. Early scientists started to study the human body without any regard for the universe as a whole. They merely had to overcome taboos against cutting open dead bodies. Science got its start not so much by presupposing a model of the universe but actually measuring observations against earlier concepts of the universe.

Despotism generally works because either people go along with it (which, on some level requires some belief that's it's the right thing, not too bad, not your problem, whatever) or because people are scared (that is, they believe not going along with it will result in harm for them). You need more than belief, of course, but it still comes in somewhere. I'm not saying belief is the only thing that humans have, but it does seem to show up a fair amount.

Nah, I have faith that experience is a good way to predict future occurences. I have faith that my memories of flying in the past were correct and not delusions. And so on.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said about science? I'm not saying that science requires the universe to appear in any specific way, or that there is indeed any requirement of the universe. But it is a fundamental assumption of science that the universe is the way it appears. The assumption is not in what it appears to be, only that appearances aren't completely decieving. Science assumes that the universe isn't like that Matrix, where what you see isn't really the way things are. I mean, you can get into all sorts of weird, philosophical, "how do I know this table really exists?" business, but then you're getting away from science.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

If you spend to much time trying to find what makes up life, you'll forget to live it.

No worries, I don't think much about this stuff outside of such entertaining debates as these. Most of the time my philosophy is pretty much what you said up there. But I do like to look at how things work, yes.

 

[linwood]

But by leaving open the option of incorrectness you make yourself vulnerable to falsehood as a previous faith.

How can you not leave open the option for incorrectness?
Humans are fallable, to not leave open the option for incorrectness one would be intellectually dishonest.

It seems someone so enlightened would choose a better foundation for what they believe.

What is "better"?
If you mean rational, believable, empirical, then there is no better methodology to rest ones "faith" on.
Nothing is perfect so it is best to understand and allow for imperfection.

 

[linwood]

It is best to scrutinize WHY we say some worship Science as clearly as others worship God.

No one here has more effectively scrutinized why some worship science than I have in these forums.
I haven`t seen you scrutinize it, I`ve seen you lampoon it but not scrutinize it.

But this is my point Netdoc.
This is not the OP.

The OP is that science is religion and you are supporting it either inadvertantly or callously.

If thats not what you are doing then your off topic and confusing the OP.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you contend that NO ONE worships at the alter of Science?

Do you contend that your question is at all relevant to his thread? What science is is not contingent upon what some people do. That you would turn a discussion of the former into an ad hominem attack on the latter is neither honest nor clever.

 

[michel]

I can actually agree with NetDoc on his observation about people worshipping at the altar of science. If people can worship Paris Hilton they can worship anything.

Remember, people are very weird.

People may be weird, but with all due respect, I think you are misusing the word 'Worship' here.

 

[Fluffy]

People may be weird, but with all due respect, I think you are misusing the word 'Worship' here.

Besides worship is not a requirement in many religions and so whether people "worship" science should not be used as way of deciding whether it is a religion or not.

I think my beliefs on this matter were rather effectively countered on two other threads. Science is not a religion because, in my opinion, it follows a standard to which no religions hold to (scientific method) and it requires a set of assumptions that in turn require less assumptions than those held by religions.

 

[michel]

Besides worship is not a requirement in many religions and so whether people "worship" science should not be used as way of deciding whether it is a religion or not.

I think my beliefs on this matter were rather effectively countered on two other threads. Science is not a religion because, in my opinion, it follows a standard to which no religions hold to (scientific method) and it requires a set of assumptions that in turn require less assumptions than those held by religions.

Quite; 'worship'IMO is being misused here;

Looking at http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Worship for the meaning,

Worship usually refers to specific acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion, typically directed to a supernatural being such as a god or goddess. It is the informal term in English for what sociologists of religion call cultus, the body of practices and traditions that correspond to theology.

Religious worship may be performed individually, in informally organized groups, or as part of an organized service with a designated leader (as in a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque). In its older sense in the English language of worthiness or respect, worship may sometimes refer to actions directed at members of higher social classes (such as lords or monarchs) or to particularly esteemed persons (such as a lover).

sh between worship (Latin adoratio, Greek latreia, [λατρεια]) which is due to God alone (see latria), and veneration (Latin veneratio, Greek dulia [δουλεια]), which may be lawfully offered to the saints. The external acts of veneration resemble those of worship, but differ in their object and intent. Protestant Christians question whether such a distinction is always maintained in actual devotional practice, especially at the level of folk religion. Orthodox Judaism and orthodox SunniIslam hold that for all practical purposes veneration should be considered the same as prayer; Orthodox Judaism (arguably with the exception of some Chasdic practices), orthodox Sunni Islam, and most kinds of Protestantism forbid veneration of saints or angels, classifying these actions as akin to idolatry.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Major_world_religions

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you contend that your question is at all relevant to his thread? What science is is not contingent upon what some people do. That you would turn a discussion of the former into an ad hominem attack on the latter is neither honest nor clever.

It's funny, but you seem to hold religion and in particular Christianity to a COMPLETELY different standard. Christianity is also NOT CONTINGENT on what many people do and yet you constantly castigate it for what has been done in it's name. Work on your consistency here and we might better listen to your protestations.

The issue remains, and Jay has not contested the premise, that MANY have a blind faith in science. Not only do they not understand it, but they don't even pretend to. In this aspect alone it resembles a cult and takes on the trappings of a religion. Of course, in Jay fashion, he would rather attack my MOTIVES and MEANS rather than discuss the issues at hand! No matter how you try to paint it, this herring is exceptionally RED.

 

[jeffrey]

To me, God created the laws of science, and when you examine science, you are examining him. People say God wants up to know him, which in part may be so. I also think he's smart enough to know we never will. When we explore science, I believe we are exploring God's creations. His true creations, not what is written about him 4,000 years ago.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's funny, but you seem to hold religion and in particular Christianity to a COMPLETELY different standard. Christianity is also NOT CONTINGENT on what many people do and yet you constantly castigate it for what has been done in it's name.

What would a good number be ... 10 ... 20 ... 50? OK Check my last 50 posts and show where I "constantly castigate it for what has been done in it's name". You continue to be grossly dishonest. Note, by the way, that I do not hold Christianity responsible for your deceit.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That herring is still exceptionally red. There are those who have read your posts that will agree with me.

Do you deny that many display a faith in science that exceeds their faith in religion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That herring is still exceptionally red. There are those who have read your posts that will agree with me.

That others might agree with your distortions is both irrelevant and underwhelming. At issue is (a) whether or not you can substantiate your whining complaint, and (b) whether or not it is at all relevant to this thread.

Do you deny that many display a faith in science that exceeds their faith in religion?

Never. Now, what does that have to do with whether or not Science is a religion?

 

[Scuba Pete]

So to many of us, "faith" implies a religion. Even with your curt dismissal of faith, any REASONABLE person would agree that many who profess science do so using a LARGE amount of faith.

BTW, calling me dishonest i.e. a liar is inflammatory. I have grown to expect such theatrics from you, but it does grow tiresome. Can you just stick to issues rather than trying to describe me as someone who closely resembles YOU?