Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science a Religion?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 313 (380174)
01-26-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 10:55 AM


Since the concept of a creator is not scientific, it follows that science must exclude a supernatural creator from any of its components. What we have is a subject matter that tries to describe the world without a creator. Without using the concept of a creator or any religous principles, science seeks to explain the entire world.
Obviously, if science seeks to formulate laws upon which the world is run on a daily basis down to the atomic level, where can religion fit in? Where does this supreme being assert his control?
The concept of the christian god as creator is not scientific. However, it does not follow that science must exclude a supernatural creator from its components. Science is a method of studying and learning about the natural world. If there is evidence found in that study that would support a hypothesis of a supernatural creator, science can pursue that evidence. It has not done so yet because there is no such scientific evidence. Science does not "try to describe a world without a creator," it tries to describe the world based on what we see. Because we see no scientific evidence of a creator, science proceeds on the basis of there being no creator.
It's also not true that science tries to explain "the whole world." The whole world includes questions of morality, of right and wrong. It includes questions of purpose, of meaning. These are questions that most people reserve for religion, and questions about which science says nothing. They are not within the sphere of what science does.
Scientists cannot say where a supreme being takes over the controls of the atoms because that is never scientific. Because science must explain the entire world and its origin without using any religous factors and rather using formulated "Laws of Nature", science is its own religion.
Scientists can say where a supreme being would "take over the controls of the atoms" if the supreme being left behind evidence of doing so. In the absense of such evidence, science concludes there is no such being exerting such control.
Science is not a religion, as others here have said, because it does not concern itself with matters of faith, of morality, of purpose. Certainly, one can put one's faith in the scientific method and choose it as one's primary source of knowledge about the world. And, to the extent that one does that, I suppose it's not entirely inaccurate to say that someone has faith in science over religion. However, the defining characteristic of science is not the fact that it doesn't address questions of faith, morality, etc. In my mind, any system of knowledge that does not address these types of questions cannot be classified as a religion.
Mathematics tries to explain certain things about the real world without using any "religious factors" and instead uses its own theorems, axioms and laws. Would you call math a religion?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:55 AM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2007 2:42 PM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 14 of 313 (381163)
01-30-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Some misunderstandings about science, and terminology
There is plenty of fodder for quite fascinating discussions of the parallels between religion and science. And there are undoubtedly certain similarities between the two that one could explore in great depth. However, in doing so, there is a danger of letting the parallels and similarities overwhelm the discussion and blur the very significant lines between the two that ultimately prevent them from meeting.
You describe science as a religion that worships the five senses. This, I think, is one place where you ignore a significant line. Science does not worship the senses. Not in the traditional way that we think of worship; services, hymns, sermons, etc. Nor in any kind of more abstract way where the sense are themselves elevated to a place of sanctity. Science views the senses as tools for gathering information about the world. However, in that process, science understands that these tools are inherently fallible. People make honest mistakes, and people fool themselves into seeing something that isn't there when their desire to see it is so strong that it almost overpowers them. This is a big part of the reason why science demands repeatability and confirmation of results before any conclusion gains broad acceptance.
If you want to talk about science worshipping anything, I think the closest you can come is to say that science worships the scientific method. One can describe science as placing faith in the ability of people using the scientific method to arrive at reliable conclusions based on the evidence that we have available to us to date. However, in think even this goes too far, and any such description conflates two very different meanings of faith.
In the religious sense, faith, at its core, means believing where there is no evidence, or even in spite of the evidence. There are many here who decribe themselves as "scientific creationists" who don't doubt for a minute that life evolved on this planet as the ToE explains. However, despite the evidence showing that it all could have happened without intervention from any supernatural being, they still attribute it all to god. Many people of faith have said that they believe in their faith and will do so regardless of what evidence is brought forward to challenge it. This is religious faith.
The scientific method, on the other hand, is a practice that scientists have developed over time, and trial and error, that is our best attempt to gather information and systematise it in meaningful ways so that we can learn about the world and pass that learning on to others. Scientists rely on information, hypotheses and theories that have been challenged and survived the challenges. In this way, one can quite reasonably say that science has faith in the scientific method and the results that it produces. But this faith is vastly different in kind from religious faith. Faith in the arena of science is always tenuous, subject to new information, or better theories. If science worships any god, it's pragmatism. As long as the scientific method or any particular scietific theory works, and nothing does the job better, we stick with it. But if something starts to break down, or if a better idea comes along, science will abandon the old to go with the new and improved. Science is a very fickle parishoner.
