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

Post Reply New Topic

A philosophical question topic

Next thing we'll be reading about the promotion of science as politics.

Nothing in science is carved in stone. And some theories work in some situations and not in others.

The funny thing about the whole discussion between science and religion is the simple fact there really is none! It is a simple fact that science as such can never prove there is a god and at the same time it can never prove there isn't one. Looking at the Big Bang theory for instance, the question if there was a big bang can by definition not say anything about what caused the big bang. 'Before' (not the best term since there was no time) the big bang physics will be different than physics we can measure. Therefore a scientist cannot say if it was caused by god or coincidence (and philosophically we might even call that coincidence god). Being religious is always about believing and never about proving or knowing. The whole believe thing makes it what it is. Among scientists there are religious people and non-religious people, but if either of them makes a statement on god it is their personal idea, not science speaking.

There are a few things science can say however. That is that the universe was made to follow certain rules, i.e. the laws of physics. There are so many rules working that we can say this for sure (if we didn't most technology would not work!). We also know we are a long way from knowing it all and that some rules might be wrong because we need to learn more, but that does not the basic rule wrong. Ofcourse again this can not 100% prove that god is non-interventionist, because science chooses to repeat tests before something is called a rule. This also means that god can decide to differ from the basic rule once in a while, the only thing we can say is he doesn't do this as a rule.

On the hypothesis argument: an hypothesis is just an idea. Anyone can think of one. The idea behind science is not that an hypothesis is always true, the idea is any idea should be tested before we say they have been proven. I don't see how anyone can be against this!

Ok, this is where I stand on it....... I don't **follow** science or religion, I do look for some scientific facts to back up a theory before I will say it is a proven fact, however, science can be wrong too.... But when science is "wrong", it's not so much science being wrong as it is man being wrong. And our science is the science of man, not the science of absolute. it is, like religion, another establishment that can also be corrupted to feed us lies or to support an agenda.
I also think, theoretically speaking, that there is a link between "natural" (science) and "suoer natural" (spirituality)...... I don't think they are as opposite as people would like to think, but this is my theory....... I just think that on a higher level, somewhere where most humans are not able to comprehend, the "super natural" is very scientifically natural......
I think it has to deal with thought. I think thought is energy, and that energy is spirit..... The dream state in a median between this life and the afterlife, as well as a covergence point between the conscious, sub-conscious, and unconcious mind..... And this is why I am starting to get more into lucid dreaming, to explore this more. And hopefully to test my theories.

Oh yeah, science was neeeeevvvvvvveeeerrrr a mainstream establishment, the same as religion has, it has nnnneeeeeeevvvvvveeeeeeerrrr been influenced by politics or political agendas, and they would nnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrr lie to us

science is anti-faith. everything has to be proven and face constant scrutiny.


i think that's a pretty significant difference against the "don't question anything and just have faith" approach of religion.

how is science a religion? what defines a religion? science is based on mans observations and experiences, what we can quantify. to me, religion just fulfills the need to believe in the supernatural, an "eye in the sky" that is looking out for us. science is based on facts, religion is based on mystical ideas. to me anyway. im not saying i dont believe in the supernatural, because i think there is a lot science hasnt come close to explaining yet. science just makes religion look bad. religious faith is inferior to scientific faith, imo

Science is an establishment, just like religion is. It is an establishment, scientists work for governments, corporations, etc. I do not trust corporations or the government. Or any major establishment. Just because they tell you something is fact, doesn't mean it is always so. Even if, as you state, they offer evidence, who is to judge the accuracy of such evidence? Can they not lie to us, to support a political agenda? And if theyr gonna lie to us, why wouldn't they back their lies up with false evidence? Evidence too must be questioned.
Scientific "experts" are the atheist priests. It's just another form of blind obedience to authority.