• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

"Science is a religion"

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
This claim makes no sense to me, but there's no point in posting one of the many definitions of "religion" and bulletpointing all of the ways science is separate from that definition. The mundane truth is that what, in common parlance, constitutes a "religion" is ambiguous. In actual fact, I find that people who make the claim in this thread's title tend to have a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless definition of "religion" as "anything with explanatory force that anyone believes for any reason whatsoever." If this is the definition we're using, then fine, science is a "religion".

But it's still the only religion that requires its practitioners to back their claims with repeatable, falsifiable demonstrations of empirical evidence. And that's good enough for me.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
But it's still the only religion that requires its practitioners to back their claims with repeatable, falsifiable demonstrations of empirical evidence. And that's good enough for me.

This is why both science and religion are important. Science provides us with empirical measures that can be universally agreed upon, and religion speculates on those things that cannot yet be measured. The important thing to remember though is that (and I'm sure you have already come to this conclusion Mycroft) the science must come first! Only after all the measures have been taken should we turn our attention towards religion and the dark corners of our world it can uncover that the light of science does not currently penetrate.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
This is why both science and religion are important. Science provides us with empirical measures that can be universally agreed upon, and religion speculates on those things that cannot yet be measured. The important thing to remember though is that (and I'm sure you have already come to this conclusion Mycroft) the science must come first! Only after all the measures have been taken should we turn our attention towards religion and the dark corners of our world it can uncover that the light of science does not currently penetrate.

I have no need for the God of the Gaps in my world view.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Ya I said you must think science comes first - and the part about religion coming after is what I thought; but anyway, how do you explain these "gaps" you mention?
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ya I said you must think science comes first - and the part about religion coming after is what I thought; but anyway, how do you explain these "gaps" you mention?
The gaps are the questions that science cannot yet answer. Most of what we now know through scientific inquiry was unexplained for millennia, falling under the purvey of religion. Religion is best concerned with those questions which science will never answer.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Science is a method. No religion I've known of really has any method, no less is a method.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Science is a method. No religion I've known of really has any method, no less is a method.
Religions have plenty of methods. Unfortunately, they don't lead to much due to lack of any correspondence with reality. The main exception is meditation techniques, but those don't require actual belief in a deity to work.

science has it's roots in religion and occultism.

"Science without religion is lame"
Human inquiry has its roots in religion and occultism, since that was the main way of attempting to satify the desire to know and understand. But it is religion without science that is lame, or more accurately, we are lame if all we have is religion. Science can stand on its own two feet, and support us along with it.
 

LEGERdeMAIN

New member
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
2,516
Human inquiry has its roots in religion and occultism, since that was the main way of attempting to satify the desire to know and understand. But it is religion without science that is lame, or more accurately, we are lame if all we have is religion. Science can stand on its own two feet, and support us along with it.

that was an einstein quote, thought it was interesting. I don't belong to or participate in any religious activity. Science cannot stand on it's own, it needs a catalyst. religion was the catalyst at one time, what is it now?
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
The gaps are the questions that science cannot yet answer. Most of what we now know through scientific inquiry was unexplained for millennia, falling under the purvey of religion. Religion is best concerned with those questions which science will never answer.

Like the appeal of pistachio ice cream? Disgusting. The amount of times ive mistaken it for mint....
 
G

garbage

Guest
'course, most sciences started off as offshoots of philosophy way back in the day (first math, then physics, then the other physical sciences). And, of course, religion is also most definitely connected to philosophy.

Perhaps science and religion are cousins. :D

If we focus on the definition of a religion as "a worldview," then one could very much bend the definition of science to "a worldview wherein we believe in piecing our worldview together via scientific methods." But that's a huge stretch and pretty much devoid of meaning.
 
I

Infinite Bubble

Guest
Religion began as simply a primitive form of deriving the 'truth' about how and why the universe works. What could be said to separate religion and science is the methods on which its conclusions are derived. Religion, on a fundamental level, began on a set of assumptions based on human imagination and intuition. Science from empirical evidence based around model-dependent realism.

But reality is counter-intuitive. The 'truth' is not tailored for our perception. The world looks flat; it has to be flat in reality - the stars and planets appear to revolve around the earth; we're at the centre of the universe. Now add something that was simply to complex for humans at that stage. How did it all begin? We are life, we have the power to create; so only another being could have possibly created the universe.

Thus it could be said that religion (along it's connection with philosophy) was a primitive science. They both started from humans natural curiosity and need to understand. That of course being a being a natural advantage for the progression of the species. But since religions methods are no longer needed, it's unfortunate that it is used in the way it is today. I think it is perfectly fine to be used as a way of life (in fact it's probably very healthy to), but to disregard science is plain ignorant- or in denial. But no, as it stands today, science is not religion. Although their initial motives are from the same source.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
tend to have a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless definition of "religion" as "anything with explanatory force that anyone believes for any reason whatsoever." If this is the definition we're using, then fine, science is a "religion".

