Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

Any claim that science is a religion is missing the mark. And any argument stemming from this claim is therefore also missing the mark.

Obviously science is not [a] religion.

I see this more as science being treated like an ideology, just like religion is as an ideology. And THIS is the crux of the matter. It's not that science is a religion, it's that it's an ideology – to some, not all. And this war of digital words that never seems to grow old around these parts is no doubt in my mind an idealogical war. Just look at what you people are saying to each other... Let's call it what it is already.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

This isn't about whether science is right or wrong. You are missing the point of the OP just as the member you replied to was stating...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Any claim that science is a religion is missing the mark. And any argument stemming from this claim is therefore also missing the mark.

Obviously science is not [a] religion.

I see this more as science being treated like an ideology, just like religion is as an ideology. And THIS is the crux of the matter. It's not that science is a religion, it's that it's an ideology – to some, not all. And this war of digital words that never seems to grow old around these parts is no doubt in my mind an idealogical war. Just look at what you people are saying to each other... Let's call it what it is already.

Interesting point. And of course you are right, science is founded on the idea of the scientific method. But again, I point to the results. The execution of our marvels as a direct consequence of scientific skill speaks volumes.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

This isn't about whether science is right or wrong. You are missing the point of the OP just as the member you replied to was stating...

You mean this argument about whether science is a religion has nothing to do with the fact that science usually has the facts in the end?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I already gave the Merriam-Webster Full definitions of

Worship
Religion
etc.

And documented which definitions were quite obviously applicable to the OP.

Given your disdain for those quite accurate definitions, I can't imagine how anyone could fantasize having a functional, rational dialogue with you on the topic.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You mean this argument about whether science is a religion has nothing to do with the fact that science usually has the facts in the end?

Yes, that argument.

The OP was likening the nature of mainstream science to that of a religion. It has practically nothing to do with whether science is accurate or not...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Not at all missing the mark.

A given set of behaviors, attitudes, types of statements etc is commonly called XYZ.

Whenever THAT SET of behaviors is observed, it is reasonable to class them as XYZ.

It's not rocket science folks.

It's about as difficult for the average sociologist/psychologist as noticing whether the light switch is on or off.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

If you don't like being wrong, then stop being wrong. We keep trying to help but you refuse to listen. It's like you know better than science. Is that what this thread is really about?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

Of course, if I don't agree with what the OP said, or with multiple variations on what that post said that so many, like yourself, keep making, I don't understand.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous assumption.

No one who "does science" or "works in science" or "espouses science" or even "believes in science" DISALLOWS honest questioning of EVIDENCE and CONCLUSIONS. The process of science is about questioning the world and discovering answers WHICH MAY CHANGE WITH MORE OR BETTER INFORMATION.

I have not made any personal statements about you nor would I. The focus here is on the arguments.

As to the argument made by the OP that so many here keep trying desperately to rephrase ... (and I'll be the first to admit, there's not a lot of original thought or expression in the OP, but, given that ...

"Science is a religion with its own priests (who wear white coats not black gowns). It requires belief (faith) in its unprovable theories (doctrine)."

There's no equivocation, or amelioration, or lessening of the claim that SCIENCE IS A RELIGION.

Not "the way some people feel about science" or "that some business interests misuse science" or "popular misunderstandings about science exist" or any of the other several variations and interpretations being made here.

Of course, the article that forms the only substance of the OP being an OPINION PIECE, means that these assertions, with no basis in facts, that have been disputed with evidence multiple times here, have no countenance, or logical weight, or meaningful application ... it is a statement of belief backed up by more belief.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

It's about as difficult for the average sociologist/psychologist as noticing whether the light switch is on or off.

Which you are presumably ?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

If you don't like being wrong, then stop being wrong.

So anyone who disagrees with scientific theory is wrong? yet again, this is the problem. Note how I haven't even bashed any particular theories, just their zealous adherents - from which I get responses such as "you're scientifically illiterate!", Only because I suggest that the mainstream theoretical framework shouldn't be considered fact.

How can you defend those who tout theory as fact? It is inherently dishonest and the antithesis to science. That is the scientism philosophy that we are trying to dismantle.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

YUP.

PhD Clinical Psychology

Minor in sociology.

a reply to: Barcs

Are you smoking crack? When the # did I deny radiometric dating? All I did was point out that it is folly to equate time as it is currently understood with current measurements of the earth revolving around the sun... Since the difference in opinion stems from doing just that, you can't trust that time has been constant or that radiometric dating means that a certain number of actual years (the number of times the earth has traveled around the sun) have occurred within that time.

Really on Lucy, and what did they base that all of these samples were australopithecus on? You can't use contrived evidence to support contrived evidence, to support contrived theories...lol

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how they can determine an ENTIRE creature from some molars and a partial jaw bone....

:crickets:

JAden

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Indigo5

Wait....all this time, "Scientism" was just an alternative name for "Scientology"????

Really?

hmmmm..............color me doubtful

I was attempting humor...although there is some interesting common discussion space there. Scientology is/was a religion/cult that exploits people's desire to conflate science and religion. They hook you up to mysterious machines to make you believe they are garnering deep insights into your spiritual state etc.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, that's a hell of a blanket statement.. No one who does science, believes in science or works in science disallows or dismisses real evidence...to quote a movie "The less declarative statements one makes, the less likely you are to look a fool in retrospect".

Damn I wish I was that confident in what other people do... unfortunately, I've seen what you claim doesn't exist far too often, so I know it isn't true...The question is more how rampant it is, how blatant it is and what, if anything, can be done to limit or stop it.

Jaden

a reply to: BO XIAN


Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion
.

listverse.com...
.

10 Science Thinks Humans are Special
.
. . .
9 It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions
.
. . .
8 Science Reveres Its Own Saints
.
. . .
7 Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins
.
. . .
6 Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics [BoX: frequently violated by the high priests of science]
.
. . .
5 Science Has Its Own Priesthood
.
. . .
4 Science is BAsed on Established Dogmas
.
. . .
3 Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends
.
. . .
2 Most of Science is Unfounded [BoX: I don't know about most--much of it is relatively unfounded--certainly insufficient to support the grand sweeping conclusions that many of the High Priests of Scientism make from purported scientific evidence.]
.
. . .
1 Science Requires Faith [BoX: Actually, tons of it. But it's usually denied--and that rather brazenly.]
.
. . .

WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE AS RELIGION
.
www.salon.com...
.
= = = =
.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Science as the New Religion
.
Irrational faith in corporate R&D is not science, it is a modern day cult built on old, shameless tricks.
.

landdestroyer.blogspot.com...
.

February 26, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - When money and power are involved, those standing to gain the most will say and do anything to push their agenda forward. Five centuries ago, saying and doing anything involved exploiting people's superstitions and their faith in religion. Today, saying and doing anything means also exploiting science.
.
. . .
.
It wasn't long ago when big-tobacco had armies of "scientists" citing the latest "studies" confirming the health benefits and safety of smoking. Of course these were paid liars, not scientists, even if many of them had PhDs. And it was lies they were telling, even if mixed with shades of science. Today, special interests have refined this practice of filtering lies and exploitation through the lens of science regarding everything from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the false debate on climate change, to the questionable interests behind global vaccination programs.
.
. . .
.
National Geographic never explains why "organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry" are conspiring to lie, but the notion that "scientists" would conspire to lie is "laughable." After all, scientists work under various organizations funded by special interests as well, including immense corporate-financier interests - many of which overlap with big-oil, ironically. If the billions to be made by big-oil is motivation enough to lie and say the Earth isn't getting warmer, aren't the billions to be made in a "carbon credit" pyramid scheme also motivation enough to lie that it is?
.
. . .
.
Indeed, the manufacturers of vaccines are criminals, literally. One example is GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), an immense pharmaceutical giant based in the UK. It has been caught on at least 3 separate continents engaged in a multi-billion dollar bribery racket. In China when the police began investigating the systemic corruption driving GSK's sales in Asia, GSK attempted to bribe the police as well.
.
. . .
.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, that's a hell of a blanket statement.. No one who does science, believes in science or works in science disallows or dismisses real evidence...to quote a movie "The less declarative statements one makes, the less likely you are to look a fool in retrospect".

Damn I wish I was that confident in what other people do... unfortunately, I've seen what you claim doesn't exist far too often, so I know it isn't true...The question is more how rampant it is, how blatant it is and what, if anything, can be done to limit or stop it.

Jaden

So, you take what is clearly a general statement and try to make it an absolute one, countered by every anecdotal incident that you can claim knowledge of when someone makes a mistake? Okay.

Just for giggles though, let's look at what I actually, you know, said:

No one who "does science" or "works in science" or "espouses science" or even "believes in science" DISALLOWS honest questioning of EVIDENCE and CONCLUSIONS. The process of science is about questioning the world and discovering answers WHICH MAY CHANGE WITH MORE OR BETTER INFORMATION.

So, in light of your picayune concerns, let me make the obvious clarification that if anyone who "does science" or "works in science" or "espouses science" or even "believes in science" DISALLOWS honest questioning of EVIDENCE and CONCLUSIONS then they are not actually "doing science" (et. al.) because the process of science is about questioning the world and discovering answers WHICH MAY CHANGE WITH MORE OR BETTER INFORMATION.

Better?

By the way, you don't mind if you're reminded on your position regarding the foolishness of declarative statements?

One of the mods around here has a line in his sig that reads something like "Do not attempt to teach those who refuse to learn." I would suggest that trying to teach the OP and others in this thread that science is NOT LIKE A RELIGION is a waste of time.

It is very clear that, as I originally suggested, the motivation for this comparison is being made by people who have been involved in highly personal scrapes with the pro-science crowd about ideologies that they hold very dear, and thus this thread is basically an overly complicated--but just as nonsensical--attempt to flip the bird at the opposition.

So, if you want to stop being flipped off, you probably should stop replying. No meaningful dialog is possible here.

Talk about "Wet birds fly at night."

originally posted by: Greggers
One of the mods around here has a line in his sig that reads something like "Do not attempt to teach those who refuse to learn." I would suggest that trying to teach the OP and others in this thread that science is NOT LIKE A RELIGION is a waste of time.

It is very clear that, as I originally suggested, the motivation for this comparison is being made by people who have been involved in highly personal scrapes with the pro-science crowd about ideologies that they hold very dear, and thus this thread is basically an overly complicated--but just as nonsensical--attempt to flip the bird at the opposition.

So, if you want to stop being flipped off, you probably should stop replying. No meaningful dialog is possible here.

Talk about "Wet birds fly at night."

This. All of this.

And with that, I'm out to enjoy the little time I have on this earth. Have fun wasting your time arguing on a conspiracy forum about angels and demons. The joke is on you.