Is Science a Religion?

Hi Open Mind, thought I'd throw in my two cents on the issue. I hope it is not so basic and simple, that it is found to be beneath the brilliance of the audience.It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.All religions address the theological foundation at some level; even the non or a theistic ones. It is not possible for a philosophy to not have a position on the 'God portion' of the equation.Science, as it is sold and marketed to the general public, pretends to be unbiased in these matters. It cannot be. There is nothing that is just a fact. All facts impart meaning to the observer who observes them.Some time ago, I used a story (a parable) to illustrate this point...I walked into a gas station and the female clerk was a college student. I asked how she was (just making small talk) and she said, "I'm great! School is going well etc..."

​

I asked her what courses she was taking, and she replied with a list of the usual supects like math and english et al. But the last one she mentioned was Human Sexuality. She appeared to find this most provocative...

​

"No philosophy?", I asked.

​

"Oh no!", she said. "That's boring."

​

So I questioned her... "Is the truth absolute or relative?"

​

"Relative!", came her exuberant response ('everyone knows that', I thought to myself).

​

I said, "So what are they teaching you about human sexuality... the truth?"

​

After watching her wheels spin for a second she said to me, "Oh, I don't know... just the facts, I guess."

​

I said, "The fact is... Hitler killed about 6 million Jews besides the others destroyed by his scheme."

​

She had a blank look mixed with concern on her face...

​

I continued... "How do we decide what is the right way to interpret facts and make them meaningful to us?"

​

"Well sometimes that's hard." she said.

​

"Yes it is", I replied. "But that's why we need good philosophy."Science as a philosophy is often called materialism or naturalism. It presupposes that the material universe can explain itself. If science were actually objective, it would have no such presupposition. The convention as it stands now is called 'Methodological Naturalism'.I am not saying that there is anything wrong with natural science. My only point here, is that it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.The modern habit of saying that we must prove God with science to be sure that we know of his existence is to falsely put a burden of proof on the issue that is strictly impossible.When you hear a scientist saying that the universe is not designed it is not because of the facts. It is because of the philosophy they use to interpret those facts. Natural science has nothing to say on the issue. That is how it should be, but that is not how it is...Everyone has an agenda. Scientists are no exception. The only agenda that will lead us to what Francis Schaefer called true truth, is one that is reality itself; the default philosophy of the universe. The truth has an objective, and is objective.That does not mean it is not biased. The universe is very biased. It operates on laws biased toward being. If you violate them, then by definition, you begin to cease to be. The fine tuning of the physical laws is an incredible thing to behold. And they are relative to each other, so that if you change one, you change the relationship and community of all of them.Whenever you hear a scientist using natural science to disavow the legitimacy of faith, know that he is using a religious worldview to deny the legitimacy of religious worldviews.One of the key founders of our 'conventions philosophy of science' is David Hume. He set the stage for encouraging untold millions to believe one of the most clevers lies that the devil has ever concocted. And people latch on to it philosphically because it gives them a so-called rational reason to hope for a world without moral boundaries.Let's look at Humes clever rationalization for rejecting God: (David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)I think it is fatally flawed because that statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?This is not the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and logical consistency. Logic will lead us to God, it cannot be used any other way without destroying itself.C.S. Lewis said: (Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)Natural science is not a religion if it is used without bias. But it is used with bias because we have given it a philosophy that helps make the facts meaningful to the observer. It cannot even be what so many claim that it is. It is not possible to have no reason for believing something. We all have our reasons. Once we realize that consciously, we can question our own assumptions objectively.So when a creationist uses a philosophy to examine the facts, the naturalists are correct in crying bias. But they defeat themselves, because a naturalist cannot be an unbiased observer either. If they were, they would not call themselves naturalists. They would only call themselves scientists. And in that grid (or perspective), when they saw a polar bear eating a human being they would not be moved emotionally in any way. They would just study the event to collect facts. That is just not possible except for the most unusual psychopaths.So, science is not a religion in and of itself. But human beings make it a religion because it is not possible to not be religious.I imagine I used twice as many words as necessary to make the point, but I hope it was clear.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

