Some scientists and "fans" and "believers" of Science seem to believe that it represents the utter perfection of mankind and existence. A true marvel. The true marvel. Well, Science is but one way of approaching the Truth. Artists who have never even heard of pH or pipettes can have just as profound an understanding of living. Let us not forget that all paths lead to Rome. Let's just be patient enough to let the other person say what he's got to before we cast judgment. And let us not take life from anything with a true sense of what life is worth.
i dont think so....Science and Religion are two different roads bound to intersect one day i think people are religiously dedicated to science, but science itself is not a religion, at least the way i see it
Sure, science can be a religion if you want it to. The point of religion is to offer you an explanation of your world, so science fits that very well. However, I would tend to group religion and science as two groups of "beliefs". Your beliefs are basically your personal interpretation of both science and religion.
I've also notice alot of the board here in gc seem to think science is absolute. One thing you have to know about science is that it relies pretty much on as much faith as religion in it's foundations. All I'm saying is be skeptic of what you take as fact, especially the scientist, as they are cocky and know you will beleive them.
It seems, that people put so much faith and belief into science. Sometimes a good deal more than the average, church going, christian. So yes, I would say for some people, science is their religion.
Science is not a religion. Science is a reproducible method for understanding and deconstructing the mechanics of nature. There are no dogmas in science, and science is not a "guide" to neither morality nor how one should live (rather restrict) ones life, as religions claim to be. Ofcourse one should be skeptical to every scientific discovery, and you'll find scientist to be the most skeptical of all. That is what the entire peer-review process is all about. Science do have it's number of frauds, scientists are human afterall. But that is the beauty of the scientific method, somebody else will look into all the data and evidence in question, and if there is foul play, it will sooner or later get exposed. By scientists. Science is self adjusting, and ever evolving as our understanding of nature expands. As opposed to religion, that is static and dogmatic. Religion that must be brought kicking and screaming to accept nature and reality as we understand it by evidence and not as the religion wants it to be by dogma.
nothing is certain in science, the only things we assume to be true are the things we are unable to prove false...this leaves a vast range of error and unknowns to be accounted for
Yes, like the Higher Power. Although, most the athiests around here, seem to believe, that science, can disprove a higher power. I myself, have never saw this proof. Although, I would love to see some evidence, disproving a Higher Power.
It's difficult to have a discussion about this unless we're all talking about the same thing. Some of the definitions of Faith, Religion and Science and Wisdom overlap. Science isn't religion because religion recognizes things that we don't have the ability to reproduce, and accepts them by faith. By some of the definitions science will only recognize what is reproducible, in the material sense. However, that said, scientists are beginning (more and more) to try and answer questions about the non-material world. So at that point, science comes very close to the same questions that are in religions. Religion [SIZE=-1] -a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power. -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]a system of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]an organized system of faith and worship -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship Science - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Science is both a body of knowledge and a set of processes for advancing that knowledge. More specifically, science is mankind's interconnected, internally consistent, growing body of knowledge about natural and man-made objects and phenomena of the past, present, and future; a body of knowledge [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]- [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A method of gathering information through the senses and logic (mathematics). Science has origins in philosophy. Science is one of humanity's inventions. But science as a method is more specific than philosophy. Science aspires to see connections. It reaches for tentative conclusions. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. - the study of the natural world[/SIZE] - [SIZE=-1]systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Science no longer seeks to explain phenomena and arrive at any kind of reality; rather, it now seeks to classify phenomena according to preconceived models. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Studies that normally encompass courses based on a knowledge of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate cause are designated Science (eg, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Nutrition, and Physics). - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Science is sometimes defined by Plato to be that which assigns the causes of things; sometimes to be that the subjects of which have a perfectly stable essence; and together with this, he conjoins the assignation of cause from reasoning. Wisdom -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]the quality of being prudent and sensible -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Wisdom is the ability, developed through experience, insight and reflection, to discern truth and exercise good judgment. Wisdom is sometimes conceptualized as an especially well developed form of common sense. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]is the result of learning and using knowledge for a strategic advantage. After gaining knowledge, wisdom is used to meet new situations. Wisdom resides in the minds of the users. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]-evaluating understanding to determine underlying principles or processes. Understanding why Mark's grandfather's visits help Mark's math performance requires wisdom to discern whether Mark is influenced by the additional adult attention, his grandfather's presence, or even the books that Mark's[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]is the ability to discern inner qualities and relationships; it is synonymous with insight, good sense, and sound judgment. It means to have "deep understanding", "to have keen discernment", "to have sanctified common sense", "to have the capacity for sound judgment" -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Refers to the fundamental nature of mind; not something developed or created, but ever-present and spontaneous. -[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting. - [/SIZE]is special illumination that enables one in a specific instance to grasp divine insight regarding a fact, situation, or context. This gift is useful in directing the Body in what to do next; in making God's will known. - [SIZE=-1]Knowledge with information so thoroughly assimilated as to have produced sagacity, judgment, and insight. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Wisdom" is the second of the ten sefirot, and the first power of conscious intellect within Creation. Faith [/SIZE]- [SIZE=-1]Faith can refer to any of a number of ideas, including::* Confidence in a person or thing (e.g. "I have faith that he will keep his promise");* Adherence to an obligation of loyalty to a person, organization, or idea (e.g. "I will be faithful to my spouse - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]For anyone in the Middle Ages, faith was a cornerstone element of their lives, without which the struggle and privations. For a medieval person, life on earth was but a brief transition to the afterlife in heaven, hell or purgatory. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This is not expected in Spiritualism where proof is offered. - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Belief without evidence - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A general term for religious belief used both of an attitude (to have faith) and of a collection of doctrines (the faith). - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A convinced belief; a condition of mind fully satisfied; next to actual knowledge. We have faith the sun will rise to-morrow morning, but the knowledge can not be actual until after sunrise. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]- Reliance or trust in something without proof[/SIZE]
Wait, so where are you getting all of this? Is this quoted from somewhere else? What I'm trying to get at again is that we're putting things into boxes. Some people might claim that Science is about discovery. We if that's so, then why are we CREATING new theories? Would theories be recognized by anything other than a human, at least in the sense of Science? Would they be recognized as theories before someone claimed they were and others accepted them as credible on some level? Talk about Creationism. I've said it before: there is one concept (Existence); it has infinite subtleties and perceptual dimensions.
