Why Do people Promote the idea that Science is a religion?

Post Reply New Topic

I mean, I believe in science, I just don't trust man's interpretation of science. I believe in absolute science, not man's interpretation of it. Absolute science is sometimes waiting to be discovered, in fact it may even sometimes be beyond our ability to comprehend.

there's a ton of establishments. the establishment isn't the problem. it's the lack of healthy skepticism and the presence of people with some kind of BS detector.

you make a good point, and no i dont believe everything "scientists" tell us, im especially cynical about medical scientists, but a scientific outlook on reality, to me, is superior than basing it on emotions, what i wish was true, and ancient literature. i think organized religion is very exploitative, greedy, and all that stuff. yes scientists are like that too, but i believe they dont have the agenda that churches do. i do have my own "beliefs", i dont want to sound like a ranting atheist.

I dont think this sums it all up, but still....



The only thing this proves is that there is an XKCD for any topic.

Postmodernist BS.

Anyone who claims that science is a religion is implicitly admitting that science trumps religion.

The only people I see making that ridiculous statement are those who are using it to denigrate science, never to big it up.

It's great when idiots shoot themselves in the foot.

No, it isn't "postmodernist BS". I don't believe in religion either. But it's ironic that such supposed "free thinkers" accept mainstream science as irrefutable fact, just because some supposed "experts" say so. Especially when those "experts" are working for some corporation or government. It was **scientists** in germany who gave us "eugenics". Do you remember eugenics? Do you believe eugenics is a fact, or bad science? If you think it's bad science, then you have to admit that science can be corrupted just as easily as religion can. The eugenicists had their "irrefutable scientific evidence from the almight experts" to back them up too. And all it held was belief in lies, science that lied, science that was not even real science.
I don't believe in religion either, but when these supposed "free thinkers" are merely just blindly following something, even if they are better at lying than the religious authorities, it's still the same s**t your stepping on religious people for doing. And that is the definition of a hypocrite.
Just because some "expert" says it is so, doesn't mean it is so. Those "experts" can be bought, bribed, blackmailed, or co-erced. They can lie, to support whatever agenda the corporation or government that funds them wants them to.

Science is the tool to establishing evidence. But that does not mean they can't fabricate their "evidence" to support an agenda for their corporate puppet masters. Science and religion both are capable of lying, science is just better at it.

Oh lawd, Communist conspiracy theorist.

Don't you have some Chomsky books to read?

I think snake has some valid points here. Science gave us DDT, and it was initially good at zapping mosquitoes and malaria. But it also killed birds while the mosquitoes became resistant to the pesticide. While science is science, there was an establishment that used 'science' to do what they wanted, while causing some real damage. The real world is more complex than any single scientific fact, and various groups use 'science' or things discovered by science to further their own agenda.

Who accepts science as irrefutable fact? Your argument is because people don't understand science it is a religion?

Science doesn't proceed from argument from authority. You're confusing it with religion.

Science is just a tool and can be used any way. It is clearly and obviously not a religion however.
No it was scientists (and Christians) who forwarded this idea, not science.

Nope, science isn't a religion and doesn't require unquestioning faith. In fact I can't think of anyone who rgards it as an absolute authority, most people distrust it to some extent.

Science is not a religion.

prove its false ...

that made no sense at all ...

Its putting religion and science on equal footing both don't measure up in my opinion cause there is problems with both but it doesn't state that science trumps religion its saying science is not supposed to be a religion but is being used as one which it has and has been for a long time.

its meant to take the place of religion thats why theres so many unthought out explanations on how the universe was created it was science that went there first to disprove creationism. Science applies different levels of scrunity to things that they think are not natural (hence going back to the whole psychics/ghosts/etc arguement) a higher burden most be put on the individual research. Those same "controls" are not used on most scientific research but then its stated to prove something which is "unnatural" (how can science determine whats natural without understanding so many processes and the whys behind natural events? ) So while a medicine that could potentially have a harmful side effect in certain situations is not held up to the same criteria of proving that say it would take to prove that an unnatural event (pick any one you like here). That shows me that science has become more about faith then acutal fair and balanced tool of determining the validity of a theory.

so while I'd be interested to see if those things exist I believe that everything should be held to the same standard so either heighten the controls on the "naturalistic" (could be confused with the fundamentalism that was stated before) or put everything on a lower criteria of proof and watch how many theories that are "proven" contradict eachother.

The burden of proof lies upon he making the assertion.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

If it can't be proven nor disproven its not nonsense and I could careless about your wikipedia link. You made the assertion that it is nonsense back it up if your going to say it a unconstructive reply is just you saying I don't agree with you so your wrong and its quite immature.