Report, edit, etc...Posted by Screwed on 2005-03-30 at 05:19:30
A Religion is perhaps a certain set of belief or guildelines someone follows, and could Science be classified as a religion? I was thinking about this for a while and chat to my friend about it. He said Science could become a religion, when taken to a certain extent. However, after much careful thought this is what I believe in.
Specifically, I think I might take evolution as an example. I've listened to lots of people compare it to religion because there are some missing links that you've got to have a degree of faith to suppose thats true. Suggest that there is some truth in that, yet is faith the core definition of religion? After all I believe, it's only a characteristic and 'features' of a religious person. Everyone has had to have faith sometimes, in a friend, having faith your chair you're sitting on won't collapse. It's also similar to trust and inference. You make assumptions and conclusions like in science. However, if the fact that the need for faith in something is classified it as religion, practically everything would be labelled as a religion.
In my opinion, a religion must have some sort of philosophy or set of belief. This means it will have some sort of moral/ethical standard and belief system that it's followers live by.
To conclude, I wouldn't think of science as a religion because it doesn't have a philosophy.
Perhaps someone else has different ideas?
Specifically, I think I might take evolution as an example. I've listened to lots of people compare it to religion because there are some missing links that you've got to have a degree of faith to suppose thats true. Suggest that there is some truth in that, yet is faith the core definition of religion? After all I believe, it's only a characteristic and 'features' of a religious person. Everyone has had to have faith sometimes, in a friend, having faith your chair you're sitting on won't collapse. It's also similar to trust and inference. You make assumptions and conclusions like in science. However, if the fact that the need for faith in something is classified it as religion, practically everything would be labelled as a religion.
In my opinion, a religion must have some sort of philosophy or set of belief. This means it will have some sort of moral/ethical standard and belief system that it's followers live by.
To conclude, I wouldn't think of science as a religion because it doesn't have a philosophy.
QUOTE(research)
With science, you are questioning what you are taught and the boundaries of knowledge in order to build something better. It is a good thing when flaws are discovered, because the resultant process of rebuilding the knowledge base makes it stronger.
With religion, you are accepting, unquestioningly, what you are taught. A single flaw in your belief system brings the entire structure tumbling down.
Science and religion are opposites.
Now, this is the way things work in theory. In practice, you run into religious scientists, and scientific priests. You find the scientists who accept what they are taught whole-heartedly, and cannot fathom the possiblity that there are flaws in it, or that they don't know the whole story. Likewise, you find religious people who recognize the flaws in their belief system, and strive to improve the religion over time.
But the problem is that religion is inherently resistant to change. Religion is supposed to be static. Society (both religious and non-religious people) feels that any flaws in religion mean that the entire religion is failed or inaccurate.
Those religious people who recognize flaws in religion and attempt to build a stronger belief system become spiritualists/philosophers.
With religion, you are accepting, unquestioningly, what you are taught. A single flaw in your belief system brings the entire structure tumbling down.
Science and religion are opposites.
Now, this is the way things work in theory. In practice, you run into religious scientists, and scientific priests. You find the scientists who accept what they are taught whole-heartedly, and cannot fathom the possiblity that there are flaws in it, or that they don't know the whole story. Likewise, you find religious people who recognize the flaws in their belief system, and strive to improve the religion over time.
But the problem is that religion is inherently resistant to change. Religion is supposed to be static. Society (both religious and non-religious people) feels that any flaws in religion mean that the entire religion is failed or inaccurate.
Those religious people who recognize flaws in religion and attempt to build a stronger belief system become spiritualists/philosophers.
QUOTE(Einstein)
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religous feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiousity of the naive man. For the latter, God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for it's father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is purely a human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reaveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religous geniuses of all ages.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is purely a human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reaveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religous geniuses of all ages.
Perhaps someone else has different ideas?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 06:04:18
Science is NOT a religion. Here is the proof(get it...haha...bad science joke nvm 
).
Religion:Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. -"Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary"
Science obviously does not follow that. Unless you argue that a certain materail thing is a creator of humanity...
Well anyways based on its definition science CAN'T be a religion.
). Religion:Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. -"Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary"
Science obviously does not follow that. Unless you argue that a certain materail thing is a creator of humanity...
Well anyways based on its definition science CAN'T be a religion.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Moogle on 2005-03-30 at 06:36:19
Is a Religion with word Science in it called Scientology, yes it is a religion. Won battles over in court and won millions of dollar from people saying is not religion. Sure its different from your normal religion pray to god n stuff, but still has word " god " in some of text documents. Depending on which science is. But who knows, not up to us say its religion or not up to world say yes or no.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by iamacow on 2005-03-30 at 12:57:42
Scientology isn't exactly what it sounds like. I'm not entirely sure about it, but they believe something along the lines of aliens created or had some effect on people.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Moogle on 2005-03-30 at 13:19:06
QUOTE(iamacow @ Mar 31 2005, 04:57 AM)
Scientology isn't exactly what it sounds like. I'm not entirely sure about it, but they believe something along the lines of aliens created or had some effect on people.