Theories arent developed on imagination alone. Scientists promote theories (for the most part) because they have valid scientific evidence to suggest a certain something, or idea (ie the expanding universe or the big bang) may be fact. Theories arent "created" as you stated in your post, but rather they are presented to scientists through evidnece of possibility. Remember, a theory is only a theory...not a fact. Theories are nothing more than avenues for scientists to explore. Science and religion, by definition, are two very different things. However, one could argue that science requires a certain amount of "belief" and "faith" in order for it to succeed and continue to expand. You have to believe in the work you are doing and have "faith" (although I dont care much for the word) in the fact that science is valid on a cosmological scale. The reality is that everything we think we may know or understand to be true (in the scientific world), may in fact be completely wrong and absolutely false. The major difference between science and religion is that one is something that requires you to be pro-active in order to achieve or discover truth (science) Its a hands on, see the results and examine the results with your own eyes type thing. Science is tangible in the sense that you can see it, touch it, work with it, and examine it. On the other hand, the other only requires you to believe, stick to that belief and never stray (religion). There is nothing tangible about religion whatsoever. Scientists are constantly finding new ways or methods of doing things, coming up with new ideas and concepts to achieve a greater understanding. Todays scientific reality may be completely different tomorrow, and scientists are more than open to that idea. Religious folks seem to hang on to the same old stories and the same old ideas from the same old texts, not much changes.
Could you at least tell me exactly what you mean by "wrong and absolutely false"? If it affects someone's actions, and their actions (directly or indirectly) e/affect others, it is real enough, wouldn't you say? It matters to someone. It's real to them. Who's to say that their viewpoint is any less valid because they can't provide you with evidence exactly in the form you are comfortable with? Once again, how do scientists figure out new paradigms and models/theories? Someone creates and shares them, even though they aren't going to be accepted instantly. It's when a set of beliefs gets a large following, claiming to be more than an approximation of the Truth, that it becomes doctrinal and exclusionary. Scientists must have the faith that they are doing the right thing. It's not a big conspiracy designed to fool everyone, but it has its limits. I see those limits as being similar to those of a religion. "Tomorrow never knows what it doesn't know too soon. Need a little time to wake up. Need a little time to rest your mind. You know you should so you might as well." - Oasis's "Morning Glory"
sorry I just did some searching on the various terms and pasted it. It's not meant to be the end of the argument, just some reference of what the terms are commonly accepted to mean. But your right about what you say; saying that religion and Science are separated is like divorcing cause and effect. Scientists are so concentrated about effect, that when people talk about cause they get uppity because science can't deal with cause. (Unfortunately the denial of religion and it's purpose will always exist, as long as the world lasts.) From these definitions it would seems like science looks backwards, because it requires proof, and faith looks forward, because it requires belief. However, that said, you really haven't covered religion when you talk about faith, because religion to me is anything that you do with the intent of the bettering others. This is the reason why religion requires faith; although faith does not require religion because to make somebodies life better involves an understanding as well as an unfaltering belief (in order to instill hope) of the concept of better. To just have faith in something, doesn't help much; unless you have hope in the betterment of others. (ie religion) To this end my religion is scientifically verifiable, because when I do something to make things better somebody else can come along and say yep, you did. But the problem here is that this requires wisdom in the observer, because you have to understand the concept of betterment again, as well as it has to be 'provable' that it was what you that did it... many times all you can do to better a persons life is offer them ideas, inspiration and hope (have you ever seen the movie the Post Man?) And honestly these things are far more powerful than any material object; which makes religion far more powerful than science. (the Teacher is always more powerful than the student, until the student becomes a teacher, by wisdom and knowledge) You can try to rule a nation using science to determine that people require hope, and instill false hope (because it is contrived) or you can go to the source of hope (which is inside of you, and is achieved through wisdom). However you can only find wisdom if you have a pure heart. Kinda a catch 22 their. To understand what it means to make somebody else's life better is true wisdom, because in order to know what will actually give contentment and happiness all rolled into one, you have to understand how to get it first. (the eastern spiritual term here would be bliss). If you are only concentrating on making somebody temporarily happy, you can use the scientific method, and easily determine that if you give them a shit load of money your gonna make them wet themselves. (If you've ever been to Alberta, Canada, you can have a look at what having a shit load of money and no common sense