Science is a religion

[NOT A TERRORIST]

Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

From my understanding, religion is a belief or faith in something controlling or influencing existence. It is also my understanding that science tries to explain what the something is controlling or influencing existence.

Both require faith in the same "something", don't they? In many religions the something is God. In science the "something" is theories. Many may argue that these theories are proven facts, whereas a religious God is unproven, however in my opinion many of these theories are simply "assumptions of best fit", not proven facts.

Existence is a jigsaw puzzle with an infinite number of pieces. By making assumptions we place a finite limit on the number of pieces, ignoring the existence of the remainder. Both science and other "religions", are guilty of this. Issues are raised that cannot be explained or understood sufficently, thus are ignored and treated as being independant of other teachings. You can't complete a puzzle without all the pieces.

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."

[Femacamper]

Science is science. Evolutionism is a religion. Atheism, the deism of self, is like a religion. Agnosticism is the religion of ignorance.

In a sense, all ideologies are religious. Your god can be God, your car, your job, your wife, a Science textbook, or money.

Just make sure that your god is worthy.

[NOT A TERRORIST]

Even our constitution is a religion about what God's will is for us.

[Femacamper]

Well, goes part and parcel, since the founding fathers were either Deists or Christians.

[NOT A TERRORIST]

In all seriousness if god was going to give us certain guidelines to live by our Constitution would take the cake.  Unfornatly like all other religions the elite manage to distort the true meaning behind it.

[KiwiClare]

This is a pertinent topic given the current CO₂ emission extortion being perpetrated on citizens in the name of "science."  The front page of the most read New Zealand paper today was headed: "Scientists Agree Global Warming is Killing The World,"  thereby muddying the name of scientists.
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10476904

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Science is not about creating fake news to bring in fascist agendas.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 Al Gore has tried to paint himself as a scientist who cared about the environment in 'An Inconvenient Truth,' while the reality is that he is a politician, he is the son of a politician and he graduated with a BA in Government, not with a Bachelor of Science. 
 
For more information on Al Gore see: "Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468."

[Div]

Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

From my understanding, religion is a belief or faith in something controlling or influencing existence. It is also my understanding that science tries to explain what the something is controlling or influencing existence.

Both require faith in the same "something", don't they? In many religions the something is God. In science the "something" is theories. Many may argue that these theories are proven facts, whereas a religious God is unproven, however in my opinion many of these theories are simply "assumptions of best fit", not proven facts.

Existence is a jigsaw puzzle with an infinite number of pieces. By making assumptions we place a finite limit on the number of pieces, ignoring the existence of the remainder. Both science and other "religions", are guilty of this. Issues are raised that cannot be explained or understood sufficently, thus are ignored and treated as being independant of other teachings. You can't complete a puzzle without all the pieces.

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."

Science is not a religion, although there are some unproved theories that masquerade as science. Water freezing at 32 degrees F is science fact, whereas evolution is not. Religion requires acceptance of something unprovable in a literal physical sense, faith, science tries to stick to provable facts and will change itself when new things are proven.

In all seriousness if god was going to give us certain guidelines to live by our Constitution would take the cake.  Unfornatly like all other religions the elite manage to distort the true meaning behind it.

isnt that what the 10 Commandments are? the US Constitution was written by man, not god.

[Virgil_Hilts]

Ugh, more delusion, more ignorance. Please people, can't you learn to research things for yourself, instead of just bookmarking answersingenesis.org and saying 'well, that's that'?

Try educating yourself-

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

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

'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' books by Richard Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

This barely scratches the surface of evolution, but is a nice introduction - an introduction I fear that none of you have ever had. Stop denying the obvious evidence and face up to reality like adults.

And science is not a religion, to claim so is preposterous and ignorant. Science deals with testable evidence and provable data, something that religion sorely lacks.

[Dig]

dude anything can be a religion.  just like anything can be oppressive.

Check out this oppression in the name of science (soon to be the next inquisition):

ABC: Accept Global Warming or Violate 'Moral Imperative'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/18/abc-accept-global-warming-or-violate-moral-imperative
By Mark Finkelstein | November 18, 2007 - 09:23 ET

If you don't buy into a Goresque view of global warming, you're not just wrong -- you're immoral. That was ABC's implication this morning. The notion came from Good Morning America co-anchor Bill Weir at the end of his interview of Jim Gooch. The Dem state representative from Kentucky recently had the audacity to hold hearings with witnesses who cast doubt on global warming theories.


http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/11/2007-11-18ABCGMAWeir.wmv

[Virgil_Hilts]

dude anything can be a religion.

Sure, if you are a fan of equivocation. Unfortunately, equivocation is a dirty underhanded tactic (which explains why religious people like to use it so much).

Just because something was used to oppress, doesn't mean that that something is in itself wrong. You Americans love your guns, don't you? You really like owning them too. But guns are amongst the most oppressive tools in history. Does that make guns wrong? Well, you decide.

[Dig]

Sure, if you are a fan of equivocation. Unfortunately, equivocation is a dirty underhanded tactic (which explains why religious people like to use it so much).

Just because something was used to oppress, doesn't mean that that something is in itself wrong. You Americans love your guns, don't you? You really like owning them too. But guns are amongst the most oppressive tools in history. Does that make guns wrong? Well, you decide.

wow by your logic then religion is just as good or bad as science.

so one could say science is a religion or that religion is a science.

neeto

[Virgil_Hilts]

Yes, if you use equivocation to twist the words to suit your needs, as I just said. But equivocation is wrong, just like libel, yellow journalism or plain old bullshitting.

