Is science a religion?

I'd love to give you some specific examples but, as I said, I don't have any. Sorry.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Keep in mind, science is done by scientists who are, by and large, just like regular people. They are often motivated by the same irrational drives that the rest of us mere mortals suffer from. Many, many sins against the scientific method have been made, some honest, some otherwise.

---

Actually, most of the actual scientists I know (and I know a fair many) tend to be less sure of what they know, and what is known, than the general populace.It's the way science works, you see, with the constant criticism and picking apart and flaw-finding in each others' research. Peer-review, reproducability, and tentativity do a pretty good job to keep most of the biases and "irrational drives" in check.That's precisely what the scientific method is for.

quote:

---

I'd love to give you some specific examples but, as I said, I don't have any. Sorry.

---

Come on, now, you said that there were a whole lot of people, and you can't even name one?

"Supernatural" means "incorporeal."

Sound is supernatural? Language is supernatural? Light is supernatural?

Such things are not incorporeal. If it's produced physically, it's not incorporeal. If it's an abstraction, then it doesn't exist.However, if you could have something that was not produced by nature, it would be outside of nature, and that would be supernatural. The incorporeal, if such existed, would be outside of nature (incorporeal mind, for example).Sound is the movement of airwaves that enter the ear, I guess.
Language if spoken is obviously corporeal. Otherwise, one can think of it as an abstraction--something symbolic.
Light is the movement of photons, whatever those are. They go real fast.

You sure have some funny definitions of words. "Incorporeal" simply means "without body". It's not a reference to the origin of the thing.Souls, for instance, would be incorporeal, but produced physically. So, you're defining corporeality as speed?

If it can be measured in some physical way, then it's corporeal. Speed is a physical measurement as is weight, volume, color, shape, etc.The soul, if such existed, has no weight, color, shape, volume, etc. It doesn't "take up space." This would be a supernatural thing.

quote:

---

Bertrand Russell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Russell's logical work with Whitehead continued this project. ... "Bertrand Russell would not have wished to be called a saint of any description; ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell - 101k - Mar 1, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

---

quote:

---

Bertrand Russell - Wikipedia

---

Any person who would like to go beyond calling me an "idealist" to my face but referbackhandedly that I am a "logIcal saint" as USED by Russell himself, could indeed be such a scientifically minded person. The attempt to describe such a person is fraught with erroneous prejudices.
One actual person was Richard Boyd.
Page not found | The College of Arts & Sciences Apparently neither Cornell nor Harvard taught us how to cut our hair while we might have learned a thing or two about inductions in space. My mother wishing that I cut my hair and her believing that I do the same are two different things that Boyd's wife probably didnt know about me.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2006 11:01 AM

I really find it very surprising to see some people opposing everything that is connected with the divine. I have been studying this phenomenon for some time and have come to the view that there are basically two reasons for this. Firstly accepting that some thing has been done or assisted by divine dilutes the ego of man or woman.A hardworking person would attribute all success to his or her intelligence and hard work. Doubtless these are essential cotributors to success. But how often do we grieve when we do not achieve something or lose it? Have the husband and wife been successful on every attempt when they wanted to have a baby? Secondly belief in divine requires adherence to cetain ethical disciplines. Those who do not want to subject themselves to discipline deny the very existence or help of God.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-10-2006 02:52 PM

Rawel Singh Care to step up to the plate and explain how you are more ethically disciplined than I am? This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-09-2006 12:05 PM

Wow. This is fascinating. You can only think of two reasons why people reject the divine. I can not only undermine both your reason, but come up with a better one to add to them.Some of the most prideful people I know believe in god. They have no problem whatsoever in trumpeting their own greatness while at the same time praising god. Moreover, I am a quite humble person, and am well-aware that the great things I have achieved in life were always a result of the work of others to which I contributed.As far as ethical discipline goes, I see devout people doing unethical things all the time. While most religions propose ethical standards they expect their adherents to follow, that's no guarantee that the believers will follow. And, I know a great many people who are atheists and are quite moral, but most standards that most people accept. Actually, it's really quite arrogant and condescending for believers to assume that nonbelievers are less ethical.You want a third reason to be an atheist? A general personal disposition not to believe in things we see no evidence for. If you haven't come across that as a reason for rejecting divinity, you couldn't have been studying it all that much.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-10-2006 02:51 PM

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

I have been studying this phenomenon for some time and have come to the view that there are basically two reasons for this.

---

If that's all you can come up with, then I suggest you do some more studying. Yeah, yeah, responding to an off-topic message. I know.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-10-2006 02:52 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Wow.....y'all are not only away from the tree but in another town.lolAnywho...the question asked - Is science a religion?The basic concept of science is not.For those believe there is a meaningful scientific explanation to everything, it is.This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-11-2006 11:11 AM

how do you mean? All things of the physical realm have a scientific explanation.
the fact is religions have to do with things that are pretty much untestable, non physical and only exist subjectivly
if you argue spirits,souls or gods are objective please take a picture of one for me please