And let me iterate my point from my previous post. I reject the idea that science believes a priori in a strictly physical world. Science by its very nature must restrict itself to what can be observed, either with the naked senses or with sense enhanced by reliable instruments. But that does not mean that science believes that the non-physical world does not exist. It simply means that science doesn't deal with it, except to the extent that the non-physical world impinges on the physical world in some manner that leaves behind evidence that we can evaluate.
To take your example, you are entirely correct that our understanding of gravity may be wrong, science accepts that as an axiom. And, while most here regard it as so implausible that it merits only humor as a response, science does not rule out the possibility that pixies might be behind it all. However, unless and until these pixies leave behind some evidence of their existence, science will disregard them. And, if science can devise a reasonably plausible alternative to explain how gravity works that does not depend on invisible pixies, science will not spend any time looking for evidence of them. The pixies will need to come knocking on science's door.
Science certainly does not believe there is nothing hidden from our five senses. There are a great many things that science cannot look into, and may never be able to. If our universe did indeed begin with a big bang, and that's when the physical laws of our universe were created, it's very difficult to imagine how we could ever look back beyond that moment of creation. However, science does not reject the notion of the existence of things that it cannot look into. Science simply takes the attitude that if we cannot look into them, then there isn't anything for science to say about them.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 28 of 313 (381446)
01-30-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Open MInd
01-30-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Defining religion
In my opinion, it is impossible for one to exclude himself from "the subject of religion." Whatever is your opinion of the universe, whether you believe in the supernatural or you just believe in pure science, you have just made a religious opinion.
The most that can be said is that one has come to a conclusion of faith. One has decided whether to put faith in religion or in science. However, as I explained above, the nature of the faith that one puts in each is vastly different. If your faith is in religion, it is faith that your beliefs are accurate, despite the evidence. If your faith is in science, it is faith that the methods that have worked in the past to help us gain a more accurate understanding of the world will continue to work in the future.
Several people have explained why science is not religion. I suspect that if you continue simply repeating this ill-founded comparison, people will soon tire of of you. It would be more helpful if you actually gave some reasons to support what you say.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Open MInd, posted 01-30-2007 10:14 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 59 of 313 (381724)
02-01-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Open MInd
01-31-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
The question you have to ask yourself is how much do you involve yourself in science and how religious are you? Many people on this board claim to be religious and scientific. I challenge you people who claim to be religious and scientific. How much do you really believe in your religion? Did you contact your religious leader before you decided to study science? If you do study religion and you are a firm believer in your religion, how much do you really believe in your science? It is obvious that one can not truly believe in his religion and firmly believe in science.
Going out on a limb here, I know, but I assume you consider yourself very religious. In that case, by your reasoning (such as it is), you must place little or no weight in science. Therefore, it only seems logical, you place little or no weight in the discoveries of science. I therefore challege you, sir.
Stop driving or riding in automobiles, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop flying in airplanes, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop using medicine, it is a result of the scientific method.
Stop watching television or listening to the radio, they are results of the scientific method.
Stop using computers, they are a result of the scientific method.
Stop eating and drinking pasteurized foods, they are a result of the scientific method. In fact, stop eating and drinking most everything. Very little of what we consume has not been improved through science.
Stop using electricity, it is a result of the scientific method.
Stop heating your home with natural gas or fuel oil, the availability of these is a result of the scientific method.
If you truly believe in your religion, my friend, then you must not believe in any of these things, by your own reasoning.
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 7:45 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 64 of 313 (381733)
02-01-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Open MInd
02-01-2007 8:37 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Your name was certainly very ill-conceived. Your mind is the most closed mind I've come across at this site, and that's saying a lot.
You've come to your own conclusions about how the world must work based on your personal religious beliefs. You are no more here to explore questions and seek answers than than I am here to learn the Texas Two-Step.
You are here to spout your irrational notions and ignore anything anyone says of substance. In all the people I have come across in my life, you are the first one to even suggest, much less apparently actually believe, that there is no regularity in the world, no laws that govern anything, and that all things happen only by dint of the will of god making it happen.
The only real mystery that remains is, why you are doing this?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 8:37 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 9:59 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 66 of 313 (381742)
02-01-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
02-01-2007 8:59 PM


