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

Post Reply New Topic

I responded with 'Total nonsense.' following his unsupported assertion.

Whether or not you care for Wikipedia, please read this; as your writing is f*****g atrocious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation

I don't think it's meant to take the place of religion, and I would wager all the Christian scientists don't think that either.

Science is just the study of things around us. It's the ultimate consequence of logic and the first conscious beings sticking their hand in a fire and exclaiming "By Jove that smarts!".

It's an entirely different method of getting at the truth than religion. Science is about showing what we can prove and religion is about adherence to authority and revealed knowledge.

I don't really subscribe to the natural/supernatural dualism. Supernatural to me is synonymous with non-existent, it is the last refuge of people who have no good reason to believe something exists. Things that exist are natural to me by default.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your higher burden of proof point. Though I do recall the bon mott "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If a friend says to me "I just saw a red car drive down this road" I am far more likely to accept what he says as factual than if he says "My sofa is a hyper dimensional AI computer with a penchant for Bach."

Everything is pretty much held to the same standard of proof in science, is it not?

My apologies, what I mean is that it amounts to whining "But science is just a religion toooo".

yes but you know exactly what it is made out of (referring to the couch) so its far more unlikely that it is but if theres enough reason to research something it should be of the same value. For instance in the example I used a medicine will be put into someone's body and any side effects could lead to a more potentially fatal outcome supernatural effects is just to explain an event that is deemed by Science as a unnatural event so in effect the burden of proof should not be skewed. If we set down the criteria down to natural events alot of things science calls nonsense would be "proven" (however much there is validity in that assessment) and different proven theories would contradict eachother. So hence science skews the criteria dependent on the subject matter which is part of their agenda to replace religion. I feel that fine don't accept supernatural events but if thats true then everything needs to be under the same standard and if so then the scientific validity of theories would be enhanced instead of serving an agenda which puts it on equal footing with religion since both were commonly used to advance agendas.

I think science needs to revert back to being a tool to analyze events and data not serve a purpose its a means to an end and shouldn't be considered an end itself. Thats just my opinion

Point here is, that it was a *************THEORY*********** and I did not present it as a proven fact. Yet, the very fact that you call a --theory-- nonsense, only because it goes outside of your corn-fed, stuck-in-the-here-and-now interpretation of what is scientifically possible, you call it nonsense. Any slight suggestion that just maybe there is a possibility that there may be things we can't explain with modern science, or that there may be more than what meets the eyes and ears, and you automatically call it nonsense.
Therefore, I don't see myself being in the position to have to prove anything here, I've already stated my point as a theory, not an absolute fact. But, your making the assumption that it is an absolute fact that nothing exists which can't be explained by modern, materialistic science. The burden of proof lays on you, not me.
I've admitted my theory was a theory, you try to make a "fact" out of ignorance, from things you can not know. So prove it, prove that science and spirituality do not both co-exist? Prove that there is nothing scientific about "spirituality". You can't prove it. And there very well may be scientific explanations to spirituality, thought, consciousness, it may not be within our current ability to understand either. Energy is an established field in scientific discovery, but has barely been scratched upon as of yet.
This is why I say agnostics are a helluva lot more open minded than atheists. Scientific Atheism is just as much a religion as christianity or Islam or Paganism, or judaism, or budhism, or w/e.

I mean, how do you know what is "natural"? I know I've seen "super natural" occurrences before in my lifetime, I've seen ghosts and I've had a near death experience, several times I've seen the future in my dreams. I won't use that as an argument though because I can't prove that to you, i just know for myself.
How do you determine what is "natural" though? Is it like the pink floyd song "all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be"? And nothing exists beyond our material perception? I find that very limiting..... You will find that I am a very deep individual thinker, and philosopher.
Point is, you can't know for fact that there isn't a higher reality out there beyond this realm... Now, I don't wanna get into this postmodern "how do I know this is my hand in front of my face?" s**t, whatever may lie ahead isn't meant for us to know in that much detail yet, if something bigger is out there. What effects us here is our reality here. Not in some theoretical afterlife. But, I'm not closing my mind to the possibility that something may exist beyond this realm, that we may even have a greater purpose here. My theory is that we're here to develope our minds and to practice good will upon one another. But that's just my theory.
I also think it's possible that there is a universal conscience behind the laws of nature and science. Something far beyond our comprehension. But, I won't ascribe it to a religion either. Because religion restricts thought, and I believe if something does exist, it's a conscious entity, not a religious entity.

