Poll: Science as a Religion

[MercenaryCanary]

The followers of religion do not fact check their things.
The followers of science do fact check their things.
This is the main, huge, and important difference as to why science can't be a religion.

 

[G1eet]

Then you're just as bad as any religious fundamentalist.

Not all followers are religion are bigots or retards, as you so eloquently put it. Religious fundamentalists and extremists are referred to as such for a reason.

Then please, get them off my street corners, stop them from bothering me as I walk to the train station, and keep them the fuck out of my politics. I wish, I truly wish I could be as open, as forgiving, and as understanding as I'm supposed to be, but when I'm confronted day in and day out, when I have my chosen lifestyle impeded upon by someone who claims to have "deific authority", then I have to rant back. I want to be free to live my life the way I choose, and not have maniacly idiots calling me on it every 10 paces I walk.

That's their choice alone. But you also have a choice. If they really get your blood boiling, get a bunch of other like-minded people together and file a large-scale complaint, or something to that effect. They'll complain that it infringes on their rights, but you also have your rights as well.

 

[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?

Is not the mere claim that a (theistic) god exist and is good a dogma in itself (as it is a completely unverified statement held up with absolutely no evidence to support it and held continiously regardless of any indications to the contrary)?

Nope. Because there aren't any indications to the contrary. No proof is not the same as dis-proof. Belief in an omnipotent being somewhere that kicked everything off is not dogmatic and not even at odds with science (it was a Catholic Priest who created the Big Bang theory after all). Belief that he made the world in 7 days then had a break out the back with a ciggarette and a coke? Yeah. That's pretty dogmatic.

This is why I stated a only a theistic view - not a deist one - as dogmatic. Theist views state that god is still intervening with (i.e ruling) the world (miracles, hearing prayers, shaping fates etc), and this I would state there are numorous empirical and theoretical indications agaist.

Right. The notion that god is... a guy... basically, is dogmatic an can really be dismissed. A "man", with a beard. We can agree to this. However, as a belief it isn't really unproved, just something that exceeds what you and I would consider reasonable. I personally wouldn't deride anyone for believing it, I just think they really need to look again.

To me, anti-theism is all about critizing the (secular) negative consequenses for humans (i.e. terrorism, gay-bashing, associating shame with things such as life, sex and abortion, furthering totalitarian views and divisions etc) of religion and belief systems not that they are illogical or (presumably) untrue. Thus I recognize that there are some (limited) systems of beliefs or individual faiths which does not bring about negative consequenses for anyone, and which I then have no critisism against - unlike religious belief systems, such as catholism, which condemns both the likes of you and me on account of violating their homemade rules. To the extent that anti-religious people condemns faith merely for violating science, then I can agree that is just as unfounded as religous moral intolerance (for adherence to science has no positive ethical implications in itself, just like adherence to religion does not in itself suggest that one is any more ethical than an atheist). What is important is the wheather a religion has negative or evil consequenses and dogmas, which any major religion (save perhaps buddism), especially the abrahamic ones, have had.

But I'm glad to hear that there are moderate christians who has enough common sense to ignore clear(ly bad) teachings of their churches.

The problem with criticising things such as terrorism, homophobia, abortion, totalitarian views etc is that there are even worse examples of such things occuring in atheist states. As homophobic as Texas may be they don't execute people for it as they do in North Korea, and as they did in other atheist states in the past. Take your other example, abortion, we have "godless pro-lifers" [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html] as well as pro faith pro choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm] activists.

The problem, once more, is dogma, and an attempt to force people down a certain path. If someone thinks that abortion is wrong I am fine with that. If someone wants to say they think it is wrong then I am also fine with that. If someone wants to campaign to ban it or make a law forbidding it (on religious grounds) then that is where the line is crossed from reasonable faith and into intolerant bigotry.

But atheism is exactly the same. Someone saying they aren't religious, I am fine with that. If someone says they think concepts of god are flawed I am fine with that. When someone starts campaigning to have people removed from academic institutions merely for being religious [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/31/religion-atheism-harris-collins-witchcraft] then that is where the line is crossed from reasonable atheism and into intolerant bigotry.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Nope, religion is based on faith and the belief of the universe being controlled by supernatural forces.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Religeon cant be proved and is about believe, science is all about proof.

So IMO they are completely diferent.

 

[Spitfire175]

No, because its science. Not religion.

Science = facts and estimates and such.

Religion = blind faith.

In pure technical terms, this is correct.

 

[Iron Mal]

Science and Religion are two different entities altogether for one reason, one is mutable and the other isn't.

Anyone else remember the toy kids got where you had to place shaped blocks into corresponding holes?