Re: There is no conflict between Christianity and Science
The problem with your message, jar, is that OpenMInd isn't talking about christianity. And we are completely powerless to convince him that science and religion are incompatible, because science and his religion are incompatible. He takes the ole "goddidit" explanation to its ultimate length. Everything that happens happens because god made it happen. Thus, any search for regularity in the world is futile. Any regularities are not the result of natural forces at work that we can understand. They are simply the result of god being stuck in a rut. Apparently god can't think of anything else to do with a pen thrown to the floor other than to make it continue its journey. However, at any time he might change his mind and instead make it fly out the window like some super-charged Uri Gellar.
He is either unable to comprehend that virtually everyone else in the world doesn't see it that way, or he doesn't care. His god is one of very limited powers. His god is apparently unable to create a world with regularities that we can learn about and use to our benefit. His mind may be open, in some Orwellian sense, but (as I suggested to you in chat the other day regarding someone else) his mind isn't big enough to conceive of a god that can create a regular universe and then let it run as he has set it up.
Quite curious indeed.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 02-01-2007 8:59 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 9:45 PM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 74 of 313 (381734)
02-01-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Open MInd
02-01-2007 9:59 PM


Re: Why must the teapot be a religion, anyway?
Actually, I think I've given your "ideas" more respect than anyone else here. I've read what you said and responded with reasoning, which is certainly more than you've done. You simply keep repeating the same thing over and over. You repeat the same mistakes about what science actually does, displaying an apparent inability to comprehend the explanations that several people have given you.
Science looks for positive evidence to support a proposal. It offers explantions that are either rejected or tentatively accepted based on actual evidence. The acceptance is always tentative pending the discovery of new evidence.
You suggest that it's just god doing it all. Science places no weight in such a suggestion, not because it's biased against religion, or because it's a religion itself, but because there's no evidence. However, because there's no evidence against such a proposal, science doesn't rule it out, either.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Open MInd, posted 02-01-2007 9:59 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 223 of 313 (382507)
02-05-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:10 AM


Pointless analogies.
Yes, Messers Johnson, Kenton and Meyer do love their analogies, don't they?
Here's the problem. This is how adding "information" by mutation works. We begin with a DNA molecule. In one of a number of different ways, when it is copied the new molecule is different from the old one, different because the gene sequences are no longer identical. Sometimes there's stuff missing, sometime there's extra stuff, sometimes some of the stuff has changed.
Sometimes the change is meaningless, sometimes the change alters how the gene works. In the second situation, what Johnson et. al. call "new information" has been added. No laws of thermodynamics have been violated. There was no author. It was simply an error in copying, a mutation.
That these changes occur is indisputable. That these different kinds of effects can result is indisputable. Johnson and company can argue until they are blue in the face, but no matter how persuasive their analogies are, they cannot overcome readily observable facts.
Edited by subbie, : Typo

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:10 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 1:09 AM subbie has replied
 Message 228 by Doddy, posted 02-05-2007 1:10 AM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 225 of 313 (382511)
02-05-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:59 AM


Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
What are the similarities between science and religion?
Just list some for now and we'll examine them one at a time.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If he doesn't find it himself, he's too proud to accept what's free!
In other words, you got nothin'!

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:59 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 1:17 AM subbie has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 236 of 313 (382524)
02-05-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rob
02-05-2007 1:09 AM


Re: Pointless analogies.
Why save aids [sic] patients? their [sic] a drain on the organism of mankind. Let them die!
I don't believe that... but the logical outworkings of your beliefs do. You've got a problem with science cohering with our moral realities under your worldview.
That's not a "logical outworking," assuming I even understand what that odd phrase means. At most the conclusion you can draw is that the ToE says that those with AIDS will tend to pass fewer of their genes on to their offspring. There is no logical way to argue from that point that we ought to let that happen. It's one of the simplest concepts in logic that you cannot reason to "should" from "is."
That a fact exists says absolutely nothing about whether that fact is good. If your own personal morality leads you to conclude that everything that happens ought to happen, that's considerably more frightening than any of the utterly absurd misunderstandings you've displayed about science and religion.
I have no problem whatsoever with science cohering with "moral realities." I accept completely the fact that science will discover things that we think are not as they should be. And there's no reason why it shouldn't. Science deals strictly with what is, not what should be. That, perhaps, is the biggest thing that separates science from religion.
A good worldview would have the two in complete harmony. Unless of course you don't belive in an absolute morality reality, which is again why you should consider eliminating the weaker as did your social darwinist and naturalist predecessors.
Social darwinists got it every bit as wrong as you do here, and for the same reason. They tried to argue that since that's the way it is, that's the way it should be.
I really don't know why you think it's appropriate to lumps naturalists in that group, unless you know something about all naturalists that nobody else does.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 1:09 AM Rob has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 292 of 313 (383068)
02-06-2007 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 8:16 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
You are confusing two different concepts.
When I said science does not concern itself with matters of morality, I was not saying science itself is immoral, or that there are no rules of conduct as far as science is concerned.
Science does not concern itself with matters of morality in that science does not study or try to discover rules of morality. There certainly are rules of conduct that scientists themselves try to follow. But those rules themselves are not the domain of science.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:16 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 295 of 313 (383073)
02-06-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 8:26 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
This is utter nonsense.
I have my own personal reasons for valuing human life, and other rights of humans. These do not come from religion, but are based on my reasoning for believing such things are right.
This is where fundies are the most frightening in my opinion. For a fundy who values life only because their god tells them to, there's nothing to keep them from taking the life of another if they think that's what their god wants. To the extent that portions of the bible are accurate, this fear seems well-founded.
However, to tie this back into the topic of the thread and to try to head off a follow up, my views on morality do not come from science, but from my moral reasoning. This capacity, and the processes I use in exercising my moral reasoning, are quite different from the processes I use in scientific reasoning.
Nothing that you have said yet in this thread suggests you will understand this distinction, but since you've seen fit to quote me at this point, I feel it appropriate to respond.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:26 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 10:28 PM subbie has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 297 of 313 (383075)
02-06-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 8:32 PM


One last chance to try to help you understand.
"Belief" in scientists comes down to believing that the evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence supports the conclusions that they have reached. It does not mean believing anything they say simply because they are scientists. If that was how science in fact proceeded, you'd have a much stronger argument. However, since it's not, all you have is a deep, deep misunderstanding.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:32 PM Open MInd has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 312 of 313 (383115)
02-06-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 10:28 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
Would it be moral to kill in revenge?
No.
Would it be moral to kill in defense of my family's lives? To protect them from harm?
Yes.
What's scary about that?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 10:28 PM Open MInd has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024