Poll: Science as a Religion

[similar.squirrel]

I think you're confusing philosophy with religion. Your average zealot does not ponder on existence.

 

[Lyri]

Science is no more appropriate for a religion than geography.

 

[kahlzun]

All that science is, at the core, is a logical method for checking your results to ensure that they're correct.

This is not a religious position.

 

[ThreeWords]

No, though it serves many of the same functions

Essentially,science tries towork out the hows and whys of the world we can see, touch, and to some extent control, like electricity or chemical reactions, while religion, fo me at least,deals with the hows and whys of what I cannot see or fully understand, like morlity or the nature of the soul

 

[Gigano]

Nope. Science is all about testing your beliefs/theories, and then either verify them as facts, or discard them as wrong - religion on the other hand is about stubbornly holding up dogmas in the face of increasing indications and evidence of their blatant falsehood.
Furthermore, science does not have ethical (dogmatic) implications, and thus cannot guide one on that one - this must be left to (secular) philosophy.

I think you're confusing philosophy with religion. Your average zealot does not ponder on existence.

This actually ties in to something I've noticed in the debate between Atheists/anti-religious people and religious ones - often they have entirely different concepts of what the term of "religion" constitues. I got into a passionate debate with a (moderate) christian acquiantence about the evil of religion as a whole, but in the end we were both quite amazed to find out that, given that I defined religion as dogmas and religious organisations (with their horrible deeds past and present), and he defined this as only a (negative) fraction of religion, incorporating much that I would term (positive) philosophy and humanism in the term as well, we were actually in complete agreement.

So in the end, the ethical views on what is negative about religion of the anti-religious atheist, might not be any different from the moderate religious human - It's all about definitions...

 

[anNIALLator]

No. Science is a tool box, not some comforting airy fairy story.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Nope. Science is all about testing your beliefs/theories, and then either verify them as facts, or discard them as wrong - religion on the other hand is about stubbornly holding up dogmas in the face of increasing indications and evidence of their blatant falsehood.
Furthermore, science does not have ethical (dogmatic) implications, and thus cannot guide one on that one - this must be left to (secular) philosophy.

Religion is not dogmatic. Only people are dogmatic. And not all religious people are dogmatic.

In implying that they are, you have proved your own.... dogmaticness?

Religion still holds on to beliefs that just don't make sense, or just aren't practical. Such as homosexuality. The only reason they still oppose it is because their belief structure tells them not to question the reasoning behind it, only to join the mob and feel the hate.

In the Christian USA homosexuality is now tolerated and in some places accepted completely. In the atheist state of North Korea it is punishable by death. This kind of shoots down your claim.

 

[siege_1302]

-snip-
But there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. I find the faith that these kinds of people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

Religion is about utter conviction from a personal emotional view point.

No. Religion does not require "utter conviction". That is fundamentalism, and can come from the anti-religious as well as the religious.

You're right in the sense that 'we' in the sense of humanity as a whole aren't moving anywhere specific, but we have made what could be called 'progress'. Life, as a whole, is a lot better than it was (at least in some places).
Similarly, I recall you recently made a point which taught me a lesson: people will kill people, regardless of motivations. Atheists and the religious will do this. So, blaming science for things like industrial killing is...well, shaky, at best. Better to just blame people as a whole and be done with it.

Besides, faith in science and reason doesn't necessarily mean faith that science will lead us all to human salvation. The most you can say about science (or the scientific method) is that it is an admirable attempt to find out more about the universe we live in. If people think that it will bring them 'salvation' (and that word bothers me, it's very loose in terms of definition) then it is surely a misguided faith.

Also, religion works better with utter conviction, you must admit. The difference between religious conviction and atheist conviction is that if an atheist were presented with irrefutable proof of gods existance, they'd change their mind. That is, unless they didn't really get the point of atheism.

Also, if you want to take pot shots at the god delusion I'd be more than happy to chat about it in PM. I have a soft spot for Mr Dawkins.