Science is like taking a lump of clay and pressing it into any of the holes, it can change as needed and can constantly update and renew itself as the situation warrants (in fact, it could be argued that the scientific approach encourages people to question things they observe in order to change and improve them).

Religion is like trying to force a metal cube into a triangular hole, it's not going to fit because, frankly, it is immutable and unchanging (if anything, fundamentalism and fanaticism are both evidence of this).

This isn't to say that there aren't examples of religious people who are open minded and modular in their beliefs and 'pro-science' people who are dogmatic and condemning but what I've stated above is as close as I can get to a generalisation.

 

[Player 2]

No science cannot serve as a religion. You can have a scientific way of thinking but you can't follow "Science" as there are no moral rules laid out for you to live your life by, it would be like following maths.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

No science cannot serve as a religion. You can have a scientific way of thinking but you can't follow "Science" as there are no moral rules laid out for you to live your life by, it would be like following maths.

You mean like cos, tan, and... erm... sin?

 

[siege_1302]

-snip-

I know. But that isn't the fault of the religion, that is the fault of the person. The fact is you will find most religious people don't believe genesis is fact.

-snip-

People did. What else is spiritual and moral direction exactly? It is a belief system, the same as religion. You can't show me morality on the periodic table, there are no justice molecules floating in the air, yet we all get outraged when we read about murders and rapes.

-snip-

Not at all. Science doesn't answer any religious questions... Why are we here? Does life have meaning? Is there anything more to existence than matter in motion? What is good? What is bad?

-snip-

No. This is not the position of religion, and frankly this is not the position of atheism either. From the article I quoted....

?We have more than one form of understanding,? he continued. ?The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics.?

The absence of rationality is not irrational. Irrational is irrational. It isn't "rational" to prefer Maralyn Manson over Mozart, nor is it "rational" to like skydiving. That doesn't mean that these things are in any way irrational.

-snip-

To leave someone you love dearly, who loves you, to inflict hurt like that.... I couldn't do it. My irrational moral compass which is the basis for my compassion. Compassion being that feeling that dictates you do not exploit the weak to gain advantage for yourself, but try to help them for its own sake. That feeling that is irrational, illogical, yet essential to who I am as a person.

-snip-

You can say that, but the fact is you are making a statement you do not know to be true, thus you are being dogmatic if you do. It makes a very big difference to those who believe in god.

-snip-

The belief there is no god. There is a difference between believing something and dogmatically asserting that ones beliefs are all indisputable facts.

1: I am deeply hurt on behalf of my friend that you would think that. Without the indoctrinating effect of religion on his mind as a child, he wouldn't have this issue. A lot of people don't believe that genesis is fact, true, but enough believe it to make it an issue.

2: People did. Exactly. So why is religion still claiming a monopoly? We DON'T get our morals from religion, that is the point I am making. Whilst there are no 'justice particles' we have acceptable behaviour for society which has nothing to do with religion.

3: Religious questions themselves are...well, silly. You may as well ask what colour is a smell. Questions like Why are we here? and Does life have meaning? are questions not even religion can give a satisfactory answer to. Simply put, NO answer to any one of those quesitons is truthful or meaningful.

4: Yes, the absence of rationality is irrational. It is a boolean operator, a binary 1 or 0, true or untrue, yes or no. If something is not rational, it is irrational.
I agree that there is no need to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis, but within limits. Basing a belief structure entirely on these things is encouraging their use in other aspects of life in which a faculty for critical reasoning is either helpful or essential.
Musical taste is, technically, rational. You find the sounds pleasing.

5: Yes, I know it would be a hurtful thing to do. Which is why I did make a point of thinking about other options. The individual must decide which option to take. What we know about you is that you wouldn't take the final option. Good for you. But another person could take that option after exhausting all others.

6: I do not know that statement to be true, but I can at least hazard a pretty damn good guess as to it's truthfulness. I feel comfortable making that statement because I feel confident that correct in saying it. I am NOT being dogmatic because I formed my belief of this matter from the available evidence, I would be being dogmatic to be following dogma.

7: I did not say it was an indisputable fact: that would be hilariously false, we're disputing it right now! But having taken into account what evidence I have seen and what arguments I have heard, I have come to the conclusion that there is no god. And, as an atheist, were I confronted with proof of gods existance I would be more than happy to change my position. Hopefully this illustrates to you the difference between being dogmatic and forcefully holding a position.

EDIT: As a side note, your moral compass is also VERY rational. It is rationally developed to help you to exist within society.

 

[Jaythulhu]

The problems in any society have nothing to do with attitudes such as your own, correct? Extremists do not equal the entirety, no matter which side you're speaking of.

