Science is no better than the religion is has cast aside, only updated, more believable in contemporary society. The seeds of the religious overthrow may have been planted at the same time as religion itself was created. Man's curiosity bubbling over, fighting to control, understand and harness his environment. And for centuries we understood, in mass. God created the universe, he was all knowing and that was it. You lived the life God told you because he was your creator and he knows best. Man couldn't leave it at that though. His curiosity could not be caged in dogma for long... or could it? So here we are, having replaced God with science. But where has this left us? With fact and stats and ideas about why and how and what. But this scientific discovery has simply become a new God. A new ideal of understanding. We strive to understand the world fully so that we may live harmoniously in it, not realizing that we already HAD this sort of comfort in the primal religions of old. So now we worship our theories and great minds like the prophets of old, turning to them to answer the questions of existence, but man miscalculated, or rather failed to understand one thing. He is but beast and he will never comprehend the universe.
I suppose in the sense that neither are self justified. Both require an initial assumption. But after that, science is in search for knowledge, religion for truth. They arent mutually exclusive, ultimately they should be completely coherent.
I wouldn't like to put it down to a percentage... but not every science is concerned with the questions of existence. It's an over-represented concept in these forums, and that's a bit sad, because I was never much interested in physics or space quite as much as other things. Rest assured, there is more to science than facts, stats and ideas about why and how and what. Consider what you'd be typing this post into if it weren't for science...
You know i think its in pandoras box there is a thread "3 people youd erase from history" and go figure tons say hitler. Funny thing is, without him, we'd be no where nearly as technologically advanced as we are. Granted Germany had arguably the best institutions and greatest minds, but with the madmans ambition and initiative, he poured ridiculous amount of money into the sciences. The first person who came to my mind was hitler as well, but then all of that came to my mind. Seems like just as religions, science can be used for good or bad.
ah, yes. The continual regurgitation of the "science is a religion" nonsense.. If you're going to troll, at least do a better job of it.. I might even actually read the original post that way! Religion requires a belief in god. End of story. Nothing you can say will ever change that.
We didn't live harmoniously with the world. People chopped gays apart and stoned girls to death if they had sex before marriage Also theories can be updated and changed when new evidence is brought in, unlike religion. Do you really believe that the bibles advice to never plant to seeds of different types in the same field is good advice? Do you think slavery and beating slaves is ok? The bible says so.
this should be moved to the philosophy section. " sci·ence /ˈsīəns/ Noun The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural... A particular area of this: "veterinary science". re·li·gion /riˈlijən/ Noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed." case closed.
Science is the study of nature. Not a religion. And yea wrong section for this should be in philosophy
I guess the op is living proof that if you don't believe in a religion you don't necessarily believe in science. Since he thinks science is a religion.
That's a first for me^ So you believe in evolution , but not that we evolved from other ancestral apes (though we are a species of apes). Do you believe speciation is possible? if you do then why do you not believe we don't evolve from other species of apes?
Coffee doesn't have lactose in it. In allergic to milk and I still drink coffee. Also evolution isn't a belief its a science. No one "believes" in evolution they "know" about it. And you can't say you believe in evolution but don't believe that we evolved that makes no sense
Wrong. Religions are based on faith. Science is based on observation. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed and recorded in nature. Religion adjusts to the culture of its believers and worshipers. Also, people don't "worship" science. That's silly. Science is a collection of patterns and observations that humans have recorded and come to understand about out world. It can be beautiful and amazing. But it is not a thing to worship. If a scientist is "worshiping" or has religious-esque faith in whatever his hypothesis is, he is more likely to be a bad scientist, because he can't believe that his hypothesis could be wrong even if there is evidence otherwise. Religion is about holding on to faith. It has nothing to do with observation of the world. It's about giving its believers something to hold on to and believe in that is somehow more than the physical world. It's about creating meaning in the places where a lack of meaning would scare us. It has nothing to do with experementation. That would be ridiculous. Imagine trying to experementally test religious concepts? Trying to test god? What does that prove? NOTHING. Because that's not what religion is about. Faith isn't about that. I'm not trying to say religion isn't real or something, but if you're trying to prove something about whatever god you believe in by trying to gather evidence to empirically prove it with evidence, then you're missing the entire point of faith. A Religious person who thinks they can empirically prove anything about their god through any means other than faith, is a bad worshiper. And any Scientist who worships a scientific idea, or who believes a hypothesis that there isn't any evidence for as if it were and established theory based on actual facts is a bad scientist. A person can be both a scientist and a religious person. It is a stupid fallacy to think that both things can't exist in the same person. I've known many of them (I'm not one, but whatever. I've known them and they're just fine). But those people realize that science and religion are different things, and they are based on different kinds of belief.