 

[lenin_117]

SNIPITTY SNIP SNIP
Anyway, that's why I disagree with the statement that science can serve as a religion, and I suppose this also explains why I disagree when people say that science and religion conflict with each other.

On a tangent here but science and religion conflict because of the gaping flaws in the bible (not just the christian one) and the idea that it can be taught as science. Oh, and I don't think that science is a religion because religion implies faith, and science doesn't require your faith, only your senses. Unless you go quantum.

 

[LGC Pominator]

well since I am actually a scientist i am gonna go with... no

I am still a Christian, and i believe in the bible up until it starts to conflict with scientific proof, I have no love for the church and the current system by which they run things, but I generally do believe in God, since God is technically absent from scientific proceedings, then science can't really qualify as a religion, plus there is no real directive of moral values save for: "don't use this new technology to build a super weapon and kill every one!"

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Similarly, I recall you recently made a point which taught me a lesson: people will kill people, regardless of motivations. Atheists and the religious will do this. So, blaming science for things like industrial killing is...well, shaky, at best. Better to just blame people as a whole and be done with it.

Right before the words "industrial killing" I said:-

So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad.

Also, religion works better with utter conviction, you must admit.

Of course it doesn't. Religion works better when it doesn't have utter conviction and is able to question itself. This is the essence of true spiritual belief, not religious dogma, which contains no spirituality at all, which is what religion should really be all about.

It is the same with science. Scientific dogma is an oxymoron, as science must continually question itself. With certain people who have confusion about what science is, if you question a scientific finding you might as well be telling Fred Phelps that gay people can be quite nice - the reaction is the same. But any true scientific person would welcome questions, especially questions that are difficult to answer, as they would enhance and improve his own views. Same with religion. An intelligent religious person would welcome questions that make him challenge his own faith, as it would help his religion grow and improve to fit into the real world in which it has to exist.

The difference between religious conviction and atheist conviction is that if an atheist were presented with irrefutable proof of gods existance, they'd change their mind. That is, unless they didn't really get the point of atheism.

There is no actual evidence to support this. To say that atheist fundamentalist are any better than religious fundamentalists is to completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[yonsito]

Depends on your definition, doesn't it.
If you define religion as something you believe in then it's quite possible to say that you believe in science.
Faith and science is problematic though, see this handy chart by Mr. Grey: http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2007/01/15/science-vs-faith/

 

[randomrob]

Ever heard of Scientology? oh and DON'T START RELIGION THREADS TROLL!!!!!

 

[siege_1302]

Similarly, I recall you recently made a point which taught me a lesson: people will kill people, regardless of motivations. Atheists and the religious will do this. So, blaming science for things like industrial killing is...well, shaky, at best. Better to just blame people as a whole and be done with it.

Right before the words "industrial killing" I said:-

So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad.

Also, religion works better with utter conviction, you must admit.

Of course it doesn't. Religion works better when it doesn't have utter conviction and is able to question itself. This is the essence of true spiritual belief, not religious dogma, which contains no spirituality at all, which is what religion should really be all about.

The difference between religious conviction and atheist conviction is that if an atheist were presented with irrefutable proof of gods existance, they'd change their mind. That is, unless they didn't really get the point of atheism.

There is no actual evidence to support this. To say that atheist fundamentalist are any better than religious fundamentalists is to completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

On the first point: sorry, missed that there.

Second point: actually, religion DOES work a hell of a lot better without questioning it. We're not talking about spiritual belief here, more about the actual religious structure itself. To quote Martin Luther: "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." I know we're not discussing christianity especially, but it's an illuminating quote, I think. Religion is at odds with reason, in the sense that many core beliefs are incompatible with critical thinking and often don't stand up to persistant questioning.

Third point: Of course there's no evidence, we haven't seen proof of gods existance yet! Joking aside, the whole idea about atheism is that you're not just saying 'I don't believe' for the sake of it. It's about rationalising that the existance of god is extremely unlikely and/or impossible. Another quote, this time from Kurt Wise: "if all the evidence in the world turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
This sentiment is almost entirely against the principles of atheism.

