Is Fundamentalist Science-Worship less dangerous or more dangerous?

Question

than other forms of fundamentalist religion?

OK, perhaps I should have made my question a bit clearer.

By "Fundamentalist Science-Worship", I mean the dogma that Science is Absolute Proven Fact, rather than just a set of theories or hypotheses derived from collective observation and inductive reasoning.

Answer 1

The word 'theory ' is confusing you.
In scientific meanings it is just before law in that many people have tried to disprove the theory but could not.

This is not the same as the lay-mans theory like the theory that we really do not exist as we think we do but are just thoughts in the Matrix, <- not a really good example but I hope you get the idea.

In real science if the facts and figures debunk a theory then those who worship science will change there thoughts to reflect the new facts and figures.

If you can prove that the Christian God exists and that this God is the father of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) then it is my humble opinion that you will be famous and that a lot of those who worship science will be converted to Christianity.

As a die hard agnostic I worship the truth. The problem with that statement is that the truth for me may not be the same as the truth for you.
In science the truth MUST be provable and that proof MUST be repeatable. The truth is often challenged in real science & it is held up to peer review to be discredited if possible.

I personally do not know of any instance when those who worship science went to war because someone else had a differing point of view as to what science was, as opposed to Christianity with the Protestants & Catholics or those of Islamic faith with the Shiite & Sunni or either of these formentioned (Christian / Muslum) and Jews, Buddist. Hindu, Taoist etcetera.

So on the last note alone fundamentalist science worship is a lot, a whole lot, more peaceful group of people. Are they peaceful, I don't know for sure but do not know of a single war started on the basis of some scientific dispute.
If you do please say so in added details (please give as much detail as you can so I can look into the matter further) I will certainly change my attitude if you can prove me wrong in that a war, any war, was started because of scientific dispute(s).

Answer 2

Science isn't facts. Science is a method. The method demands that we continuously challenge our observations and our theories and correct where we find discrepancies. The whole point of science is that we build up a model of the world that can be independently verified by any one.

Unfortunately the media and much of the public have become reliant on "authority," (I suspect this has something to do with the way we teach our children, but that's another discussion) to tell them what to think rather than thinking for themselves.

The worship of any authority is dangerous.

Answer 3

It is science which produces weaopns of mass destruction, it is science which performs experiments on animals and humans, it is science that creatred the atomic bomb,it is science which teaches survival of the fittest,it is science that performs millions of abortions and considers the baby in the womb as nothing , it is science which teaches mercy killing.It i ssceience which coinsders harvesting baby stem cells from aborted fetuses to provide makeup that helps old hags look young,
Worship is a good name for it, because thought they don't like it, it takes the place of God in ther sytem, it determines all things ,it defines all things, it is valued before all things, it is the almighty for them and they do indeed worship at its altar and scientist are its priest sand prohets, I wouldnt be suprised if they make some sort of bread soon.
It is more dangerous because as we see here Atheists are getting more intolerant by the day, intolernat of the people who tolerated them and let them live and have their freedom all the time.If not, how did they ever rise to the level of safety and happiness they have? But they are increasingly nasty and hateful and as we know they do not have a absolute morality, it can change, so this is dangerous considering that science is based on the cult of Darwinism or pseudo-intellectualism, which preaches dogamatically survivavl of the fittest and tyhat there are no moral absolutes or anyone who cares over men. Men are final judges of themsleves not God or ten commandments. This leaves them free to believe and do anything they want. The only reason they are decent right now is because of the influence of Christian morality over Western Civilization, but they are trying to overthrow that now, so they can be free , unihibited by "Christins"moral constraint. And to overthrow religion and morality you have to overthrow reason as well, because throught history reason has come to the same concluions as religion about most things, just consult philosophers. It is waning now and so scientific triumphalism , survival of the fittest poses a threat for the future.

Answer 4

Fundamentalist science-worship is a contradiciton in terms, but to answer your quesiton in the spirt in which it was asked, they are both dangerous, scientists have the intellectual capacity to make weapons of great destructive potential without thought to the consequences and those of fundamentalist religions have the moral capacity to use them the same way.

Answer 5

Rigidly following any one point of view, philosophy, or religion is dangerous. The world is full of gray, yet many of my Christian and atheist friends feel that the world is black and white.

It is entirely possible (though not necessary) to love God more through scientific discovery. In fact, our love of God can be a motivator is figuring out why things are the way they are.

Love of God, or disgust with religious close-mindedness, should never be an excuse to remain ignorant of all the many facets of the world and human experience.

peace

Answer 6

There is no such thing as fundamental science worhsip.

Scientific theories are just that - theories. They are never proclaimed as total truths. For instance - many people who follow science and believe in evolution would change their opinion if new *credible* (that's the key word) evidence were presented to support another theory to a greater degree.

Also, science does not have a "cause". Science is not out there trying to convert as many people as possible to praise science and hand over their money. Science is not telling people in AIDS-ridden Africa that they shouldn't use condoms. Science is not condoning the killing of innocent people for calling the head of science a name.

The difference between science and religion is reflected well in the dictionary:

sci·ence [sahy-uhns]
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

To only be able to attribute knowledge to "fundamental worship" is a typically religious trait.

Answer 7

To worship something requires an unquestioning faith. Science is not and never has been that.

If you knew ANYTHING about science, you wouldn't waste 5 points on such a moronic question.

Answer 8

(That would desire to've been a desirable journey.) i think in God myself, yet any type of enthusiast or fundamentalist would be risky, however faith, none has a very sparkling checklist. To me fundamentalism is whilst a non secular regulation or concept takes priority over human rights/equality or it particularly is going to become prejudice. that could take place in any non secular gadget.

Answer 9

Contradictory terms? "Science" isnt a religion...

I dont think there is such a thing.

A fundamentalist isnt necessarily dangerous, they're usually annoying and not much help to mankind.

Answer 10

how the hell can you worship science? holding anything as dogma, is against the basic tenets of the scientific method.

(for that matter, how would it be a religion anywya?)