On a side note, individuals may be more receptive to your argument if you showed a little more, as G1eet put it, eloquence to it. Then again, hate mongering and intollerance works for the extremists right? Oh the irony.

It's quite sad really, as I was enjoying reading the discussion of mature individuals in this thread. Unfortunately, it will now probably be locked as numerous others in the past have because a few can't keep it civil. :sigh:

Attitudes such as my own? I do so much volunteer and social work that I should be considered for sainthood.

but you are correct. I do lack eloquence. My speech is dictated by my emotions, which after a 16 hour day, admittedly do run high, especially when I've been dealing with the fallout of human psychopathy, most notably abused or tortured animals and/or women who've been at the forefront of domestic violence.

After seeing and hearing people use religion as a justification or a reason for depraved and disgustings acts for the last several years, I admit that I am biased and even antipathetic against those who claim to be religious or devout.

I do apologise if my harsh terms are offensive to some, but surely, the angle from which i derive my antipathy from are at least understandable? I know I'm biased, but whom, by circumstance or solidarity, isn't?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1: I am deeply hurt on behalf of my friend that you would think that. Without the indoctrinating effect of religion on his mind as a child, he wouldn't have this issue. A lot of people don't believe that genesis is fact, true, but enough believe it to make it an issue.

2: People did. Exactly. So why is religion still claiming a monopoly? We DON'T get our morals from religion, that is the point I am making. Whilst there are no 'justice particles' we have acceptable behaviour for society which has nothing to do with religion.

3: Religious questions themselves are...well, silly. You may as well ask what colour is a smell. Questions like Why are we here? and Does life have meaning? are questions not even religion can give a satisfactory answer to. Simply put, NO answer to any one of those quesitons is truthful or meaningful.

4: Yes, the absence of rationality is irrational. It is a boolean operator, a binary 1 or 0, true or untrue, yes or no. If something is not rational, it is irrational.
I agree that there is no need to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis, but within limits. Basing a belief structure entirely on these things is encouraging their use in other aspects of life in which a faculty for critical reasoning is either helpful or essential.
Musical taste is, technically, rational. You find the sounds pleasing.

5: Yes, I know it would be a hurtful thing to do. Which is why I did make a point of thinking about other options. The individual must decide which option to take. What we know about you is that you wouldn't take the final option. Good for you. But another person could take that option after exhausting all others.

6: I do not know that statement to be true, but I can at least hazard a pretty damn good guess as to it's truthfulness. I feel comfortable making that statement because I feel confident that correct in saying it. I am NOT being dogmatic because I formed my belief of this matter from the available evidence, I would be being dogmatic to be following dogma.

7: I did not say it was an indisputable fact: that would be hilariously false, we're disputing it right now! But having taken into account what evidence I have seen and what arguments I have heard, I have come to the conclusion that there is no god. And, as an atheist, were I confronted with proof of gods existance I would be more than happy to change my position. Hopefully this illustrates to you the difference between being dogmatic and forcefully holding a position.

EDIT: As a side note, your moral compass is also VERY rational. It is rationally developed to help you to exist within society.

1) I can't answer this, other than to say that people ultimately have to take responsibility for themselves.

2) Religion is claiming a monopoly? Well judging by the sheer amount of anti-theists trying to shove atheism down everyones throat some of them in this very thread, (and you NOT being one of them at all before you get that impression) I would contest this claim.

3) Religions that question themselves are not silly, but wise. As Buddha once said:- "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." And our own reason and common sense changes constantly with our life experiences.

4) Sorry, but I don't believe this. I can't apply boolean algebra to the Mona Lisa. Furthermore I find that black and white reasoning, not allowing shades of grey, to be the very essence of dogmatic thinking.

5) My point is there is no scientific method that can be applied to such thinking. There is no such things as logical ethics.

6) You don't know that statement to be true, you believe it to be true. And in making claims that you can't substantiate and can't prove, you are being every bit as religious as those you claim to be irrational.

7) No we are not. I do not say that god exists or that god doesn't. I merely say that belief in god and being a reasonable, well adjusted and moral human being worthy of respect are not incompatable.

 

[Gigano]

To me, anti-theism is all about critizing the (secular) negative consequenses for humans (i.e. terrorism, gay-bashing, associating shame with things such as life, sex and abortion, furthering totalitarian views and divisions etc) of religion and belief systems not that they are illogical or (presumably) untrue. Thus I recognize that there are some (limited) systems of beliefs or individual faiths which does not bring about negative consequenses for anyone, and which I then have no critisism against - unlike religious belief systems, such as catholism, which condemns both the likes of you and me on account of violating their homemade rules. To the extent that anti-religious people condemns faith merely for violating science, then I can agree that is just as unfounded as religous moral intolerance (for adherence to science has no positive ethical implications in itself, just like adherence to religion does not in itself suggest that one is any more ethical than an atheist). What is important is the wheather a religion has negative or evil consequenses and dogmas, which any major religion (save perhaps buddism), especially the abrahamic ones, have had.