But it's still the only religion that requires its practitioners to back their claims with repeatable, falsifiable demonstrations of empirical evidence. And that's good enough for me.
No, when people make this claim they are using a very different definition. Religion describes a relationship of people to what they hold as sacred. Many people hold science to the same standards of sanctity that others give to deities and other religious items. They even go so far as to have a kind of "faith" in it at times, and their passion is shown in their spirited belief. They become upset when their passionately held beliefs and allegiances to sources are questioned, and uncomfortable when their methods and the accuracy of the facts are questioned. Where this is most evident is when more mystical sorts suggest that the scientific method and body of knowledge is incomplete at arriving at truth, and that there are other methods of attaining accurate and useful understanding of the world.

This is actually directly relevant to the article I'm reading for my epistemology class. There is both propositional knowledge (that of belief and facts) and nonpropositional knowledge (that of understanding, interaction, familiarity, visual representation, etc.). Two corresponding emphases in epistemology have alternately dominated philosophy throughout history, those of certainty and understanding, with different relations to skepticism.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
It doesn't matter particularly if it is. What matters is the degree to which acts of faith are required for the system to persist.

Or, to put it another way, the degree to which acts of inquiry are required for the system to persist.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
No, when people make this claim they are using a very different definition. Religion describes a relationship of people to what they hold as sacred. Many people hold science to the same standards of sanctity that others give to deities and other religious items. They even go so far as to have a kind of "faith" in it at times, and their passion is shown in their spirited belief. They become upset when their passionately held beliefs and allegiances to sources are questioned, and uncomfortable when their methods and the accuracy of the facts are questioned. Where this is most evident is when more mystical sorts suggest that the scientific method and body of knowledge is incomplete at arriving at truth, and that there are other methods of attaining accurate and useful understanding of the world.

This is actually directly relevant to the article I'm reading for my epistemology class. There is both propositional knowledge (that of belief and facts) and nonpropositional knowledge (that of understanding, interaction, familiarity, visual representation, etc.). Two corresponding emphases in epistemology have alternately dominated philosophy throughout history, those of certainty and understanding, with different relations to skepticism.

People latch on to the emotional content: This here "scientist" believes things with conviction! This priest does as well! Therefore, they are both equally wrong / correct.

If one person believes fervently that if he releases a stone from his hand it will rocket off into the heavens and another believes with equal fervor it will drop to the ground in accordance with Newtonian physics, seeing as there's a tremendous body of data to support that position, should we all just get along and declare them both correct? Or maybe they should compromise: the rock will hover in stasis. Then again, it's only on the basis of empirical evidence that we've come to believe stones drop to the ground when released, and we really can't trust the senses, now can we? So let's all just believe whatever we want on whatever basis we choose.

Please. Anything proposed without verifiable data is conjecture, plain and simple.

(I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking you, personally, because I'm not. I've just come to be extremely annoyed by this fallacy on account of its prevalence.)
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
People latch on to the emotional content: This here "scientist" believes things with conviction! This priest does as well! Therefore, they are both equally wrong / correct.

If one person believes fervently that if he releases a stone from his hand it will rocket off into the heavens and another believes with equal fervor it will drop to the ground in accordance with Newtonian physics, seeing as there's a tremendous body of data to support that position, should we all just get along and declare them both correct? Or maybe they should compromise: the rock will hover in stasis. Then again, it's only on the basis of empirical evidence that we've come to believe stones drop to the ground when released, and we really can't trust the senses, now can we? So let's all just believe whatever we want on whatever basis we choose.

Please. Anything proposed without verifiable data is conjecture, plain and simple.

(I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking you, personally, because I'm not. I've just come to be extremely annoyed by this fallacy on account of its prevalence.)

I don't believe we should give equal truth value to things to be politically correct; we should give them equal consideration. That is, form our own epistemically justified beliefs about things free from bias. A scientific bias can be just as incorrect in certain areas as a religious bias.

(For the record, I occupy a position where the scientific and the spiritual are in balance and don't contradict each other.)
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I don't see how you can have a "scientific bias". What would this entail? From what I've seen, when people say someone has a "scientific bias", they mean that he doesn't softheadedly entertain every vacuous piece of conjecture and sophistry he encounters.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't believe we should give equal truth value to things to be politically correct; we should give them equal consideration. That is, form our own epistemically justified beliefs about things free from bias. A scientific bias can be just as incorrect in certain areas as a religious bias.

(For the record, I occupy a position where the scientific and the spiritual are in balance and don't contradict each other.)

I believe in giving things equal consideration, but there seems to be a hang up I've noticed. People seem to forget that giving everything equal consideration does not require me to give consideration to something that is founded on something else I have considered in the past and found to be false. It's like they want me to give deep, lengthy consideration to each and every individual proposal with no regard for what it's based on and what has come before it.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I believe in giving things equal consideration, but there seems to be a hang up I've noticed. People seem to forget that giving everything equal consideration does not require me to give consideration to something that is founded on something else I have considered in the past and found to be false. It's like they want me to give deep, lengthy consideration to each and every individual proposal with no regard for what it's based on and what has come before it.
Of course you have to integrate things into your belief system, and reject things which don't fit. Only be open to new information and the possibility that your system needs to be modified (i.e. don't let Ti suppress Ne).
 
Top