'Science is a religion of its own'. Discuss?

Question

This was a headline in a local newspaper regarding the old Darwin vs. Creationist theory- what do you think of this statement?

Answer 1

No. It is wrong. Science is willing to adapt its theories if new evidence is presented. Religions continue to butt their heads against the wall no matter what is proven.

Answer 2

Actually a "religion" doesn't have to necessarily be theistic - relating to a mystical deity. Your religion can as easily be anything that has become the focus of your life and you try to live by it's credo. But most people today think of the word only in connection with belief in some "higher power" and therein lies the difference between "Religion" and Science, which by very definition is the quest of clear, unequivocal, unarguable, indisputable, "Fact". A personal opinion/belief about something, no matter how passionate, how strong, how overflowing with certainty on the part of the individual who holds that belief, will forever be just that, unless and until it c an meet the burdon of the most demonstrable proof. Science is the perpetual quest to satisfy that burdon. Religion is dedicated to obedience to the rules of its own convicted belief system, beit christianity or some other, and "Faith" is the watchword; faith, of course, being belief in something that has, as yet, never met the criteria that would enable any o f its convictions - however sincere - to be defined as "fact"

Answer 3

Not really.....

The reason some people claim that Science is just another form of religion is due to a combination of binary thinking, and the realisation that you can never absolutely prove any 'fact' about the physical world to be universally true.

When you put these together, you say something like - 'Nothing can ever be proved absolutely true, thus all descriptions of the world are nothing more than belief systems. Therefore Science and Religion, both descriptions of the world, are equivalently true or false, being equally unprovable'. Well, this is the underlying logic of people who argue this position anyway, though it might not be explicitly what they think.

There are a number of problems with this logic. The first problem is that it treats everything as 'equally unprovable'. If I were to propose that you take a jump out of a window on the 20th floor, and not to worry because you will find you are able to fly, you might argue that the burden of evidence suggests otherwise and that you will instead plummet to your death. 'Don't worry', I say, 'That hasn't been observed in every case throughout all time and space, so it hasn't been proven to be conclusively true. Who is to say that this time, something different won't occur? Trust me - you will be able to fly! I can't prove it, of course, but neither can you prove that you will definitely die, can you? So your position is just as much an article of faith as mine.'

To avoid this dilemma we need to accept that not all models of the physical world are equivalent merely because they cannot be absolutely proven. We have to leave the binary thinking behind and realise that the smart money bets on the horse that has the best form. People who adhere to religion as a model of the physical world are people who always bet on the same horse in every race. Scientists, on the other hand, are people who are constantly studying the form of various horses, seeing which ones are consistent winners, and betting on those. And switching if they see a better horse.

The second, and more fundamental problem, is to make the assumption that religion is a model of the physical world in the first place. Most religions started out as a crude model of the physical world, and also as a form of spiritual guidance and solution to the question of existence. The problem arises when the proponents of a religion insist on clinging to the 'physical model ' part of their religion long after scientific observation has superseded that model, being the 'horse with the better form'.

The error these people make is in believing that without acceptance of the physical model, everything else about their religion is proven false. This in fact demonstrates a distinct lack of faith. Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is a story that carries a spiritual message of how we should treat one another. It also deals with the issue of prejudice (the Samaritan is not the one the audience would expect to help the injured man, as they were held to be heretical scum by the judaic hebrews).

Now, does the parable of the Good Samaritan need to be literally true in order to carry the same spiritual message? Did the story really happen? If it didn't really happen, would we say 'Ah well, let's not bother with all that charity malarky after all.....that story didn't really happen!' Wouldn't we be missing the point?

Science hasn't disproven the existence of God, nor does Science tell us how we should live our lives. Science has just given us a better picture of the way the physical world (probably) is. The world that exists due to the grace of God, if that is what you wish to have faith in. Science and Religion do different jobs. 'Non-ovelapping magisteria' was Stephen Jay Gould's rather eloquent description.

People who insist on saying that religion describes the way the physical world is are trying to wrest that job out of the hands of the scientists. As such, they have abandoned their faith, and become nothing more than very, very crap scientists.

Answer 4

Start wining money with the Zcodes System from here https://tr.im/tpYxM .
Zcodes System is a straightforward however effective system. No longer guesswork or depending just on a very fickle lady Luck. You receive exactly the thing you need and are shown precisely that which you need to do in order to win regularly
If you use Zcodes System you are given extensive training videos and lessons showing you exactly how the machine works and what you need to accomplish to be able to produce money.
Zcodes System is good for novices to because even if you know nothing at all about activities once you join, you'll learn all you need to find out fast and effectively and you'll specially learn how to maximize your paying to reap the greatest earning rewards.

Answer 5

its true. arguably religion can be viewed as a kind of theory as well. how do i know that newtons explanation of gravity is correct? or einsteins relativity? i have to take it as much on faith as i would the christian beliefs of creationists. ahh but science has proof i hear you say. well it kind of does but here is the thing. scientific truth is "the best explanation we have from the best evidence available today and is subject to review tommorow". much of science, especially physics is highly speculative as yet with no validation e.g. dark matter and dark energy. scientific theories change over time as new discoveries are made. dont forget as well that scientific truth can be politically manipulated. an extreme example would be how the nazi's used dodgy scientific theory to categorise different races of people and support their messed up idiology. scientific methods are probably the best way to establish "truth" however there are significant limitations e.g mush of human experience cannot be measured, weighed or otherwise counted and is therefore not available for scientific experiment. dont forget that much in psychology, nw matter how truthful it seems actually can never have any real scientific prooof. e.g. denial, ptsd etc. you either believe in these psychological proceses or you dont. sounds like religion huh. i hope that answers your question.

Answer 6

A lot of individuals are trying to gaming to solve their financial issues, but when they lose they're just creating things actually worse. But, with Zcodes System from here https://tr.im/kH49D you won't have that problem.
The Zcodes System is the best activities investing pc software system. This system is advised to anyone that is ready to take their sports investment to the next level. This is an absolute must have in your sports expense arsenal.
Zcodes System is at the the surface of the number for sports betting techniques that function!
 

Answer 7

I believe like everything it is the reasons of the person that define the nature of their science. If you use science to reassure yourself to give your life meaning (and I don't mean purpose that's different) nad use it to quantify yourself then I think that yes science has become a religion to that person. Because then it is filling the role of religion providing a sense of security. If science is employed by an individual to seek answers to the questions of the universe to expand the knowledge of mankind, then I believe that is science in the true sense. I believe that this murking of the boundary has resulted in the rise of creationism.

Answer 8

No.

Religion by definition requires you to believe in something you can't prove to be true.

Science relies mostly on formulating ideas as to how things are, *then trying really hard to prove them wrong*. Never is it advisable to believe something that isn't proven in science.

The equivalent would be to hold "the origin of species" to be the one true book, and claim that every word therein was correct and perfect. That's not science though, and science has indeed developed Darwin's ideas quite a way beyond that book.

Answer 9

For some maybe. I have read many articles that support the theory that science and religion can co-exist (in the same brain).

Answer 10

Science works in completely the opposite way to religion. Religion teaches not to ask, science is all about questions.

Science doesn't require you to "worship" anything or live your life in any particular way. It is not a religion in any of the accepted senses of the word.