Is Science a Religion?

That's like walking into Wal-Mart and thinking you have to buy something. You don't. You can walk right through the store without ever choosing anything.That's where science is unlike religion - a scientist never has to choose among all the consumer goods gods available.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My "reason" for walking through Wal-Mart might not have anything to do with Wal-mart at all. It might just be the shortest distance between two points. (We used to have a Wal-Mart here that was attached to a mall. I walked through it on my way to the bookstore and never bought a thing.)It's interesting that you wasted almost your entire post on a "you-guys-don't-bother-thinking" rant instead of actually addressing my point:We don't have to make a choice at all.Science doesn't have to buy anything from the God store.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But nobody is using science "to defend against a belief in God".People from any religious background, with any kind of belief in God can do science. How can that be trying "to defend against a belief in God"? That's not what we're discussing here though. The topic is whether or not science itself is a religion - not whether or not it can be abused. People with their own agenda can treat science as a religion, just as they can treat money or football as a religion. That doesn't mean that money, footbal or science is a religion. Because it is the very nature of science to be skeptical. Science always has more questions than answers. Religion, on the other hand, has answers - but most of them are wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Look what you wrote: science excludes all but the physically testable. Testing means asking questions - thats what science does. And when it finds an answer, it asks more questions about the answer.Religion doesn't do that. Where "the good stuff" is is not the issue here. Sure you can, if religion makes false statements about what we can observe.Religion is routinely wrong about everything in science. More importantly, it stays wrong - often defiantly wrong. Science is self-correcting - religion is not. So you've just agreed that science is neither metaphysics nor theology.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We can't test it physically and we can't test it repeatably. You are speaking of science as you claim it to be. That's a strawman. Where have you ever, ever, ever heard me dismiss quantum mechanics? Y'know, there's a reason why it's called "quantum mechanics". It's not the spooky, woo-woo metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that you think it is. Again, where have you ever, ever, ever heard me attempt to use science as a "shield against God"? Science doesn't deal in "proof" at all - never mind as "something very limited in scope".Everything you say confirms that science and religion are very different animals.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You missed the two keywords in the sentence: "physically" and "repeatably".Nobody can test anything about Jesus physically.
And if there was such a test, everybody - Christian and non-Christian alike - would have to get the same result for it to be scientifically valid. So once again you agree that religion - New Covenant, Old Covenant or Indifferent Covenant - is completely different from science. I never said whether or not I wanted proof. I said that science doesn't provide proof. Try to demonstrate some reading comprehension. Well, no. I prefer to look for answers - not wallow in the wrong answers that religion produces.The best way to look for answers is by asking questions, not by jumping to conclusions.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I said "answers", not "conclusions". And what does "truth" have to do with it? That's just silly. If I wanted to evade the answers, I wouldn't ask the questions. No questions, no answers. Simple. Not at all. I am looking for the answers that are available, the verifiable answers. And when I get those answers, I'll ask more questions. It's a journey without a destination. More silliness. I don't ask questions because I want answers from you. You're one of the last people on earth I'd go to for answers. I ask you questions to get you to think.Unfortunately, all you come up with is lame, trite, out-of-the-box "answers". The "right to believe anything"? Why on God's green @#$%ing earth would I want the "right to believe anything"?This topic is not about the "right to believe". It's more like the responsibility to figure things out instead of believing.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I told you, it's not about belief. I welcome the responsibility.(I have also told you before, I don't read your sermons or your cut and pastes, so you might as well not waste your time on them.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't say you "can't". That's an excellent description of Rob (and I was talking to Rob, not you. ). I have yet to see anybody around here try to present such evidence. There's no competition. People have been trying to explain that science deals with the verifiable and religion does not. They are two separate areas where no competition is possible. "Having access" is irrelevant. You can live next door to the Library of Congress and never go inside. Good for you. That certainly doesn't apply to all religious people. Shall I name names? Nobody here is trying to prove or disprove God. The point of this thread is that science takes no notice of the question of God.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Exactly.Belief is the antithesis of responsibility. You already know the answers so you can just sit on your butt and act superior. Figuring things out requires work, thought, effort....That's why science is the antithesis of religion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't say that. Are you ever going to learn to read what I write?I said that belief and verifiable knowledge are two different things.
What we can't verify, we can only believe.Science is about what we can verify. Religion is about what we an not verify. Simple.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's where you always confuse yourself. You're thinking of "verification" in absolute terms.Science thinks of verification in empirical terms. If I obtain a certain result and a Muslim in Pakistan obtains the same result and a Buddhist in Taiwan obtains the same result and a Catholic in Spain obtains the same result and an atheist in Scotland obtains the same result... that is verification. Differing worldviews have not effected the result. Nobody's silly notions of "Absolute Truth" have effected the result. Not empirically. Your own religion says that. Then it isn't verification. It's confirmation bias. And that is why science is not a religion. A physical, empirical view of reality, yes. Can't you get it thorough your head that this is not a competition between science and religion?Every time you claim that religion is "better" than science (at anything), you are affirming that science is not a religion.Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, just evident. No, just unverifiable for any practical purpose. I said nothing about universality or morality. There is nothing about Christianity that can be verified empirically, but that's a different topic. We don't "use science to ignore other realities". We limit science to this reality - the one that can be verified empirically. I never said anything about "exalting" science or about "interpreting all things" through science.One more time: This is not a competition between science and religion. Every time you claim that science is inferior or that religion is superior, you are affirming that science and religion are completely different.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My "purpose" is to discuss the topic. I've been pointing out how your boring rants verify that science is not a religion.Hint: if you want to claim that science is a religion, show us how they are similar not how they are different.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's a perfect example of how science and religion are different.

1. Science does not use faith.
2. Science sees only what is verified.
3. Science still has to verify its extrapolations.

In science, the theory has to be verified by empirical evidence that can be seen.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC