What is 'Science' and can it be the 'next religion'?

Remove all ads!

Who's the judge of the possible and impossible? How exactly do you know something is impossible, at any rate? Or how can you decide if something you can barely fathom is possible or not, let alone probable? Finally, how highly is highly and what's the measure of probability, who decides etc?

This being said, science in a healthy approach is different from religion, although some analogies exist. At the moment science starts fancying dogmas, taking things on faith and so on, but most notably forgetting that it doesn't have all the answers and has not answered all the questions and is not infallible, it stops being science. This way, so long as the name of science is rightly applied, then yes, it's not religion, because by definition, science is not a form of religion. But what sometimes actually happens in the science world, is that some aspiring scientists start preaching and prophecising.

 

Most physicists would admit that the theory of gravity isn't absolute one way or the other, either. By and large, scientific theory (at risk of stating the obvious, the word theory does not mean random idea without much in the way of evidence' in this context) doesn't deal in absolutes.

No, it's because intelligent design is an issue of faith. It's Christian creationism with a thin veneer of scientific reasoning and a non-specified creator. It's because the entire effing impetus behind ID is that evolution (it is claimed) is incompatible with the Bible, and so they want something they see as threatening to their religion removed from schools.

To be clear: I have indeed read some of the pleasant fellows espousing ID. It's crap. Pure and simple. At best, it's an attempt to prove God exists (because, y'know, that's possible). At worst, it's religious dogma by another name.

 

If you watch South Park, you've already seen seen how science can become a religion. Really, ANYTHING can become a religion. Ping pong rule variations can become a religion. Cats vs. dogs can become a religion.

Religion, when you trim it down, is about answers, just as science is. Even atheism is about the answer being that there is no answer. Which means that it comes as no surprise that the enemy of religion is questions. Question someone's religion, and they might get pissed. Question someone's scientific method, and I bet more than a few scientists would get pissed too.

And even as many people can fuse questions with science, so do some people fuse questions with their faith. The only problem with faith OR science is misuse. When an answer becomes so absolute that not even reality can change it, that's when we have problems. At the moment this isn't happening with science (as a whole, anyway), but that doesn't mean it can't.

 

Nice one, Fel, I'm impressed.

 

And just look how short it was!

 

Does anyone else see a contradiction there?

 

I like how Chimera pretty much disregarded all other possible outcomes and assumed that he was right without stating any evidence at all to back up his point . For although I personally support evolution, I'm afraid it's not proven. It's a theory, and like a scientific law, theories are not proven. Yes, I am holding my old physical science textbook open in front of me, so before this issue comes up again like it did in the H&R thread, "Scientific laws, similar to theories, are not and CANNOT be proven...," which rather contradicts your point that evolution is "both a fact and a theory."

 

Yes, but the point is can Science push religion out of some people's lives?

Basically, elevating the human to the most importance over God. Beware of Pride. What if Humans don't belong at the top of the food chain?

Not exactly uncomfortable, but slower to accept what Science teaches. For those that have a personal conviction that God is real, the teachings of Science must be carefully examined to fit with this ideal. But as long as some of the ones trying to teach science insist that the belief in God be discarded, that chasm will always exist...

There's the rub. People don't ask enough questions of either their doctor or Science teacher, nor their priest, rabbi, bishop or whatever. People need to understand the science they are taught, the upkeep of their body or how to live the faith that they claim to. We don't learn these things without asking the right questions...

These methods tend to get results. Science has not been successful in finding out why, and has been dragging their ass in favour of their own answers, so people get fed up...

I think the reason that religions that date back thousands of years thrive in the face of newer philosophies is just that fact--that these newer philosophies don't attempt to address the questions that these religions address.

Those supporting Science over religion need to remember that there are some questions that science cannot answer, just as those that follow religion must remember that by their faith, they are accountable to their supreme being for whatever they do.

That sounds like what should be examined. I question some of the extrapolations made however.

And what if the truth is somewhere in between the two? Religion gives us an oversimplified version of creation (basically 1 chapter to discuss something that scientists would assemble a room full of textbooks to discuss) because that's not their focus. But for Science, they have to allow for the possibility that God DOES exist and had a hand in all that exists today. Basically, how did God do it rather than replacing God in our lives...

Actually, it's not the enemy, but the means of gaining your faith. Through prayer, you take your questions to the Lord, and you get your answer. Not always the one you look for, but you get answers. The problem comes when people don't go to God, but elsewhere for such answers...

 

That will only happen if an experiment is done improperly and the wrong conclusion is reached. Low probability given current conditions, but still possible. If they're done properly, science will be either right or undecided.

Aaaaaaaand the problems begin. So science must bend to your religion even in areas where it's provably wrong? I don't think so. Now, absolutely NOTHING that science can find out could ever destroy the possibility that God (or whoever) made the universe perfect on the first try and just never had to screw with anything beyond its creation. Seeing past the beginning of time would likely require omniscience (okay, now I'm a little creeped out that the word has 'science' in it), which would result in us knowing everything anyway. But the idea that what science has found out should be tailored to what YOUR book says is beyond ludicrous.

Do you have any idea how many scientists are religious? Science isn't the anti-religion you think it to be.

Aye, that's how it should work, but sadly most people simply 'inherit' their faith without asking any questions. And I suppose I should have qualified that as 'infallible' religion, or something like that.

No, the problem comes when people are inflexible, like you are right there. So utterly sure that your answer is the best one, that it can't possibly be wrong.

 

only you qouting Chimera out of context, he does in fact explains it nicely. everybody can see evolution happening in nature, so evolition in it self is a fact. just like everybody can feel gravety pulling them back when they jump, so its a fact we have gravety.

now the theory behind evolution and gravety, is the theory of what mechanism that make does things work. the theories produces an answer to that by exeminen the data we have and by testing it self, but since we lack the tools (be it math or something else) we cant prove it in all circumstances, that is why they are both called theories, as well documented as they are.

as for the remarks on ID and why it shouldn't be thought in school. No mather ow you look on it, this "theory" or rather hypothesis, boils down to a powerfull creator (god) having made all things, which there is no scientific evidence for. no mather how you present ID its based on believe, not facts and therefor it has no place in a classroom, except if the class is about religion.

and again to blckdeth. try reading simple math. any law there is allways proven, else it isn't a law.
hell anyone that has had math in college should know that.

since there is absolutely no data supporting the excistence of an all powerfull being, no. Sorry but science dont have to take fantasies into account, neither God, unicorns or goblins that steal your car keys has any place in science or should be considered before making a theory.
Allthough the later can be annoying when your late for class

 

i think this depends on the religion, today, young people in the developed world (the west i mean) are less open to the control of religion, when ive entered a church it seems to be nearly all old people and young children who are brought by their parents, given a choice, i doubt those kids would choose to spend their sunday afternoon in church

 

But this isn't necessarily due to an increasing grasp of science on those kids. Evolution for example is simply a non issue when it comes to religious conviction. Honestly, virtually all Christians apart from a few protestant groups in Northern America have no problem with aligning scientific progress with their personal beliefs.

The big religion killer today is rather moral standards, isn't it? Religious convictions appear to be anachronistic to many people because of issues like celibacy, women priesthood, same-sex marriages or condoms. Most people I know are or have been Catholics - and I don't know a single one who left the Church because of evolution or gravity. Whereas there are many who couldn't cope with the Pope's ideas of battling AIDS.

 

The mechanism how science is replacing religion in some sense is that research and scientific education will give different types of answers to how things work. As religions have to change more or less during the course of times, science as such does not threaten religious beliefs. But as some mysteries of life are answered by science, it will reduce the interest towards religions for finding answers.

There are some questions that science may not be able to solve as of yet. Mainly because the questions are too complex and maybe because of that they have not been posed as questions of scientific inquiry, yet.

Many people aren't satisfied to the way how science works, one of the things being that it might be easier to think that religions give answers that seem to have more certainty. And because of the vast quantities of data science produces, it is getting more complex in the process. Most of the people might search for answers that they can comprehend without going through years of education.

Now the interesting thing is that morals as a question of science is a rather novel idea. Research is going on and as the approach is not religious, one of the findings of behavioral sciences is that religion tends to keep individuals more happy. Of course this can be discredited from a lot of different angles.

The thing that every scientist should remember is that as making science shouldn't be dispassionate work, it should be done by people who have as little passionate predispositions about what they're resesarching as possible. Making hypothesis is essential for research, but you're going the wrong way if your working hypothesis becomes something that you don't want to be disproven by anyone. Then it's more of a religion for you, and then it wouldn't be science anymore.

If you'd like to apply this type of thinking to specific religious beliefs, a christian person should accept the possibility that God does not exist. What would faith be if there would be no possibility for doubt after all?

 

I'm afraid that this isn't the way it works in real life. It was Karl Barth who first described how science makes significant progress and how new scientific theories replace the old ones. He used the word "paradigm shift" for the occurences where a scientific world view was replaced by a new one. These paradigm shifts never take place in an ordered, rational, passionless way, but are rather subject to irrational bickering between the opponents and the followers of any big new theory.

Take Einstein, for example, who refused to believe that Quantum Mechanics was a good way to describe the processes on the atomic level.

It is, however, foremost the passionate types who make an impact and who are capable of advancing our knowledge. Or so I believe.

It is our human nature that makes us cling to our accustomed views and ideas, no one is completely free of this. Hence, the supporters of a new theory are mostly the young and impressionable scientists, whereas the older and established scientists stick with the conventional theory.

A paradigm shift often only occurs after the old generation of scientists has died away. Nothing to do with logic and reason, I'm afraid.

 

1st: she
2nd: a physical textbook is not a good source for biology education.

Equester explained it quite nicely. Here is another nice explanation: fact and theory

 

@Chimera:

1. Your gender is irrelevant to this case, even if you did happen to be a female, it's not like we could tell. Don't try to victimize yourself by stating that you're a female; no one cares.

2. This topic is not necessarily purely biology. I'm afraid that you're not qualified to make that assessment, and none of us are, either, although I'm pretty sure that any text directly supporting my case is sure-fire evidence IMO. This is what makes Equester's argument pointless, perhaps you should try learning from his mistakes...

 

MSc in biotechnology, working in a microbiology lab.

 

The statement of whether or not evolution is a fact or a theory is not necessarily a topic of biology? Damn. I have both an undergraduate and graduate degree in biology, and a whole hell of a lot of my courses were on evolution and genetics (the two go hand in hand). I wonder why they required me to take so many of those courses if they were not necessarily purely about biology?

Now I'm really left scratching my head. Perhaps Chimera isn't qualified to make that statement, but to say that none of us are is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? [EDIT] Chimera beat me to the post button - as it turns out she is qualified [END EDIT] Don't you think anyone with a science background (even a basic one) would be able to tell you there's a difference between theory and fact (or law as it's typically called in the scientific community).

Let's take two examples to clear things up, and I'll deliberately stay away from evolution as that seems to be a bit of a sore spot for you for some reason.

One theory is called "Atomic Theory". No one has been able to conduct a comprehensive study of the universe to tell with absolute certainty that the most basic structure any pure element can be broken down into and still retain the properties of said element is an atom. So it's a theory.

On the other hand, we have the Law of Conservation of Matter. This basically states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything is made up of something (even if they aren't atoms) and when Something A reacts with Something B, then the resulting product(s) of the reaction will have the same mass as the combination of the mass of Something A and Something B. It's a law because there's no way to make something out of nothing or to turn something into nothing. And to a scientist law = fact. That's not to say that the resulting product(s) can't have completely different properties or matter state than the original Something A or Something B had.

Mathematics is another field in which there are a great many laws. There are also a ton of different theories as well, and they mean different things. The most well-known is probably the Pythagorean Theorem. However, I'm not a mathematician, so I'm probably not qualified to talk about that.

 

As I peruse this thread a lot of thoughts are generated. Please remember my comments are what come into my head today; tomorrow I may think something different.

I do not see religion and science as mutually exclusive or necessarily at odds or competing with one another. Human beings do that not religion or science which are defined by and established by humans. (Hokay, I know, yes, Religion was established by God!).

Which came first science or religion? I'm going to do a bit of role playing here.
Grog was out hunting with others from his cave when a thunder storm arose. Lighting struck a dry tree and it burst into flame. To make a long story short Grog felt the heat from the fire and the thought came, "Warm, nice." (It was a rather cold day) He was very brave and decided to take a burning branch back to the cave. Now Hagor was also a thinking man but slightly different.

"Grog, from sky came!. Sent us from sky." He stared awestruck at sky. The two cave men carefully carried the burning branch back to the cave, feed wood, kept it alive.

One saw the practical use; the other the wonder of the gift from something or someone high above them. Thus was born science and religion and they walked hand-in-hand for many centuries.

Now being a woman (maybe not pertinent to this thread but certainly pertinent to me) I tend to be practical (don't argue that here; that's another topic).

My reaction to this whole thing of religion vs science or will science take the place of religion is wtf does it matter?

I can turn my electricity on without worshipping a god and I can pray without turning my electricity on. Believe me there is very deep thought there but you may have to think about it for awhile. I certainly will.

Think I'd better stop before my post gets longer than Chev's or Gnarf's.

 

If to find out the basis for how and why things work (or try to), without resorting to blind faith, is a religion, then I subscribe to that religion.