But I'm glad to hear that there are moderate christians who has enough common sense to ignore clear(ly bad) teachings of their churches.

The problem with criticising things such as terrorism, homophobia, abortion, totalitarian views etc is that there are even worse examples of such things occuring in atheist states. As homophobic as Texas may be they don't execute people for it as they do in North Korea, and as they did in other atheist states in the past. Take your other example, abortion, we have "godless pro-lifers" [http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html] as well as pro faith pro choice [http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergy_resources.cfm] activists.

The problem, once more, is dogma, and an attempt to force people down a certain path. If someone thinks that abortion is wrong I am fine with that. If someone wants to say they think it is wrong then I am also fine with that. If someone wants to campaign to ban it or make a law forbidding it (on religious grounds) then that is where the line is crossed from reasonable faith and into intolerant bigotry.

But atheism is exactly the same. Someone saying they aren't religious, I am fine with that. If someone says they think concepts of god are flawed I am fine with that. When someone starts campaigning to have people removed from academic institutions merely for being religious [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/31/religion-atheism-harris-collins-witchcraft] then that is where the line is crossed from reasonable atheism and into intolerant bigotry.

Indeed, religious systems are certainly not the ONLY evil of this world - fanatical political movements (often taking the form of quasi-religious cults of a single flawless near-superhuman leader or "saviour" of the land, whose word is revealed law) have done as much damage, but religion is the most unneccessary and illogical of reasons for those evils (and thus the easiest to fight). Whatever positive things and principles say, cristianity, brought with it has long since been incorporated into secular humanism and justified by the secular philosophical schools, so the only thing it alone now brings to the table is the weird negative dogmas and dividing lines. One can easily argue on philsophical and humanist grounds that all humans are of equal worth (i.e utalitarism), but is hard to coherently argue that gays must be executed - that takes illogical intolerance, be it religiously founded or not.

Thus the fact that there are many other reasons for the evils in the world should not discourage one from combatting this one - at least to the extent that it actually IS evil, i.e has negative consequenses for any human.

 

[Borrowed Time]

The problems in any society have nothing to do with attitudes such as your own, correct? Extremists do not equal the entirety, no matter which side you're speaking of.

On a side note, individuals may be more receptive to your argument if you showed a little more, as G1eet put it, eloquence to it. Then again, hate mongering and intollerance works for the extremists right? Oh the irony.

It's quite sad really, as I was enjoying reading the discussion of mature individuals in this thread. Unfortunately, it will now probably be locked as numerous others in the past have because a few can't keep it civil. :sigh:

Attitudes such as my own? I do so much volunteer and social work that I should be considered for sainthood.

but you are correct. I do lack eloquence. My speech is dictated by my emotions, which after a 16 hour day, admittedly do run high, especially when I've been dealing with the fallout of human psychopathy, most notably abused or tortured animals and/or women who've been at the forefront of domestic violence.

After seeing and hearing people use religion as a justification or a reason for depraved and disgustings acts for the last several years, I admit that I am biased and even antipathetic against those who claim to be religious or devout.

I do apologise if my harsh terms are offensive to some, but surely, the angle from which i derive my antipathy from are at least understandable? I know I'm biased, but whom, by circumstance or solidarity, isn't?

We all are. That is not even a matter for debate here. Many individuals do volunteer work, both atheist and religious. Not once did I mention your volunteering habits or social work as those doings are completely unknown to me so I have no grounds to comment on them, nor do they truly have any bearing on the attitude that you showed in your original post.

Your attitude that was extremist and borderline dogmatic in itself because through your embracing of your bias to that extent, you let the individuals whom you've met who do use religion as a justification for such acts act as grounds to dismiss the entirety of people who share any commonality with aforementioned individuals, even if you share a commonality with them. (such as your volunteering habits, as many who are religious give much of their time and money to charity, not only through their church, but through many secular groups as well)

Using the extremists of any group, be it a chosen grouping or not (such as in religion or race, how someone chooses to dress or sexual preference) as a measure of the whole leads to disaster.

