Seriously. It has it's temples and it's doctrine. It has it's saints: Newton, Boyle, Darwin, Einstein. It has it's commandments: Thou shalt not assume without evidence, Thou shalt make no untestable prediction. It has it's devotees and it's zealots - over 6 billion followers worldwide, of varying degrees of faithfulness. And it provides answers, if you seek them.
What exactly does a religion need that science doesn't offer?
2006-12-10 12:38:37 · 22 answers · asked by abram.kelly 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What is a religion if not a means to understand the world? Not all religions offer a "savior", and science does offer immortality - by treating the ailments which kill us, through modern medicine, maybe even through cryonics.
2006-12-10 12:50:52 · update #1
Y'all are missing the point. Science DOES have doctrine, and that doctrine goes like this: All hypotheses must be tested, all results must be published in peer-reviewed journals. Anyone who disagrees with the Scientific Method is thrown out of the community, just as heretics were by ancient religions. You guys are getting your panties in a bunch because you don't like YOUR religion being compared to all those other, "false" religions. Open your minds a little.
2006-12-10 12:53:52 · update #2
it also has several denomonations that argue amonst themselves.
that is a good perspective by the way.
2006-12-10 12:41:24 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, they are fundamentally different. I think you are confusing the word "religion" with "worldview." And even that substitution is still a shallow comparison.
The use of the words temple, doctrine, and saints is disingenuous. Nobody prays to a dead scientist. Nor are their teachings held in such high esteem as to never be overturned. Newton was wrong -- Einstein showed that. Darwin was wrong with his "blending of traits" theory -- genetics and molecular biology showed that. The rapid questioning and overthrow of ideas for better ones is all but nonexistent in religion.
And while it is true that science has rules and procedures, such as not making untestable predictions, to call them commandments is really a bastardization of that word. Driving a car has rules too (thou shalt hit the rightmost pedal to go), as well as driver's ed "temples" and the doctrines of speed limit and licenses. Does that make it a religion as well? Hardly.
In fact, by your definition almost everything is a religion. "Temples " of piano rooms exist where people are taught to play by the "doctrines" of harmony and dissidence, and to revere the glorious "saints" of Beethoven and Bach. A brief glance at popular music will give you "answers" to all sorts of life questions: Who should I save the last dance for? Who shot the sheriff? Etc... I guess music is a religion too...
Your comparison is weak and shallow, and does a disservice to both science (which has cured and enhanced the lives of many more people than any fictitious god) and religion (which has provided hope and comfort to countless in a cruel and unforgiving world).
Shame.
2006-12-10 23:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by Michael 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, science is not a religion and here's why: Scientific principles are subject to scrutiny and peer review. Scientific theories and hypotheses are not accepted as valid until they are supported by verifiable observation and repeatable experimental results.
Now consider that religious doctrine has none of those limitations. Religious "truth" is whatever a particular guru or church or sect says it is and you can take it or leave it. No verification required. Science is the opposite of religion.
2006-12-10 20:48:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
True science is not a religion; it is a method of getting knowledge through observation and argument.
But some people treat science as a religion. Unfortunately, this tends to get rid of the "argument" part of the scientific method.
2006-12-10 20:45:44 · answer #4 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess, in a very minimal sense, it is religous.
Einstein has said: I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
2006-12-10 20:40:46 · answer #5 · answered by Poo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"What exactly does a religion need that science doesn't offer?"
The very thing that, I believe, keeps the two forever separate: faith.
Religions ask people to believe in certain conclusions independent of available, empirical evidence... often, directly conflicting with such evidence and in spite of it.
Science asks people to believe in certain conclusions based on that evidence, and to reject those same conclusions later, should the evidence, or our interpretation of it, change.
Jesus thought that it was more blessed that a person should believe *without* having seen--faith. Science rejects that, and thinks that the only way is to believe on account of having seen.
So, to answer your first question, no, science is not a religion. They represent two distinct ways of reaching conclusions and developing/maintaining beliefs.
2006-12-10 20:49:46 · answer #6 · answered by tylerism 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Science in and of itself, is loosely defined as knowledge as an object of study. It is general truths of the operation of general laws. Science has it's temples of worship called atheist Universities and Colleges. Some of these same temples of knowledge were once founded by Christians that reverted from Christianity.
Religion has a set of truths and values, as do atheists and agnostics. When defining religion it is the empirical laws of light, you can virtually see what I am typing, science asks how is it there? Religion is an act of faith, with no need of evidence. The Natural laws are God's laws of sound, light and speed, gravity, thermo nuclear dynamics etc...When one places themselves against the Natural laws, he is in essence challenging the scientific Natural laws and Design theory of God. When science examines nature or Natural laws, they are examining God, without acknowledging that it is God.
The scientists you mentioned set about the business of proving the theories found in the Bible and proved them correct. We use them everyday.
There is a website that offers a Reward of $250,000.00 to anyone who can prove that evolution happened in Darwin's theory at http://www.raycomfort.com and link to Dr. Kent Hovind!
2006-12-10 21:06:30 · answer #7 · answered by Stormchaser 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Some, "Gore" have made a religion out of suedo-Science!
Them that say "we have a consences" are of the preists of religon of science.
True science seeks no consences - they seek only the truth.
by consences the earth would still be flat!
2006-12-11 00:10:37 · answer #8 · answered by Grandreal 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science is a method, a way of studying the world, if you will. It is not a religion.
2006-12-10 20:40:24 · answer #9 · answered by Roman Soldier 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No science shouldn't be considered a religion. Who are you going to pray to? Albert Einstein?
2006-12-10 20:41:02 · answer #10 · answered by Sweet Tooth 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fundamental difference:
Faith vs. Fact
2006-12-10 21:15:24 · answer #11 · answered by diamondhawk1 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