Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

Science is not a religion but materialism is.

I have had the same idea and Richard Dawkins is one of the priests of materialism bashing anything that does not fit.

You can see how the dogma ideas are counter scientific, for instance Quantum effects like quantum coherence cannot exists in warm and noisy environment that is now proven.

Just watch 16:00-18:00 below.


Why was it only Roger Penrose who was questioning this idea? Why make the assumption that only because you have a problem creating quantum coherence in noisy wet environment it is impossible? It is like saying since we have bad tools there are no good tools. Just because it is hard for us to create a communication device that can do instant communication using entanglement over light years without moving in the media between the points, do not automatically make it impossible.

I am happy when people follow where the science lead them and give up materialist dogma. The good thing about people who follow the scientific principle. Once you prove something most of them follow the objective facts and give up subjective ideas.

As Ghandi once said, "I love your science, but your scientists, not so much"

amirite?

Everybody knows the blind faith people put into believing what comes out of their mouths.

Reminds me of the real fundamental religious types.

my question is...though I agree with the article's contention...are you picking sides here ? In a sense..."you see Science is faulty...that's why Yahweh is true" ?

Science is certainly faulty...but that in no way gives more credence to human religious concept.

I step back from both...though I like science more...I'm perfectly aware of all of its shortcomings.

correct me if im wrong but in religion isnt there an entity that is TYPICALLY worshipped? what entity would that be in this case?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: damwel
Just another attempt to discredit credible concrete things by people who believe there is a giant ghost in the sky who loves them so much, he makes them suffer.

So
You are saying that everything scientists are saying is accurate

Don't think even a little could be wrong

Delusional

Didn't say that at all. That has nothing to do with the statement science is a religion

Science is a process. A process that has proven it gets results.

I suppose you could call it a religion if you looked at people and distorted things, but doing so would change the situation from "all religions are equal" to "one religion is clearly superior."

a reply to: chr0naut

This is inconsequential to the topic of the OP, but I felt compelled to let you know how much I appreciate your sense of humor.

a reply to: BO XIAN

If you want to call science a religion, thats all fine and well, but you must concur that it is the superior religion. The one true religion.

If you want to debunk all of science, you will just have to use better science. Kind of a catch 22.

a reply to: dreamlotus1111

While you are correct that most religions involve the worship of some type of entity, some religions are nontheistic.

To answer your question, the closest comparable aspect of science that is "worshipped" would probably be the Scientific Method.

I really think that it would have been more fair to state that mainstream science is like a religion to some, instead of straight up calling it a religion.

Science and religion really could not be much more dissimilar than they are.

Sounds more like an argument one would get from some southern baptist frog licker.

a reply to: BO XIAN

There are real scientist doing real science despite the many that do not .

originally posted by: damwel

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: damwel
Just another attempt to discredit credible concrete things by people who believe there is a giant ghost in the sky who loves them so much, he makes them suffer.

So
You are saying that everything scientists are saying is accurate

Don't think even a little could be wrong

Delusional

Didn't say that at all. That has nothing to do with the statement science is a religion

Well my apologies
From where I was standing you said "discredit creditable concrete" so what's the concrete, everything you believe, a white coat tells you to believe
I am a christian, I don't believe everything a preacher tells me

Mine is a faith, yours ?

a reply to: BO XIAN
I S&Fed you for this one BO, not because I believe science is a religion, but because I think some scientists, and their followers have made it faith-based, I think our academia need to be challenged frequently and intelligently to keep them as honest as we can.

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective. The method itself is not vested in the outcome of an experiment. The results are what they are. It is only those performing the experiments that sometimes become vested in the outcome for various reasons, such as money, fame, and of course, the almighty status quo.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: BO XIAN
I S&Fed you for this one BO, not because I believe science is a religion, but because I think some scientists, and their followers have made it faith-based, I think our academia need to be challenged frequently and intelligently to keep them as honest as we can.

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective. The method itself is not vested in the outcome of an experiment. The results are what they are. It is only those performing the experiments that sometimes become vested in the outcome for various reasons, such as money, fame, and of course, the almighty status quo.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

True
The scientific method is pure
Why not rely on the scientific method for science, isn't that the issue in the thread

a reply to: Klassified

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective.