But I do have a position on the flying spagetti monster... I think it is luducrous!And you have a position on my God, because He is your God too. If you say He is not your God, then that is a position. In order for your statement to be true, you would have to be unable to think. You would have to have no intellect as Lewis so clearly illustrates. The best you can do is to deny that you can think.But you can think. You are created in the image of God.Before I had heard of the monster, I had no position. But now that I have heard the news, I have a choice to make that I will be responsible for.God knows how to play chess better than you and I Crash... He invented the intelligent agents that claims to have invented it! Too bad God's logic (truth) created us, or we might have an excuse to mistake thoughtlesness as the mind of God. Just as Paul says in Romans 1... 'you have no excuse' to not believe in God. The heavens declare His Glory, and your conscious confirms the law He has written on your heart.The only out is to kill your heart and mind so as to forget that any of this ever happened. You might be able to do so for a while, but I don't believe that you will ultimately do that to yourself.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Well, then you must be looking for something else. You didn't walk into Walmart by accident.You have your reasons. And reasons are not facts, they are religions. That is the point.I am astonished by the lack of understanding in your reply and the responses of the others. You guys would serve yourselves better by not saying a single word. Because when you respond, you proove that you are not ignorant. You refuse to invest the good sense God gave you. You do not put it to work because it threatens your own desires. And then you make up excuses for not putting it to use.You only show your desperation to bury the truth. You have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourselves. Too late now...Luke 19:22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?' 24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.' 25 "'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' 26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

That would be a choice. Otherwise you either could not, or you would have to.So you are correct, you don't have to. But since you choose not to, then you are not ignorant of God, you simply choose not to know about Him.And that is precisely where I wanted to go with this. Thank you for cooperating. It is not that you cannot know god, it is that you do not want to, because you prefer to believe in and worship a God of your own making. You just don't call whatever you want to believe truth.And you are right also about that... your belief is not the truth. It is only a religion.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Maybe you're right... but since it was Ringo's analogy (or was it crash's?) you should address them not me. They were unsuccesfully using the analogy to refute my point. I was only pointing out the flaw in the analogy.But thanks for playing "Let's do everything in our power to not make a deal"

Ringo:Science cannot do anything. It doesn't have an opinion. It only tells the truth. It has no agenda.What I am saying, is that anyone who uses science to defend against a belief in God, is pretending to be agnostic (as a scientist should be), but by taking a position, they proove that they are not.A scientist is supposedly objective. One seeking to let the evidence lead him to the truth.It is the people using science for their own agendas who chose to buy or not to buy in the God store. That's where the individual worldviews (religions) come into play. That is where 'facts' become interpreted so as to impart a meaning that is presupposed by the individual.Science, left to itself only declares the glory of God. Any objective observer (a true scientist) will follow the way right to the truth, and the life.That is why people like Francis Crick say things like, "We must constantly keep in the front of our mind, that these things are not designed, but evolved"(paraphrased).Why Francis?Why... must... we do that?Why can't we just look at the evidence and see what it is telling us? Why create a whole institution (modern science) to deny the obvious in terms of origins, under the false pretense that it is established to understand reality?The earliest scientists suffered from no such delusions. Back then, the early modern scientists were theists, and it was the 'religious dictators' in the Church who inhibited understanding in many instances. Now it is the establishment called 'science' who have become the skeptics. Why is that?Because science has become a religion.Does anyone really not understand what I just said? Or are you determined to deny everything, even at the expense of your own reputation as an intelligent and honest participant, in a debate that has extreme consequences for all humanity?Maybe you're just looking out for number one... If so, just say so!But if you do ever admit that, just know that that is conversion. That's when you'll begin to hear God's voice.As for the material universe declaring the glory of God, just consider what Jesus said to the 'religious dictators' of His day when his disciples and the crowd declared Jesus to be God:

