Is Science a Religion?

What is this nonsense about questions and answers, seriously?What verifiable answers can you possibly have that I can't? You sound like you imagine religious people sitting at their computers quoting out of books, paying no heed to the words before them, and installing the same words in every situation. Some of them do. But you, afterwards, repeat the answers back to them, with as little comprehension or argument as the previous, often with only a twisted rendition of the very words on the screen.Why is this battle even taking place? No one is learning a flying thing, from topic to topic, from day to day. I have picked up countless facts, definitions, histories, trivialities, biographies, most from my own research after the fact, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence which says religions can't be true, or that questioning things has led anyone to a better interpretation of life.Verifiable facts are easy to come by. Anyone can get some. There is nothing glorious about letting life slip by waiting for enough 'facts' to raise you from this mundane pursuit.The question is, if science deals with the verifiable, and is not a religion, why are verifiable answers competing with religion here? Where does this competition between questions and religion come from? I assure you I have access to the same answers which you have, and the possibility of even more than you allow for. My religion has not curbed my appetite for knowledge, but opened the door. I see all around me nothing but shuttered houses.I completely understand jar's point about questioning answers. yet, if the answer is God, no amount of questioning will ever disprove, or prove, God. The most we can hope for is a fuller understanding, and the most hopeless thing we can do is dream of any understanding. We are left in the same predicament, whether educated or ignorant.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I believe you are reasonable, and probably more deeply so than others will believe.It is disconcerting in a way to see no heart on your sleeve, but your intelligence is unmistakable, and I am sure it is well-used. Sometimes I wish that it had more of a discernable purpose, for you have the qualities of a great teacher, as does jar, and yet, I am never sure of the subject I am studying. ABE: I have heretofore not responded in this thread because the differences between science and religion have been expounded nicely by PaulK early on, and RAZD most carefully. I have only wished that those who do not understand the difference will not view religion as a dead-end.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Pssssssst.....that was me.

I may as well ask you; why is your belief that God does not exit found in absolutely no mythology? Why is disbelief not worthy of its own story?

Whatever you have decided is true, simply use God in its place. Whatever you are not sure about, believe. If your beliefs must change, so what? Your idea of truth must change, but somewhere out there the real answer exists.

Sure, why not? It is not anti-God, it is not false. It is eternal and inalterable. It is part of truth. Find all of truth, and you have God. While knowing that we can never have knowledge of all that is true, is it wrong to suppose that truth could not be found?Praying to the Pythagorean Theorem is no more useful than praying to the Catholic church. The theorem represents but one part of truth, as does a religion. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

As with any theory, theology has at least to show internal consistancy; it must be checked against reality and or the Bible. It simply can not prove the existance of its object, but object presumed, must verify subsequent extrapolations. If consistancy results, the theology is meaningful, even useful. The theology may be tested time and again, remaining consistant.Does a good theology based in logic and tested on reality prove the object, namely, God? It helps but at the end of the day even the staunchest believers have their 'long dark nights'. Science on the other hand can be understood to satisfaction, but the 'evidence' will not vanish in a weak moment or time of loss. In that sense it is more truly God than the greatest of theologies. But, can science confort us with meaning and purpose in life? Can it be satisfying to our needs?Since there is no reason to say that science itself is a religion, perhaps Rob will be kind enough to start a thread illustrating what he sees when science is viewed as the end in itself.

Which is why I said and/or the Bible...of course the implication is not that a theology - Bible must be less consistant, but that a theology should not oppose any texts which it might consider vital to understanding it.

The standard exists...whether it be 5 books, 95 books, or something outside of the Bible altogether. The problem is, the standard itself can not be validated without a working theology, but is a 'conclusion' which the theology is tested against. We see revisions of the Bible to match the theology, revisions of the theology to match the Bible, and worst case scenerio, revisions of reality to match either.

Don't over complicate it. All I meant was that a theology in which the Bible is central must agree with the text in order for over-all consistancy. And again, both must agree with reality.

Dear Rob,Science is not religion, that is clear. I do not want to be off-topic in this post, but I was thinking that instead of discussing this here, you might want to start something on what happens when science takes the place of religion, how to recognize the mind-set, pit-falls, what have you.I did come across an example of what you may be getting at, a post by Larni in another thread, in which he says ; He denied any deifying of nature itself...but this thought leaves huge gaps for me as it is. I can either thank God for me, or an impersonal Nature, or well, myself, which is little short of vanity. Now, of course I am lucky, 'blessed' if you will. I do not deny that it is pure 'luck' which made me free from major or mental or physical defect. But I can't honestly get a feel for how to attribute my creation to nature. It may simply be that I have lived within my own bias for so long that this idea just sounds odd. maybe there is no need for thankfulness at all. Naturally, however, I often am thankful, and the thought of having no 'benefactor' is odd for me.If this is too off-topic, perhaps you can give me thoughts elsewhere. I don't want to be offensive.