Did you know that every religion has at least one law that is not easily explained.
And what is that law for Deism?
To be part of any religion you can't just act with your common sense.
Again, apply this to Deism.
To answer your question about deists, they are part of a religion which does not believe in any religious leaders or religious laws. There religion requires one to act based on their own will.
In other words Deism refutes your assertions above = they are falsified.
Science can be considered a religion that closely resembles the religion of the deists.
Only by those that understand neither science nor Deism.
Every religious leader is required to be well versed in his own religion and he is then able to pass on the tradition to the next generation.
Except, as noted, for Deists: Deists use their common sense and discard tradition as a logical fallacy. All tradition becomes dogma and dogma interferes with understanding.
If you think I don't know what Deism is, can you please give your definition of Deism.
The standard definitions are fine.
Deists can use logic and science to understand the {world\universe\existence}, but science cannot use Deism (or any theology or antitheology) to understand the {world\universe\existence} because the concept of god is not testable.
science informs philosophy, philosophy includes religion
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.
Logical fallacy. First the precept is wrongly worded: the concept of a creator is not testable, therefore it is not subject to scientific evaluation. Thus it follows that science must be agnostic: it cannot judge whether creator is true or false. What we have is a subject matter that tries to describe the world based on testable hypothesis.
Science informs philosophy: it can tell you what concepts are false (such as geocentric or young earth), but it cannot tell you what cannot be tested.
That philosophy includes both science and religion does not mean that science = religion.
Philosophy goes beyond science, by making logical conclusions based on accepted premises. When such premises are based on faith or belief rather than fact then those philosophical conclusions are religious in nature.
Definition #2 applies to non-testable and untested hypothesis, whether it is a belief in god or multi-dimensional universes.
Again, definition #2 applies to non-testable and untested hypothesis, whether it is a belief in god or multi-dimensional universes.
Science is based on testable hypothesis formed from observation of evidence that take the form:
If {X} is true, then only {Y}, or if {X} is false then {Z}
Example: if the earth is young is true then there should only be evidence of a young earth - false if the earth is young is false then there should be evidence that the earth is old - true
This is not faith or belief, it is based on logical proof and material evidence, it is susceptible to rigorous proof. It is repeatable. When philosophical premises are based on faith or belief rather than fact then the philosophical conclusions are not scientific in nature.
The major distinction between {faith\belief} and {scientific hypothesis\theory} is that {science} can be false - and it can be tested to show that it is false - whereas {faith\belief} only allows that the concept is true.
Science is not a set of beliefs based on faith, therefore it cannot be a religion.
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 it normally does in a person's world view: philosophy. You can apply the same argument for mathematics: where does god fit in when no matter how you add things up or integrate, divide, multiply, apply transformations etc, the answer is never = god.
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.
Fallacious logical structure as well as based on only one premise that is false.
Science can explain what we know AND can test, the rest it leaves open as "we don't know (yet)" -- including the untestable question of god (including the question of which god ... ).
However, science does rest on logical proof AND material evidence, it allows that it can be false, and therefore it cannot be faith or belief (in the truth of the hypothesis and theories): Science cannot be religion. QED by definition.