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

jar: Now that's funny!I knew you were an 'absolute' kind of guy the whole time...Good for you... and your 'fundamemtal' position.Ever heard of G.K. Chesterton's 'Suicide of thought'?I saw a bumper sticker yesturday that said, "Death to extremists". I asked the guy, "isn't that a bit extreme?"He laughed and said, My wife had it made for me because my whole family has become born again Christian, and I am a moderate."I asked him, "Are you extremely moderate?"He smiled and said, "No... I am moderately moderate.'"Hence the belief that extremists should die", I said. "A moderate can't tolerate extremism now can he?"The guy (who's name is Jim) was building a deck and I was delivering the lumber. He acknowleged the dilemma with a chuckle. He's on his way... he can handle it...Do you see the irony jar? Can you handle it?How can 'fundamentalism' (extremism) be 'the problem' with the world?
To posit that is a fundamental and extreme position.So, fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is with dishonest fundamentalists, who say they are moderates. They are hedging something. A secret sin they will not compromise... but it is no secret to me. So it is certainly not secret to God.The consequences are obvious: Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

Actually it was suprisingly lighthearted... The first thing I did was laugh and tell him I liked the bumpersticker. And I did! It was refreshingly honest you know? He did not try to hide the fact that it was not merely ironic, but also an obvious contradiction.I told him that I am a born again Christian myself, and I got the distinct impression that he was at one time very acidic in his criticisms. But he had calmed down or something. I didn't try to preach to the guy, and although I could tell he wanted to talk, he was nervous as well. And we both had to get back to work anyway.In situations like that I feel no reason to jump under the skin and explode the guy. He is well on his way... you can just tell... you know what I mean?When someone get's it, you can tell. If they don't you can shock em good. And if they don't want to (the worst kind) you can only pray.Anyway, we did some real small talk about privatization of ideas and relativism. He was following the concepts with ease.It is one of those moments I won't forget.. like the guy who told me elsewhere in my travels that he was waiting for the aliens to show up and set us all straight. He was very concerned with the state of the world (can't blame him). I said half jokingly, 'They already did show up, two thousand years ago. In the most sophisticated vessel in the known universe (a human body). And we crucified him.'I couldn't have planned that you know Nem? It just came to me...That was another unforgetable moment. The look on his face was priceless! He got it! And the next time I was there, as we unloaded the lumber, we had a great conversation inwhich he was very skeptical, but also very reasonable. Something had turned within him. It's always a miracle...I left him with a Ravi Zacharius CD called 'The Loss of Truth and a Proposal for it's Recovery'. I had given him some of the arguments already durring our talk, and he wanted to hear it for himself. haven't seen him since, but he works as a carpenter in an area that I deliver to often, so I will.It happens in the strangest ways...

Only since Rene Descartes, Emanuel Kant, and David Hume in the modern sense of the term. And I agree that skepticism is healthy as long as it does not devolve into mere cynicism, which we have all, at times, been prone to manifesting. Now hold on... when you think about it, science has less questions than religion, because it excludes all but the physically testable as admissable. The good stuff is in theology and metaphysics my friend. It's like I told a new christian brother of mine who was 'freakin out' a little... "I didn't know what doubt was, until I believed. it's normal!"Once I became a child of God, all hell broke loose against me.I have more questions and more answers as a Christian. Way more than I ever thougth possible. I don't have all the answers or even all of the questions. But the answers I do have, cohere with all of the other answers as well as the questions, better than any scientific or social theory can muster. On what scientific basis do you say they are wrong? You can't use science to critique metaphysics Ringo unless it is really a religion. And that is my whole point.Metaphysics and theology look at the whole (holy) picture... Natural science looks only at the material universe. It has nothing to validate the positon that Christianity is wrong. There are other tests for that, such as logical consistency, unaffirmabilty, and undeniablity etc, but they are not scientific tests.And that is why Hume (the empericist) was such a deceiver. He made metaphysical statements against metaphysics. He cut his own throat......and why Kant was wrong about faith being all about the heart. The Bible says, "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Not... the removal of your mind......and Descartes couldn't even prove his own existence rationally, other than to finally conclude, "I think, therefore I am." In other words, "The only thing I cannot doubt, is that there is a doubter doing the doubting."You really can't prove your own existence, you just cannot deny it logically. The same applies to God. He is simply self evident! There is no point in even trying to say He does not exist, because you would have to be God, in order to say it with authority. And if you are God, then you can't say there is not a God... It's strictly unaffirmable...Did you ever see a house that didn't have a builder? Or a rock that didn't have a cause? All material things have a cause. It cannot be otherwise. That may not be scientific, but it is better than science because without philosophy (religion), science is meaningless for anything but material utilitarianism and practical applications for the 'now'.