To speak about the scientific method without a human being behind it...? When people exclaim the Science is a religion...it is almost 99 % referred to the problem you mentioned already...the people behind the science.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

What I find also unfortunate is that people think that if something is scientifically vetted...then it must be true...since you know...Science is objective. But the problem is never the Science...it's always...who performed the vetting and the motive behind it. Science does not do anything on it's own. It's like a car...somebody has to sit in it and drive it. And when it comes to drivers...oh boy...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: BO XIAN
I S&Fed you for this one BO, not because I believe science is a religion, but because I think some scientists, and their followers have made it faith-based, I think our academia need to be challenged frequently and intelligently to keep them as honest as we can.

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective. The method itself is not vested in the outcome of an experiment. The results are what they are. It is only those performing the experiments that sometimes become vested in the outcome for various reasons, such as money, fame, and of course, the almighty status quo.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

True
The scientific method is pure
Why not rely on the scientific method for science, isn't that the issue in the thread

Yes it is pure but the method has to be followed religiously to be taken seriously.

a reply to: BO XIAN

THANKS for the interesting responses. I'm not as available to respond to each post as I'd hoped to be, today.

Some quick replies after reading through the responses:

1. YES, it IS the people doing, supporting, emoting, advocating, passing laws etc. etc. etc. based on, related to the 'science' that are the serious problem.

2. I posit that THAT is because we were/are created to WORSHIP SOMETHING/SOMEONE. And when one has run away from bad religion . . . all that's left is the religion of scientism . . . or of materialism.

3. IF the religion of scientism did not exist per the article in the OP, THEN there would not be so many hyper, hostile, TRUE BELIEVER RELIGIONISTS defending it with soooooooooo MUCH RELIGIOUS FERVOR! LOLOL

4. THE God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob declares a couple of things . . . A) not to test him as a child tests a parent's patience. On the other hand, He also exhorts us to (B) PROVE HIM, prove His Word . . . and He will prove Faithful--as a Father and faithful to His Word.

5. I and millions of others have found it so. He IS TRUE to HIS WORD. That doesn't mean that we always know precisely what He's up to in our individual lives--nor what His priorities precisely are that have to do with us. Nevertheless, His Word proves true, as does His Character--over and over and over and over in many testable situations. However, He does NOT march to our drum nor always nor necessarily our notion of a proper test. He does things HIS way.

6. The OP, for me, highlighted the chronic delusional disconnect between the hyper materialist; hyper scientific-method-as-truth-as-god mentality . . . and their hostility to bad religion that they are usually fleeing from in great anger and bitterness. The ATTITUDES and BEHAVIORS of the religion of scientism acolytes are EVERY BIT similar to, identical to, parallel to, those of religionists.

7. To talk about religion as a monolithic block is nonsense, in the first place. I've noted elsewhere that there are EXTRINSIC RELIGIONISTS who are more or less opposite on a list of variables to INTRINSIC RELIGIONISTS. And, there are INDISCRIMINATELY ANTI-RELIGIONISTS and INDISCRIMINATELY PRO-RELIGIONISTS--who are both actually rather similar on a list of variables--and who are not that different from EXTRINSIC RELIGIONISTS. I believe that most RELIGION OF SCIENTISM acolytes are probably within the groups of INDISCRIMINATELY ANTI-RELIGIONISTS & EXTRINSIC RELIGIONISTS. I don't observe many who'd qualify as INTRINSIC RELIGIONISTS.

8. Perhaps this evening I'll take a definition of RELIGION and compare it to what is observed with sooooo many RELIGION OF SCIENTISM acolytes' behaviors, statements, attitudes, habits. Anyone is welcome to do that ahead of my getting to it.

I think I'll stop there, for now.

Thanks, again, for the lively comments.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I don't know that it HAS to be followed religiously to be taken seriously. Many laymen can take the findings seriously without getting all religious about the process or institutions of the Religion of Scientism.

However, I don't think one can rise very high in the RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY of Scientism WITHOUT following it rather religiously.

Mods do your site a favor & move this nonsense to the Rant or Religulous section.
It certainly does NOT belong in the Sci & Tech forum.

Thank You for Your time.
K~

Obviously written in the attitude and tone of a TRUE BELIEVER in the Religion of Scientism.

Gotta ban from the premises all those not of THE FAITH, not believing in the lofty ALMIGHTY purity of the APPROVED DOGMA!

LOLOL.

I hope those High Priestly 'robes of pseudo-scientific-righteousness' aren't wound toooo tightly.

originally posted by: aethertek
Mods do your site a favor & move this nonsense to the Rant or Religulous section.
It certainly does NOT belong in the Sci & Tech forum.

Thank You for Your time.
K~