Is Science a Religion?

If you are correct in your description of gravity, I would agree that it is not in anyway a religious concept. However, scientist don’t say that the cause of gravity is unknown. Rather, they say that anything of mass will have a built in attractive force. They attribute the force to the mass of the object and reject the possibility of any outside force.

First of all I don't know why you consider me a Christian. I never told anyone on this board what I believe in. I may truly be a scientist. Secondly, I am not coming to defend the Christian faith or dIspute it. All I do know is, there are many different oppinions in the Christian faith, and I did not see anything in your quote that resolves science with any other religion.

I agree that there are regularities in the world. The question is why? Scientist believe that the nature of the world is to have inborn forces. Other religions can claim that the order in the world is brought about by the creator and he continuously keeps the regularities of the world in existence to keep the world exactly the way he wants it.

You have just simply ignored all of my points. You seem to think that a religion requires a supernatural being. This is not true. You seem to think that science has not made up anything; however, I have already showed you how the gravitational "force" is a completely made up concept. The idea that anything with a mass carries an attractive force sounds as supernatural as any other religious belief.

I am simply debating a topic and most of the people on this board are just throwing around insults. To address your post, you say that I do not have an open mind. In fact you claim that I have the most closed mind on this site. However, it takes two people to argue. If you do not agree with me then your mind is just as closed to my side of the argument.

If you think I don't know what Deism is, can you please give your definition of Deism.

While doing some research on this topic, I came across a very clever proof for science being a religion. Science can be described as a monotheistic religion (yep just like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). The proof goes as follows: Without the monotheistic religions, the study of science would never have started. Science starts with a basic principle. There exists unity in the world. Without this principle science can't exist. When a scientist looks at a phenomenon in nature, he wonders how it relates to everything else. Have you ever asked yourself why scientists think that way? Maybe the world has no unity; this specific phenomenon is an entity in itself. This idea can be classified as a chaotic universe with no unity or order. If you think back long enough, this was the philosophy that was prevalent before the advent of modern science. The Greeks believed in different beings controlling different phenomenon independently of others. With the advent of monotheistic religions, people wondered if this all powerful single being may act in patterns. Scientist started to seek out pattern in the world and explain how everything is related and united. This stemmed from the monotheistic principles and is in no way an obvious assumption (consider the Greeks). Even today, scientists believe that they can come up with a unified TOE (Theory of Everything) when there is no proof that this universe is even a united entity. This principle is purely a religious one and the whole field of modern science stemmed from monotheism.

I can't feel any clear thinking in your post. You have stated many things without any proofs. Firstly, you did not clearly explain why you think it is an obvious given that the universe acts in unity. A proof that it is not obvious is the fact that a TOE has not been formulated yet. There are still contradictions in nature. The scientist insist that there must be one yet they have no proof. Secondly, I say my logic is not at all circular. I clearly proved my conclusion. The belief in unity of the universe can be seen as nothing other than a religious one.

The scientist "believe" in unity of the universe. That is why they seek it. The term belief is used when refering to a religion. If science is purely factual based, why do scientist search for a TOE when there is no facts that support a TOE?

Like others, you state your opinion without any proof. I don't know where you get the idea that "If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews." This is an outright false statement with no proof stated. Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread. Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.

I believe I made myself quite clear. The belief in unity means a belief that all of the phenomenon in the universe can be explained using the same principles. A good example is gravity (again). Science describes the "force" that holds one to the floor as the same force that keeps planet Earth revolving around the Sun. Scientist put forward this idea because they did believe in a random and chaotic universe. In a random and chaotic universe, the planets would be held in place by force "X" and people would be held on the planets by force "Y". A Theory of Everything (TOE) is a theory that would try to unite the seemingly contradictory forces in the physical nature of the universe. In order to look for such a thing, you must first believe in its existence. When you believe in something with no factual evidence what do you have?

First of all, I never said that the Hebrews were the first scientists. I said that the belief system of the scientist stemmed from the belief system of the Monotheists. You mentioned Aristotle. I can't thank you more. He is a perfect example of the opposite of modern science. He believed in separate forces, the opposite of the beliefs of modern science. If you don't recall Aristotle believed the whole world came from three separate elements. He made no contribution to modern science; rather, his theories would have never allowed modern science to be born. Secondly, I see from your questions that your logic that you are a little bit confused. I never said that science "IS" Monotheism. I said that the religion of science is an offshoot based on Monotheism. I am explaining the belief system of the religion of science. Science can have beliefs that stem from Monotheism and then go ahead and contradict other Monotheistic religions. That is exactly what the religion of science does. Further, I read what I am saying in real books. You are basing your knowledge on an Internet blog called wikipedia. Furthermore, scientists "believed" in unity before it "Worked". Why did the first scientists believe in unity? Where did they get this concept?

First of all, you think Stephen Hawking is spending his whole entire life researching a possibility he does not believe to truly exist.
Second of all, the whole concept of unity in the universe seems very natural to people born into a scientifically modern world. The concept of this unity was completely unheard of in the ancient world. Nobody even thought it to be a possibility.

Why did Newton even think to connect the two? Was it obvious to him at first glance? He obviously tried to come up with this calculation because he believed it would exist.

Why are you talking about proto-science when I have been discussing modern science? Please don't make irrelevant contrabutions. Further, I call you confused because you did not get it right even though you said that you got it right. If science is not Monotheism then there is no problem with science contradicting Monotheism. I should point out while I am on the topic, science uses Monotheistic beliefs and nothing more. They do not use Monotheistic "methodology". You can say anything about me. However, that does not help your argument.