Nah... that's easy to imagine... Too easy! Darwin is ancient history in this fast paced time of discovery.What is too amazing for people, is the idea that they can actually meet God. That is what Christianity is all about. That is why it is called 'good news'! Because you don't have to believe blindly, or trust in your own imagination. You can see the 'matrix' for yourself fropm God's vantage point. He just gives it to you! All you have to do is ask and really mean it.God came to us, and told us how to find Him. It is as emerical as the air in your lungs, because as the first chapter of John's gospel proclaims, '...the Word Became flesh'. Not to mention the miracles and the resurection....Don't tell me that it is 'too amazing' for you. It's not like Allah, who is so transcendant, that you can only obey...It is like this... You can meet Him for yourself if you want to. He opens eyes, He doesn't shut them. But I suspect that for you it is just too amazing?The truth, is that it is too threatening to people who want to have life their way as they play God of their own lives. That's the problem.And God will honor your choice. He is not a fascist. He will let you have your way for eternity. And that is hell. He doesn't send us there. We choose it. He offers 'the way' out.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

jar:Thank you jar. Coming from a cynical contrarian like yourself, I'll take that as a compliment...And may God bless you with peace, wisdom, and understanding on this glorious weekend. I never forget you in my prayers.Sincerely, brother Rob

Iceage:That is totally unfair Iceage (not that I am suprised). And that is off topic, but I can't let it hang, so you've forced me to respond because you have intentionally tried to discredit and assasinate my character.My arguments must be very effective for you to ignore them and attack me the way you do...If you take the time to recall accurately, I said that "I had let my concealed weapons permit expire.. because I do not need it anymore."I don't want to hurt anyone. Not even my enemies. But the old me still wants to exalt itself. It's a battle. 2 steps forward, 1 step back.So, how is beating swords into plow-shares threatening? It would be different if I said I just bought a new 50 calliber machine gun. Now that's a threat. And I deleted the comment because it opened me up to such drivel as you are now puking all over my fine garments.I mentioned it (in a different thread) to show Kuresu the man I used to be...You see? I have changed Iceage... That's what hapens when your eyes are opened. You can admit when you've been wrong, throw away your old anchors, and free yourself from 'needing' your truth to be true. If it is, it can defend itself effectively. And you can free yourself from 'needing you sins to be ok.They're not ok...Change is very painful, but so is changing from a wannabe into a talented quarterback. So is changing from an ignoramous, into a mathematician.What hurts more is to watch people determined to stay mired in the mud. And try and pull you down into the pit with them. I have allowed it to happen before, and am trying very hard now to keep my robes clean.So go in peace Iceage...

I'm sorry jar, have I been ignoring you?Do you need more attention from me?Go ahead and say what ever you want... I just don't care.You've become absolute in your intentions to tear down.You can qualify your absolutes all you want... It's not context, it's called hedging your bets with sophistry.The mess you make fools a lot of people, but not me.

I also edited out the insults.In a way you are right... a play on Clint eastwood did I (thought Ringo would be proud).I was letting Kuresu know that if he assumes that all christians are ignorant and innocent little people who live in a bubble, that he is flat wrong.I was showing him my bare animal past! I held nothing back.But I concede that is is only pride that made me do that. I was offended that he did not respect me as an objective and independent thinker, who thought deeply about the matter of faith, and did not just jump on a mindless bandwagon.And that is true...Christ came to save sinners, and as paul said, "I am chief'. He said, if I brag let me boast about my weaknesses. I will boast in the Lord. The Lord is strong.I still think it was one of the most effective evangels I have offered. But I went too far. I have admitted that to Kuresu and have apologized in the very thread you brought up. Go see for yourself.