Let's be reasonable here: religion is defined by faith and belief in the supernatural. To claim otherwise is to 1) ignore every religion that has ever existed, 2) go against the traditional meaning of words and essentially forfeit the proper use of  language and 3) make stuff up. Science is defined as the search for knowledge via testable and provable theories. I don't see the connection.

[dogmadestroyer]

Science is science. Evolutionism is a religion. Atheism, the deism of self, is like a religion. Agnosticism is the religion of ignorance.

In a sense, all ideologies are religious. Your god can be God, your car, your job, your wife, a Science textbook, or money.

Just make sure that your god is worthy.

I found myself agreeing with you 100% in a thread about religion!   (clapping smiley if we had one here)

The dogma associated with the (current accepted) form of evolution (I believe its ultimately works almost that way but there is an activist element to cover up the past of the human race), dismissal of natural cures, free energy, and the whole global warming farce destroys what science at its heart is supposed to be... systematically attempting to figure out the mysteries of the universe.

...Now if I could only find that clip of someone comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers to the point that there should be a law against it...

[Dig]

Yes, if you use equivocation to twist the words to suit your needs, as I just said. But equivocation is wrong, just like libel, yellow journalism or plain old bullshitting.

Let's be reasonable here: religion is defined by faith and belief in the supernatural. To claim otherwise is to 1) ignore every religion that has ever existed, 2) go against the traditional meaning of words and essentially forfeit the proper use of  language and 3) make stuff up. Science is defined as the search for knowledge via testable and provable theories. I don't see the connection.

dude you are so proving my point it is nuts.

Check into the south park creators for a more rudimentary explanation of what most already know:

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

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

[Femacamper]

Haven't seen that one yet. I stopped watching South Park as Matt and Trey seem to outdo themselves every episode as the new low.

I did like some of their earlier stuff. I don't mind their poking fun at religion, but sometimes it goes a little far. 

[Dig]

Haven't seen that one yet. I stopped watching South Park as Matt and Trey seem to outdo themselves every episode as the new low.

I did like some of their earlier stuff. I don't mind their poking fun at religion, but sometimes it goes a little far. 

no they completely validated religion by showing that a future with no religion would still just have competing idealogues about what science or rational thought is superior.

in other words religion is not the root of evil, but a minority of insecure power hungry psycopaths are.

[Femacamper]

Hrmm...maybe I should watch that episode. 

[Dig]

Hrmm...maybe I should watch that episode. 

the south park guys are "in the know" about many plans that are 10 years away.  they were some of the first to depose the snake god op of global warming and they continually call out the BS educational system, the child molestation and surveillance of children hypocricy.  they also mostly (IMO) try to reveal the hypocricy of state sponsored religion rather than attack religion itself.  they revealed the initiative of the BS "future self" hoax, and the "future time travelers that come back to warn us" hoax.  just recently they ran a 3 part series on how terrorism was all in our imagination. they still refuse to come clean about 9/11 though and do focus more on the insanity of Hillary rather than the insanity of Bush.  I cannot for the life of me figure out the 9/11 gatekeeping when the family guy dude makes references to it all the time.

[Femacamper]

Yeah, I remember the Family Guy and Simpsons references to 9/11 and terrorism.

Simpsons seems to promote torture and brainwashing more than expose it, though.

[Dig]

Yeah, I remember the Family Guy and Simpsons references to 9/11 and terrorism.

Simpsons seems to promote torture and brainwashing more than expose it, though.

i do not trust the simpson's controllers

[NOT A TERRORIST]

if god is everything in the universe... lets say god really is the entire universe.   Science studies and trys to explain everything in the universe scientificly.  Well studing the universe is the same as studing god since god is the universe.  Therefore religion and science are the same.

[LarryInColumbus]

Science is science. Evolutionism is a religion. Atheism, the deism of self, is like a religion. Agnosticism is the religion of ignorance.

In a sense, all ideologies are religious. Your god can be God, your car, your job, your wife, a Science textbook, or money.

Just make sure that your god is worthy.

WELL PUT!
If I may add to that thought,
Religion is a belief system
Organized Religion is a control system

[tullyvey]

Science to me means three things:

1)  A systematic technique for investigating the nature of the world around us, i.e. repeatable experiments and observations that can falsify hypotheses.

2)  The body of knowledge acquired by the aforementioned technique, often used to generate new theories to be tested.

3)  Engineering, applied science and technology which are the fruits of our knowledge.

Whilst one can draw comparisons between a sermon and a lecture, the essential difference is that a (good) science lecturer will alter his views to accommodate new evidence presented even by his students.

Religion, a word derived from binding, uses irrational beliefs to promote social cohesion - and it's preachers are not amenable to altering their world view.  The two things are poles apart.

This global warming rigmarole, on the other hand, has much of the earmarks of a religion.  It's NOT science!

[LarryInColumbus]

sci·ence      /ˈsaɪəns/
–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.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciéns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
The word "Science" clearly means knowledge. 

The next logical question to ask is: how much do we know?  The funny thing is the more we learn, the more we understand just how little we know.  A ten year old physics book is today outdated.  There are millions of science books which are now obsolete.  Don't get me wrong, I love science but if our existence was simple and everything could be easily explained, it would be a very boring existence.

To accept Science as "truth" requires that we know all that there is to know and religion is nothing more than a belief system.