Is Science a Religion?

Wrong!You've bought into the lie... that there is a difference between theory and faith. They are the same thing.They both have the root word, 'Theo' which pertains to reality (or God) as Anastasia so aptly showed to Crash in an earlier post.Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology: You're just plain worng Ringo, and it is because you are blinded by your own ambitions.Repent!

You said the word. Get a Duck.You lose. Sorry, just jabberwocky and more off topic nonsense. Totally irrelevant to the topic as well as being inane.You still have failed to post anything on topic, relevant, important, worth considering or even with a point.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"The depravity of man, is at once... the most emperically verifiable reality. yet at the same time, is the most intellectually resisted fact!" (Malcomb Muggeridge)It is not jabberwockey jar. Sin and death and murder and theft and adultery and depravity and haterd and violence are realities.I guess science has nothing to say about them other than offer a technique to change them. We'll just genetically engineer ourselves out of such behavior, or exterminate those who practice them?Except homosexuals of course...

No they are not.Your own religion says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."A scientific theory is an explantion of what is seen. Faith and theory are mutually exclusive.

---

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

Ringo: Wrong!You've bought into the lie... that there is a difference between theory and faith. They are the same thing.They both have the root word, 'Theo' which pertains to reality (or God) as Anastasia so aptly showed to Crash in an earlier post.Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology: You're just plain wrong Ringo (and jar), and it is because you are blinded by your own ambitions.Repent!

---

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.

Yawn.Irrelevant to the topic Rob.Just more nonsense and jabberwocky.In case you have forgotten, the topic is "Is Science a Religion?"Do you ever plan on posting anything that is on topic, relevant, important, worth considering, with a point or even simply interesting?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nope... theory is no different than theology. They are 'theo'.And the 'theo' of faith explains more of reality than the 'theo' of science, which is limited to only material causes.If you combine them, then both begin to make sense. you have isolated parts of reality from each other so as not to confront the whole (holy) element of life.And that is why sin = death.

jar:I can't even believe I used to let you get under my skin...

Nonsense. "Atheist" and "Theist" also contain the same root "theo". Cherry-picking one root out of a word says nothing about its definition. And again you are showing the difference between faith and science. EXACTLYIf only you understood what you just wrote.Yes, we separate out the tangible, verifiable, visible, repeatable parts of reality. That's what we call science.

---

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

You're muddled Ringo... they both have a position on the matter... And the matter is God!Athiesm is not agnoticism. Slow down Ringo... The only differnce is that theology extrapolates more data. Science theory extrapolates a limited view of reality. It is the more closed of the two systems.Open your mind. The Bible says, 'Be transformed by the renewing of your mind'.You've got it backwards...Just because they have a difference does not equate to a total difference. I do Ringo... So science thorizes on half the picture, and you think that is more informative for practical purposes of your moral and political agenda than your theological counterparts who theorize on the moral side of the equation?Why would you ignore the moral side of the equation and use only science to guide you to whole (holy) answers?Could it be that you do not want the answers provided by Christ?If you keep reality wrapped up in a neat little bundle called "the box of science", then you can only pretend that you have knowledge? And you even admit it is limited intentionally. Amazing!That is now impossible to do honestly, with modern science uncovering the complexities of life, and the interconnectedness and overlapping complexity of the cosmos in regard to it.'Darwins black box' is open Ringo. It's no longer the panacea it used to be. There is nothing to fear...As Phillip Johnson has said, 'The train is already moving in the other direction.'The cat is out of the bag...Ringo, why don't you use both sides of the equation to come to a complete understanding of reality?You are complete in Him... because He is light (logic and reason) itself. Don't eat only part of Him. Don't just have the flesh... drink the blood too!Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

As I said, science has to verify its extrapolations. Theology can not. Yes. Science and religion are different. Nobody said anything about a "total difference".A truck is different from a fountain pen - different enough that nobody would claim a fountain pen is a truck. That doesn't mean there are no similarities. It means the differences outweigh the similarities. I did not say one word about my "moral and political agenda". You can't respond intelligently to my posts unless you learn to read what I write. I don't. You're the one who keeps bringing up inanities about "whole (holy) answers".Try to understand this before you utter more of the same drivel: Science does not concern itself with holy answers. It concerns itself only with empirically verifiable answers about the empirically verifiable world.Edited by Ringo, : Spellling.Edited by Ringo, : More spelling.

---

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

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.

You can not say that a Theology can be checked against the Bible. That tells us absolutely nothing about the theology's worth or validity, only about how closely it corresponds to the Bible, but that only tells you if it is a Biblical Theology or not.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

But again, that does not apply to a "Theology" but only some small subset of theologies, those that are Biblically based. In addition it tells us nothing about the validity of the theology, but only how it corresponds to the Bible.What you are suggesting is measuring something against a standard which does not exist. There is not even one standard Bible, not even one standard list of books to be included in something called a "Bible".As a matter of fact, the ONLY books common to ALL Biblical Canons are the first five books. None of the New Testament books are common to ALL Canons.This is yet another reason that Science is not a Religion. In Science it is possible to have Standards which ALL scientists can agree upon. There is a Standard Meter for example.Religion has no Standards which can be used to evaluate or verify its validity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion