Science a religion?

I read recently that science can be considered a religion. In a black and white kinda way (belief systems, faith etc.)
Anyone agree?

And Do fundamentalist christians really believe that the earth is only 4000 years old (or there abouts). I was told this and couldnt believe my ears...

Originally posted by Middle england
I read recently that science can be considered a religion.

Wouldn't the religions love us to believe that?

From Wikipedia:

Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.

Religion is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief.

Religion and science

Generally speaking, the methods of religion and science are different, and sometimes at odds.

According to the religious, knowledge can be gained from a religious leader, a sacred text, or personal revelation. It is not limited in scope and can try to answer any question. Some religious people maintain that knowledge obtained in this way is absolute and infallible (religious cosmology). Religious knowledge tends to vary from religion to religion, from sect to sect, and from individual to individual.

In contrast, the scientific method gains knowledge by interaction with the world, and can only answer cosmological questions about the physical universe. It tries to give theories of the world which best fit the observed evidence. All scientific knowledge is tentative, and subject to later improvement or revision in the face of better evidence. It should be noted that science can not only describe the world physically, but can also state facts that aren't physical, e.g. facts of economics, linguistics or much of psychology.

It is my opinion that religion is uneasy with the scientific and logical thinking of many people today. Religion seems to want to 'be more like science' in an attempt to win over the minds and hearts of the more logical-thinking people.

This is why Intelligent Design and Geocentricity (the sun revolving around the earth) have taken on a scientific slant. To seem more like science.

I'm not saying logically minded people aren't religious, but to try to mix science (based on fact) and religion (based on belief) is just impossible. Have faith! Believe in the seemingly impossible! But don't call it science or vice versa. It cheapens them both.

All belief structures are based around one thing - faith. This faith comes in accepting doctrines without absolute proof to back up those belief structures.

Although Science is flexible in the way that its belief structures can be changed, if new subjective proof is found to make the previos belief structures les plausible, it can still be considered a belief system.

Whether that qualifies it as a religion, you're the judge. And judge not I hope.

[edit on 17/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

I'm not saying logically minded people aren't religious, but to try to mix science (based on fact) and religion (based on belief) is just impossible. Have faith! Believe in the seemingly impossible! But don't call it science or vice versa. It cheapens them both.

Kabbalah seems to sit between both, no? I mean it forces you to see both the process and faith.

Sidenote as far as the best of the science community you will se they always come to a faith of a belief of a supreme being, at the same time their personal logic questions religions.

I try to edit my post, and what I do is requote it :bnghd:

Benevolent, what is a fact? To me facts don't exists, as all knowledge is based on postulates, that are themselves assumptions.

[edit on 18/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Originally posted by japike
Kabbalah seems to sit between both, no? I mean it forces you to see both the process and faith.

I wouldn't know. I know nothing about it.

Sidenote as far as the best of the science community you will se they always come to a faith of a belief of a supreme being, at the same time their personal logic questions religions.

Do you mean that scientists are also religious? That scientists also believe in God or have religion in their lives? No doubt that is true. But they don't use one to prove the other. They don't mix them. They realize that religion is all about faith (belief without proof) and science is about logic and proof.

(caveat: I know there are SOME scientists that try to prove ID or disprove evolution by scientific methods. They are unsuccessful and they are fools, in my opinion)

I'm not saying a scientist can't be religious, I'm saying that having faith that something is true isn't the same as having proof that something is true.

I think the whole idea of faith in the unproven(aka religion) is evaporating more and more as science is becoming more and more factual. If a fact is proven by our human race it should be accepted as truth by our human race. Scientists can't argue if something is proven, but theres too many "im right / you're wrong" arguments when it comes to religion

Originally posted by SHHCAGO
Scientists can't argue if something is proven, but theres too many "im right / you're wrong" arguments when it comes to religion

Nothing has been proven by science. All science has done is assess the subjective probability of theories, and those with the highest probability are assigned as the currently accepted truth.

We followed Newtonian Physics for many centuries, until Einstein came and brought new theories. Einstein theories are more probable and are now the scientifically accepted version of the truth.


[edit on 18/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Originally posted by Middle england
I read recently that science can be considered a religion. In a black and white kinda way (belief systems, faith etc.)
Anyone agree?

You could answer your own question by providing definitions for "religion" and "science".

Natural science is rooted in induction. But with induction, all you are really doing is assessing what seems likely. Just because I have always witnessed a rock fall back down when I toss it up, I can not prove (in a logical sense) it will fall the next time I throw it up. But I believe that it will. Is that faith? Yes, but it's unavoidable faith. We must make such assumptions. It's instinctive.

In my mind, induction is somewhat axiomatic. Any attempt to disprove it necessarily relies on it in the proof. We can't avoid it. But at the same time, any knowledge we gain through induction is hedged. The prudent approach is to avoid induction to the greatest extent possible.

What is distinct about religious faith then? Such faith can be avoided. It isn't axiomatic. Of course, to count as religion, metaphysics needs to be involved as well, otherwise politics and sports could also be considered religions.

The bottom line is, faith is not the distinguishing characteristic of religion. The distingishing characteristic is metaphysics, which is outside the domain of science.

Originally posted by Middle england
And Do fundamentalist christians really believe that the earth is only 4000 years old (or there abouts). I was told this and couldnt believe my ears...

Young earth Christians believe the earth is about 6000 years old. Kent Hovind is probably the most popular advocate of this perspective, although he is not the author. This perspective has ancient Jewish origins.

Originally posted by Middle england
I read recently that science can be considered a religion. In a black and white kinda way (belief systems, faith etc.)
Anyone agree?

No -- it IS a rules-based belief system but it's different from a religion.

A religion is a belief system that expresses a set of laws that it declares represents the wishes of a divinity. There is no way to test the declarations, and those who test are usually ostracized or killed.


A science is a belief system that expresses a set of laws based on rules of logic and measurement. Every declaration must be tested and if information contrary to the initial statement is found, it is discarded. Complex theories are built out of smaller and simpler ones.

And Do fundamentalist christians really believe that the earth is only 4000 years old (or there abouts). I was told this and couldnt believe my ears...

6,000 years. And they believe it will end soon. They believe that fossils were put in the Earth to test mankind's faith. I'm not sure how they square them up with the flood and all.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Nothing has been proven by science. All science has done is assess the subjective probability of theories, and those with the highest probability are assigned as the currently accepted truth.

What point would there be in worshipping sciences? Sounds like someone's got their priorities confused.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What point would there be in worshipping sciences?

I do think some religious people see those that don't worship God as worshipping science. They see an either-or choice. You either believe in God or you worship science and discount God. They see science as a threat to their belief system.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do think some religious people see those that don't worship God as worshipping science.

There are two things going on. The first is that those who worship have difficulty even imaging life is possible without worship. So if they don't worship deities, they must worship something else.

The second is more telling. The faithful are always trying to equate science, or reason in general, with their faith system. It's like they know in their hearts reason is superior, but are looking for rationalizations to equate reason and faith so they feel better about it. "Well, if science is a religion, then religion is ok and I don't have to question my beliefs any further."

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
All belief structures are based around one thing - faith. This faith comes in accepting doctrines without absolute proof to back up those belief structures.

[edit on 17/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

do you mean religons when you say belief structures? i dont consider them to be the same thing

My belief structure is not based on blind faith and accepting doctrines without proof to back them up.. there is an element of faith involved in my beliefs.. but there is also a healthy spoonfull of science and philosophy in it too.. and before the darkages this was true of most faiths and religions.. it wasnt untill science was declared a heresy that this changed.

And thank you Japike for mentioning the Qabalah, you are very right.. it is the marriage of faith and science, and it the system by which judism is based, Yeshua (Jesus for those that dont know anything about hebrew or hasnt seen "The Passions") was a Qabalist, and if you study the Qabalah, and use it to better understand his words, you will find it totally enhances your understanding of the great teacher.

I say Enhances, rather then... say.. changes, because it you will find that it helps break through the cryptic/parablic nature of Yeshua's words. you will find his words still hold true.. but you will find that you understand his words in ways you never thought you could.. and the study of the Qabalah gave me back my faith in Yeshua's teachings.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Nothing has been proven by science. All science has done is assess the subjective probability of theories, and those with the highest probability are assigned as the currently accepted truth.

We followed Newtonian Physics for many centuries, until Einstein came and brought new theories. Einstein theories are more probable and are now the scientifically accepted version of the truth.


[edit on 18/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Sooo.. we dont follow Newtonian physics anymore?? is it no longer true that what comes up must come down? gravity is most deffinetly a fact.. anyone that ever tripped and busted their lip open will tell you that.

hehe is another fact.. if the heart stops.. the body dies

how about this one.. if you lower the tempature of a body of water to a low enough degree it will freeze

these are not speculations, these are things that have held up to the scinetific methods, and they are just a small portion of what we know to be fact

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Benevolent, what is a fact? To me facts don't exists, as all knowledge is based on postulates, that are themselves assumptions.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Nothing has been proven by science. All science has done is assess the subjective probability of theories, and those with the highest probability are assigned as the currently accepted truth.

Knowing you as I do, I hear what you're saying. We're not even sure of the 'fact' that we exist, right? Am I here?

"Nothing has been proven by science."

Science is not a religion for the simple reason that nothing has to be taken on faith. You are always able to, and encouraged, to use deductive logic to find the best solution to a given question. The very basis of science, including math, biology, astronomy, are time honored traditions of finding solutions to problems. Very often, someone will come along with a better solution that fits the problem better, and as long as it makes sense, it is correct.

The idea is never to simply "assume" things are some manner. You have to prove they are. You have to show enough evidence to rule out any other possible answer and it also must make logical sense.

Religion is based on taking things on faith, knowing, regardless of anything else, you have the correct answer.

Science is always open to corrections.

You will argue the philosophical manner in which we use logic to find solutions, and argue on perception being questionable, thus having to assume the physical world is real, but that is a paradox and if you go down that road, no one will have an answer.

nah. no way, i dont buy it.



Science or Religion.

these terms are misleading.

you should only believe what is true. THE FACTS !!


sometimes science provides us with a load of bull.
sometimes religion tell us to accept a load of cows.

its all spin and money.


there is no such thing as "science" or "religion".

there is only KNOWLEDGE.





[edit on 22-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by SHHCAGO
Scientists can't argue if something is proven, but theres too many "im right / you're wrong" arguments when it comes to religion

Nothing has been proven by science. All science has done is assess the subjective probability of theories, and those with the highest probability are assigned as the currently accepted truth.

We followed Newtonian Physics for many centuries, until Einstein came and brought new theories. Einstein theories are more probable and are now the scientifically accepted version of the truth.


[edit on 18/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

I strongly dissagree with that comment - i mean how can you say science hasn't proven anything! Science Is the very reason that most people on earth are alive today and is the only reason that people will survive for tomorrow.

To be honest you seem like a fairly intelligent person - but what you said proves one thing - you only seem intelligent...

(no offence!:how

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Middle england]

Originally posted by Middle england
I strongly dissagree with that comment - i mean how can you say science hasn't proven anything!

I think the disagreement comes through a difference in opinion in the word prove. I'm sure if we suggest a mutually accepted definition, then we will agree whether science has proven anything or not.

Science Is the very reason that most people on earth are alive today and is the only reason that people will survive for tomorrow.

That's arguable .