While I understand your distaste and antipathy, that does not justify your ramblings or argument in any way. In fact, many on both sides of the fence would find it offensive and counterproductive, even to those who shared your cause. I do hope that individuals who read your original post do read your apology though and the like as it does explain in more depth the reasonings behind it. Though I do fault the individuals who have helped bring you to this state of mind, as much as it is their choice to press you about these matters, it is your own choice to combat them in such a way that will not hinder your cause.

I do appreciate that you have taken it upon yourself to explain the situation more in depth in a civil manner and it has renewed my respect for you, for whatever little my respect is worth seeing as this is, in truth, an internet forum. :shrug:

 

[Jaythulhu]

*snip just to save space*

Heh, you almost gave me an out for my own personal bullshit there. Again, you are correct in some of the things you have said.

If I felt that sharing the full extent and reasons behind my utter abhorance of religion and the religious would be appropriate and unlikely to be misused or used against me, I would. Please, in the meantime, accept that I have very deep, personal reasons to hate religious folks, especially the catholic priesthood, and in any thread where religion bears its ugly (to me) head, I'm going to have vitriolic things to say about it.

Especially if it's sitting next to science, the only facet of humanity that has, in my less-than-humble opinion, given us any insight in to the truth of being and the nature of the universe and life itself.

 

[Valine]

Science is not a religion, nor should it be turned into one.

 

[Kinguendo]

Science isnt faith based... religion is.

Technically a debatable point. There are within science a series of axioms that are taken as true but to take them as false would lead to the whole science thing crumbling down. (basic example: 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematicla axiom). So, therefore you could argue that scientists have faith that their axioms are true.

Personally I don;t think science is a religion but I think a lot of people treat it as one. To take the OPs three points:

1. morals concerning behavior within the physical world.
2. beliefs considering the nature of the physical and spiritual worlds, and
3. perspectives upon the purpose of existence.

Science - religion says:

1. If its possible it's entirely morally correct to do it.
2. We don't believe in God. Rationality is everything.
3. There is no point to existance except to reproduce.

So as a religion it kind of sucks. Prominant religious leaders for science include Richard Dawkins.

Science doesnt teach morality... it has nothing to do with morality.

Science shouldnt ever be mistaken for a religion. It, along with Law, should replace Religion.

 

[ben---neb]

Science isnt faith based... religion is.

SNIP

Science doesnt teach morality... it has nothing to do with morality.

Science shouldnt ever be mistaken for a religion. It, along with Law, should replace Religion.

True, it doesn't. But that doesn't stop a large number of people thinking it does.

Or course, the problem with "The law" and "science" replacing religion is that as you said earlier science doesn;t teach morality. And the law only reflects society's morality. Which leads to the problem of deciding what is good and what is evil. And this leads many people to view that if science says it can be done then it can;t be wrong to do.

Although, you are actually right. One day all religions will be vanquished by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the end of all time. Then, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

ps. As you may have guessed I'm a Christian.

 

[Kinguendo]

Science isnt faith based... religion is.

SNIP

Science doesnt teach morality... it has nothing to do with morality.

Science shouldnt ever be mistaken for a religion. It, along with Law, should replace Religion.

True, it doesn't. But that doesn't stop a large number of people thinking it does.

Or course, the problem with "The law" and "science" replacing religion is that as you said earlier science doesn;t teach morality. And the law only reflects society's morality. Which leads to the problem of deciding what is good and what is evil. And this leads many people to view that if science says it can be done then it can;t be wrong to do.

Although, you are actually right. One day all religions will be vanquished by the return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the end of all time. Then, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

ps. As you may have guessed I'm a Christian.

Ah jeez, did you really have to preach? You dont get "heaven points" for it.

Clearly there are people qualified and certainly more qualified than the religious to decide morals as we do today... our morality doesnt reflect that of holy books, so clearly we have been deciding what is right and wrong for a long time.

 

[ben---neb]

Science isnt faith based... religion is.

SNIP

SNAP

Ah jeez, did you really have to preach? You dont get "heaven points" for it.

Clearly there are people qualified and certainly more qualified than the religious to decide morals as we do today... our morality doesnt reflect that of holy books, so clearly we have been deciding what is right and wrong for a long time.

Do I have to preach...no. Do I want to? Yes. Do I gte heaven points for it? No. Why? "Because it is by faith that we are saved, not by works least any man should boast."

And yes, you have been deciding what is right and wrong for a long time and in general making a thougherly rubbish job of it. And by you I mean all other religions as well and all those that use Christianity as an excuse to do wrong. The problem being that humans are incredibly bad at doing "good" and very good at doing "bad". Human - only moral systems tend to relflect this. The Bible calls it indwelling sin and it's in me, you and everyone else.

So as deciders of good and bad we kind of suck.