is all about... I'm sure their's other places but that's a good start) For example, Ralph Klien (King Ralph, the albera Premiere(kinda like a governor) made a law in alberta that gives Albertans energy rebates to the tune of 500 bucks or something like that every year. Is ralph practicing religion when he gives people money? Is he trying to better people's lives? At first it could seem so... But does the money go to the people who will actually receive a benifit from it? Some of it does, and some of it doesn't. A lot of it is just their to buy public favor, and instill pride in the state. (very scientific goals -> Verifiable) If a person gives money to somebody who needs food, and doesn't let the person know that it was him who gave it that's religion. If a person gives money to his land lord, that's science. To me if a scientist is religiously works on a theory, or idea it means that he is doing something not for the purpose of self glorification or for the purpose of scientific achievement or personal glory, but he is working on it to better the life of others. For example when Tesla invented the induction generator, and gave it away to the Westinghouse company so that the idea wouldn't die, that's religion. He didn't receive any benefit from it (well possibly enough to get him through for a while) but in the end, his gift keeps giving. That's true religion, and Telsa would have have required a mountain of faith to do that.
In the scientific world, right and wrong have nothing to do with whats real. Whats real is real, right and wrong only reflect the interpretation of the reality we can see. Maybe our interpretations are right, maybe they are completely wrong. Thats what I mean by "wrong and absolutely false". Scientists dont "create" new theories, theories arrive to science through understanding and exploration. Scientists could see that things within the universe seemed to be moving in such a way that it suggested the Universe itself is expanding. The theory came from the "proof in the pudding" so to speak. So to say that theories are created is incorrect. Scientists dont create them, they simply relay the message but are careful to say that they may be interpreting the message the wrong way, hence the word "theory". In a sense, the Universe is revealing itself in bits and pieces to anyone to takes the time and effort to explore it on a deeper level than just looking at the stars and saying "wow". The only limitations to science are the limitations to mans ability to understand. As long as our understanding grows, science will grow along with it. To claim that the limits of science are similar to the limits of religion is just wrong, no other way to put it. Heres the kicker... In the scientific world, it doesnt matter how big of a following a certain theory may have. Lets say 5 million scientists believe in the big bang theory. Lets also say that tomorrow a discovery is made that completely contradicts that theory....and its valid scientific evidence. Those 5 million scientists (if they are good scientists) would abandon the big bang theory if science proved that the theory was wrong. On the flip side of that... In the religious world, lets say there are 10 million christians (dont mind the numbers because I dont study this type of thing) who obviously follow christianity. Lets say that someone somewhere, whether it be through the means of science or something else discovered that not only is christianiy false, but that christ himself didnt even exist. Lets say someone discovered that the whole thing was a sham. You know what would happen the next day.....?? You'd still have 10 million christians.
Of course this must imply that you feel you aren't good enough (especially since there are such powerful similarities between two people that we claim they share the exact same inalienable rights). Better is a comparison to oneself as representing what good is. Because who knows what's "best" for you better than you? If you think it's someone else, then maybe it really is. Meaning if you think the government and science know better than you what you should be doing with your life, your body, and you relationships, then they will be there to protect you. However, you will find that there is room for doubt and fear in this system because you have given up some of your power to another institution, and thus you aren't secure if the government seems untrustworthy to you in any way. Not yet. What's it about? Did you mean that the teacher always begets the student? lol Well, if you were implying that, I'd say to you that a teacher has no job if no one wants to learn. If no one has a question, no one will give an answer. That's why you need both, and that's why both the student's and the teacher's considerations have essentially equal weight. To understand and communicate that you can't "make" anyone else do something without them making you make them is true wisdom. Is he successful? Is he listening to and acting on his intuitions or his fears? Is the scorn he generates in those who question his motives an eternal detriment to his personal and Universal evolution or merely a temporary "misfortune" that will inspire him and others connected to him to change themselves positively? And if a person who knows about paragraphs and sentences puts two sentences together that say different things, he is creating a connection them that others may now perceive. Religion is exclusionary dogma. Something versus something else.
It matters how one defined the term religion. Science wouldn't be a religion under this definition (dictionary.com) Hmm.. you can decide that for yourself. Are there really practices in science? Not that I know of. A belief means: Is science an opinion? No, it's widely considered fact. So to conclude, I say: no, it is not a religion.