[right][snapback]176181[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]176181[/snapback][/right]
i am scientologist myself nothing about aliens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-30 at 16:49:03
The thing about science is that it has no preconcieved notions. Anything agreed upon by the scientific community is a reproducable conclusion to a set of assumptions, based on data gathered during experiments. A scientist (or especially a skeptic, like myself) must be prepared to revise his opinions based on new, reproducable, credible evidence. Religion does not allow this kind of revision.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-03-30 at 16:51:20
I think that science can be classified as a religion, as a scientist does (or should have) the basic guidelines of the quest for knowledge. It is the one religion in the world without blind faith.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-03-30 at 17:32:01
Umm hello? Did ANYONE read the definition of religion? I guess not...By definition it can NOT be a religion. In no way to you worship any God. Anyways, I would have thought this topic would be over by now, the definition clearly states science is NOT a religion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chill on 2005-03-30 at 20:47:07
Science is in many ways like a religion but ultimately it's not
Report, edit, etc...Posted by wolfgang on 2005-03-30 at 23:06:48
science changes rapidly, religion does not.... do i need to say more??? or can you understand what i mean.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-03-30 at 23:34:37
Science in no way resembles religion. The two are completely separate concepts that often come into conflict when they contradict each other.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by LastChance on 2005-03-31 at 18:39:10
I believe science is a religion, as it is a set of guidelines to how the world works, was created, and progression through the ages has taken place. Just like i don't believe that just because a dictionary gives a definition that that means its the right or only one <---- Hates Webster and those who cant live without quoting him
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-03-31 at 19:33:51
Science really isn't a religion in my own views, but neither does it belie anything about religion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-03-31 at 20:32:54
In many ways, they replace each other in today's society.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-03-31 at 21:40:56
QUOTE
Religion:Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. -"Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary"
Does this mean that buddhism isn't a religion either?A religion, defined by me, is a long exsisting system of beliefs of how everything works, and how a person should alter their state of living to accomodate those beliefs. When a belief is new and has not exsisted for over 100 years (which has yet to be disproven) the belief is considered a cult. Science, in this understanding is a religion, as it has been around since the 1700's (arguably before this time as well) and many people who devote themselves to it's belief live different lives then those who have other beliefs.
Denominations exsist in science, to further bring science into the catagory of religion. Such as M-theory vs. Orthodox Axiomatism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by jukuren on 2005-04-01 at 06:12:16
Well, science isn't a religious path but indeed, it does compile with religious means. Think of it this way, many (hundred) years ago, the art of 'fire-making' was, considered 'magic' and well, was honoured but now, we do not consider it to be magic, be in our pragnatic world, we presume, it is science and the term of magic, is only used for stage performances and parties 
. Another example, people considered 'rain' being a 'God's messege' but apparently, in the now era., we believe it is...What? evaporation, and what is that? well, science.
Another factor, it is for miracles, that we go further into science, otherwise, if we don't have a belief, then, what will we do? Oh, sit here, watching the rock move?
If this is about science = belief then, naturally it is.
Since, you need to believe in your hypothesis and then go ahead and doing it. Ernest Rutherford, spent half his life trying to complete the atomic structure. Result? He did what he set out to do, because he believed in what he thought/knew would be the ending conclusion. What good did that do? Oh, fame, he's the GUY ON THE $100 NOTE for sakes!!
Who else? Sir Edmund Hillary, challenged himself to climb mount Everest, since he BELEIVED he could suceed. Ending results? He did, gained first person to do it. What else? HE'S ON THE $5 NOTE !!!
So, science isn't really a religion, but of course, naturally, if somebody did start saying science is a religion, it will take at least another 500 (1000) years for the whole world to accept it (thinking how long Christianity and Buddhism took...), and by then, we wouldn't exist. It will take a long time for it to be accepted as an official religion, take another long period for it to state "Periodic table is the god of Science" or...Something else.. It will take a while till the termology gets brought up - Science, If you are a worshipper of science, then you will be called "Scien. or rather, if it is going to go back to Latin, then, fine, Scienta or scient-. Either way, what type of robes would you wear? white lab coats? What's your bible? The periodic table? "Today's reading comes from Plutonium, chapter 4, verses 4-10 "And the Oxygen effect states that [ ]" Or rather, Blah, I don't know. What would it be? A temple or a church? Or a lab?
Okay, that was simply random, but point is, Science = no direct religion, but in an ethical prospection, it is the "True (truth)" religion or rather, the key-to-the-truth, so comparision to Buddhism, the truth is Enlightenment, similarly, in Science it is to discover.