Plus, to argue semantics to be funny, technically all atheists are fundamentalists. You can't get much more fundamental than 'god doesn't exist'. That's basically it.

 

[Kinguendo]

Science isnt faith based... religion is.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Second point: actually, religion DOES work a hell of a lot better without questioning it. We're not talking about spiritual belief here, more about the actual religious structure itself. To quote Martin Luther: "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason." I know we're not discussing christianity especially, but it's an illuminating quote, I think. Religion is at odds with reason, in the sense that many core beliefs are incompatible with critical thinking and often don't stand up to persistant questioning.

I disagree with Martin Luther. Religion isn't at odds with reason, unless the religious person takes the word of religion over their own experiences and knowledge. That is dogma. I would also disagree that we are not talking about spiritual belief. Religion is basically all about spiritual and moral direction. I will quote someone else who can say it far better than I can, physicist Freeman Dyson [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson].

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions

Third point: Of course there's no evidence, we haven't seen proof of gods existance yet! Joking aside, the whole idea about atheism is that you're not just saying 'I don't believe' for the sake of it. It's about rationalising that the existance of god is extremely unlikely and/or impossible. Another quote, this time from Kurt Wise: "if all the evidence in the world turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
This sentiment is almost entirely against the principles of atheism.

Rationality doesn't apply to religion. Not at all. However, that is not to say that belief in religion is irrational (which is the opposite of rationality, not it's absence). Let me ask you a few rhetorical questions (I am not asking you to answer these questions BTW, they are just serving as examples)....

If you wanted to have children, really badly, but found out that the woman you loved dearly was infertile. What is the rational thing to do?

A superb brain surgeon, who could save many lives, has been found guilty of murdering his wife for insurance money. What is the rational thing to do? (incidentally, saying that "lock him up because this will serve as an example to other brain surgeons who all are co-incidentally homicidal" is pretty much a cop-out because you know exactly what I am driving at).

I agree with you totally that religion is absent from rationality, where I think we differ is my assertion that sometimes that is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't completely over-ride what is undeniably fact (i.e. creationism and that kind of crap).

Plus, to argue semantics to be funny, technically all atheists are fundamentalists. You can't get much more fundamental than 'god doesn't exist'. That's basically it.

Not at all. There is a massive difference between "God doesn't exist" and "I don't believe that god exists".

EDIT: Also, there are many shades of atheism. I do not believe in god (or any form of omnipotent being), so technically I am an atheist. But I still have religious beliefs of a different sort.

 

[jeansandluck]

As morals seem to be being brought up alot in this thread on the religious side I though I might express my view that morals can be explained with science. Morals are part of the human instinct of self preservation combined with the human characteristic of utilising and manipulating relationships to gain an advantage. In short, morals are learned and formed through the natural human instinct to seek acceptance amongst groups to ensure protection by being in those groups.

Employing a God to justify the existance of something is pointless as the very next logical question would be one of "then who created God?" the reason that question rarely comes to the surface is because a vast majority of children are taught from young ages to just accept it and not question it. A very useful tactic for ensuring that your followers do as they're told.

I personaly believe in the existance of spirits and that aspect of religion but for the most part I am of the firm opinion that the majority of religious teachings exist to flimsily explain what people of the time they were created, 2000+ years ago had no hope of investigating scientifically, they were created to keep the majority of people satisfied.

 

[Spacelord]

I think that religion usually also acts as a moral compass of sorts. And science is in essence amoral (as in: nothing to do with morality. Contrast: immoral). The nature of good and bad is by definition metaphysical.

 

[scotth266]

Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that a religion thread was started by someone with a nuclear explosion for an avatar?

I can honestly say that I have no idea why that would be ironic in the slightest. Would you mind explaining?

Religion threads tend to turn into flamewars. This one's well on the way.

Your avatar is that of a nuclear explosion.

Hence, irony.

 

[Woodsey]

No, because its science. Not religion.

Science = facts and estimates and such.

Religion = blind faith.