I can tell you why science is promoted as religion. As competition. As an attempt to defeat its perceived foe and knock it out of the ring. A greed for power and control. Human nature. Like the particle and the anti-particle, these two mutually annihilate when they collide.

Eugenics was bad science, but it existed in America, too - and in other countries. Only in Germany did a bunch of Lutherans, led by a Catholic, use eugenics as an excuse to murder millions of people whose religion they disliked.

That sounds like a bunch of dated hippie bullsh1t TBPH.




Evolution isnt a theory Taimaat, its a FACT
A theory becomes a fact when tons(literally)of evidence is presented that match its predictions .
Religion is NOT based on physical proof. Its based on blind faith in things that cannot be readily proven nor falsified.

Science is not religion. Religion, by definition, covers things for which there is no evidence, but faith. Hypotheses are formulated about things that are observed, either directly or with the help of equipment which is really an extenstion of our eyes and ears. But it won't answer your question about the purpose of life. It is the what and how, you must create your own why.

Science can take the place of religion and become its counterpart. In fact, this process has already begun. Knowledge is very easily a religion-like system.

That belief in science can replace belief in religion may make it competitive but not that it is the same thing. The justification of acceptance of the two disciplines is totally different and demands a totally different way of looking at the universe.

look... I don't follow any religion, but blind acceptance of what so-called "scientific experts" present us also makes science a religion. The research needs to be questioned, the "evidence" needs to be questioned, internal politics need to be questioned. Worshiping the ground these "almight experts" walk on and taking makes them into white coat priests. You may call that "dated hippie s**t" d1nko, I don't care it shows how dumb you obviously are.
For the record, I used to be a hard-headed religious "scientific" atheist, until my thoughts grew deeper than the religion of science and atheism. I don't see how a religious atheist is any different from a religious christian or muslim or w/e, anything that requires "faith" (ie unquestioned belief and support) is a religion. Atheists certainly have a lot of "faith" in mainstream science books and so-called "experts".
It's also interesting how ms science/atheism likes to conclude unquestionable "facts" about things that can't be proven one way or the other. It sets limits on what is "natural" without evidence to back it up, rather than keeping possibilities open and admitting that we can't know or understand everything. So if some of those "super natural" things do happen to have a scientific explanation, your "experts" influence and ignorance will prevent the discovery from ever occuring. Because it goes against their religion, their faith in ms science. So I say, lets put less control on what is "natural" until some hard evidence comes along in one direction or the other.

just another big reason why an atheist *believes* they are progressive and open minded, an agnostic is a thousand times more progressive and open minded than an atheist, because an agnostic does not put "faith" into an establishment, and an agnostic is not afraid to admit they do not know everything.

I might do an "atheists vs. agnostics" thread later.

Because some people, including scientists, treat it like a religion, as if the human study of nature has some kind of supreme wisdom which nothing else can contradict.
But that's pure BS, because scientists make mistakes all the time, and those mistakes are referred to as "scientific fact" for years before they're discovered and admitted to be mistakes. So, science -- the process of human experimentation and conclusion -- can indeed be flawed, in the mistakes its practitioners make, which often aren't discovered to be mistakes for many years hence.

Evolution is a passion for many scientists. But there is no room for passion in the true scientific method, because bias can distort the results in favor of what the experimenter believes in, and this can lead to a false (but "scientific") conclusion. Then, once that conclusion gets rubber-stamped "science" (meaning "authoritative and infallible for now"), it gains an air of unchallengability, so that evolutionists can discriminate both freely and cruelly against colleagues who doubt evolution, up to and including termination of their employment, resulting in the destroying of those honestly-doubting persons professional careers, and wrongful smearing of their reputations. (See the currently-playing movie "Expelled" for interviews with victims of these slanders.)

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 May 2008, 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, evolution certainly DOES conform to the scientific method and creationism does Not .