. Another example, people considered 'rain' being a 'God's messege' but apparently, in the now era., we believe it is...What? evaporation, and what is that? well, science.Another factor, it is for miracles, that we go further into science, otherwise, if we don't have a belief, then, what will we do? Oh, sit here, watching the rock move?
If this is about science = belief then, naturally it is.
Since, you need to believe in your hypothesis and then go ahead and doing it. Ernest Rutherford, spent half his life trying to complete the atomic structure. Result? He did what he set out to do, because he believed in what he thought/knew would be the ending conclusion. What good did that do? Oh, fame, he's the GUY ON THE $100 NOTE for sakes!!
Who else? Sir Edmund Hillary, challenged himself to climb mount Everest, since he BELEIVED he could suceed. Ending results? He did, gained first person to do it. What else? HE'S ON THE $5 NOTE !!!
So, science isn't really a religion, but of course, naturally, if somebody did start saying science is a religion, it will take at least another 500 (1000) years for the whole world to accept it (thinking how long Christianity and Buddhism took...), and by then, we wouldn't exist. It will take a long time for it to be accepted as an official religion, take another long period for it to state "Periodic table is the god of Science" or...Something else.. It will take a while till the termology gets brought up - Science, If you are a worshipper of science, then you will be called "Scien. or rather, if it is going to go back to Latin, then, fine, Scienta or scient-. Either way, what type of robes would you wear? white lab coats? What's your bible? The periodic table? "Today's reading comes from Plutonium, chapter 4, verses 4-10 "And the Oxygen effect states that [ ]" Or rather, Blah, I don't know. What would it be? A temple or a church? Or a lab?
Okay, that was simply random, but point is, Science = no direct religion, but in an ethical prospection, it is the "True (truth)" religion or rather, the key-to-the-truth, so comparision to Buddhism, the truth is Enlightenment, similarly, in Science it is to discover.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PhexEon on 2005-04-06 at 10:39:53
I believe that in a way it is. I am a devoted christian as well as an aspiring scientist. I believe that both theroys of creation are correct. In my opinion the big bang my have been when god created the earth. All we did as scientists was discover that something happened. You can be so involved in something that it may become a religion. This though is bad, causing social problems. You can love to do something alot, but you have to be willing to take a break. Science has created many things and saved countless lives. If you think about it both the bible and the accepted world have things that do this. The bible shows Jesus doing these things and the accepted world shows science. Thank you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by aznwolfstein on 2005-04-06 at 17:24:11
it depends on whether or not atheism or agnosticism is a religion
i dont think atheism or agnosticism is a religion so i would have to say science isnt a religion
i dont think atheism or agnosticism is a religion so i would have to say science isnt a religion
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ScrollMaker on 2005-04-06 at 18:49:31
Science is not a religion.
Geology is a type of science. Christianity is a type of religion. They are not comparable.
Science is a system of knowledge gained through testing with the scientific method.
Religion is a set of beliefs that are used to answer questions that we do not know the answer to.
Geology is a type of science. Christianity is a type of religion. They are not comparable.
Science is a system of knowledge gained through testing with the scientific method.
Religion is a set of beliefs that are used to answer questions that we do not know the answer to.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lisk on 2005-04-07 at 08:32:50
QUOTE(ScrollMaker @ Apr 7 2005, 12:49 AM)
Science is not a religion.
Geology is a type of science. Christianity is a type of religion. They are not comparable.
Science is a system of knowledge gained through testing with the scientific method.
Religion is a set of beliefs that are used to answer questions that we do not know the answer to.
[right][snapback]181785[/snapback][/right]
Geology is a type of science. Christianity is a type of religion. They are not comparable.
Science is a system of knowledge gained through testing with the scientific method.
Religion is a set of beliefs that are used to answer questions that we do not know the answer to.
[right][snapback]181785[/snapback][/right]
Yeh. pwnd.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-04-07 at 15:26:18
Sure science and religion have many things in common but they science is NOT part of religion. It is its own separate thing. We share common things with other animals but does that make us them? No it doesn't, though we can all be classified as organisms. So I think science and religion are in the same category of ideas that we humans have come up with.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Roman-Centurion on 2005-04-08 at 21:40:10
science is the study of all things and ideas
religion is a belief of a higher being that is viewed as a savior or an idol
and is in no why the same as science.
religion is a belief of a higher being that is viewed as a savior or an idol
and is in no why the same as science.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-04-12 at 21:30:56
Science is a religion. Cause in science, if you don't follow their logical rules, you'll go to an illogical place, full of fire and bad music.
I spend every night praying to the holy stein, asking for forgivness for every illogical thing I did all day.
I spend every night praying to the holy stein, asking for forgivness for every illogical thing I did all day.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-04-12 at 21:34:18
I sense sarcasm 