Is science a religion?

[BADecker]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

No, it's not.

Science is not meant to be a religion. Yet the fact that scientists would accept as fact, much of science theory which has not been proven to be fact, starts to bring science into the realm of religion.

Scientists have built up all kinds of expressed structure about how things work, structure that is not known to be factual. They believe much of it. They attach it to the factual science. They have turned science into a religion, and made themselves the high priests of that religion.

The theoretical things are written up right along side of the factual things in books. They are taught in classrooms around the world as truth when they are not necessarily known to be truth.

For example. Two theories that are not known to be fact are Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Nobody knows that the Big Bang happened. Nobody knows what Black Holes really are.

Basically, there are three Big Bang theories. Basically there are 4 kinds of Black Holes expressed by the various Black Hole Theories. The amazing thing is that none of the Black Holes expressed by Black Hole Theory could fit withing any of the universes expressed by any of the Big Bang Theory. The theories are not compatible.

Yet, scientists just know in their hearts that the Big Bang really happened, and that Black Holes are what they say they are. And they believe it strongly, even though it all contradicts. Stand this up against the definition of "religion" to see that they have a religion going for themselves in their science.

[1714586289]

1714586289

[1714586289]

1714586289

[organofcorti]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

No, it's not.

Science is not meant to be a religion. Yet the fact that scientists would accept as fact, much of science theory which has not been proven to be fact, starts to bring science into the realm of religion.

Scientists have built up all kinds of expressed structure about how things work, structure that is not known to be factual. They believe much of it. They attach it to the factual science. They have turned science into a religion, and made themselves the high priests of that religion.

The theoretical things are written up right along side of the factual things in books. They are taught in classrooms around the world as truth when they are not necessarily known to be truth.

For example. Two theories that are not known to be fact are Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Nobody knows that the Big Bang happened. Nobody knows what Black Holes really are.

Basically, there are three Big Bang theories. Basically there are 4 kinds of Black Holes expressed by the various Black Hole Theories. The amazing thing is that none of the Black Holes expressed by Black Hole Theory could fit withing any of the universes expressed by any of the Big Bang Theory. The theories are not compatible.

Yet, scientists just know in their hearts that the Big Bang really happened, and that Black Holes are what they say they are. And they believe it strongly, even though it all contradicts. Stand this up against the definition of "religion" to see that they have a religion going for themselves in their science.

No, it's not.

[Xenophoto]

I'm pretty sure science will never be a religion because people of science has their own point of views and they do not worship a "God" out there. Most of scientists are atheist too, so that would be really ironic if science is a religion.

[romero121]

Science can't be a religion
Almost every scientist belongs to a religion if we don't count atheists. Anyway atheism is also a religion that against to religions

Yeah, scientists too have their own religion but the scientists who are atheist believe science as a religion.

[Saksham]

Religion and science are two different fields of study that occasionally come into conflict when either forgets itself.
Religion is a spiritual pursuit of Truth.
Science is an intellectual pursuit of truth.
Religion is strongest when it doesn't attempt to touch the facts of the universe and maintains its pursuit of the Divine.
Science looks at the universe through conjecture and refutation - theory and experiment. When it shows that the universe is several billion years old, it is true. When it shows that evolution produced life on Earth over the course of millions of years, it is true.

[organofcorti]

Religion and science are two different fields of study that occasionally come into conflict when either forgets itself.
Religion is a spiritual pursuit of Truth.
Science is an intellectual pursuit of truth.
Religion is strongest when it doesn't attempt to touch the facts of the universe and maintains its pursuit of the Divine.
Science looks at the universe through conjecture and refutation - theory and experiment. When it shows that the universe is several billion years old, it is true. When it shows that evolution produced life on Earth over the course of millions of years, it is true.

I agree -- the subjects are two completely different and unrelated  domains. We don't use maths to prove art, so why use science to prove god?

[BADecker]

Religion and science are two different fields of study that occasionally come into conflict when either forgets itself.
Religion is a spiritual pursuit of Truth.
Science is an intellectual pursuit of truth.
Religion is strongest when it doesn't attempt to touch the facts of the universe and maintains its pursuit of the Divine.
Science looks at the universe through conjecture and refutation - theory and experiment. When it shows that the universe is several billion years old, it is true. When it shows that evolution produced life on Earth over the course of millions of years, it is true.

I agree -- the subjects are two completely different and unrelated  domains. We don't use maths to prove art, so why use science to prove god?

You can find many people who use math to design their art.

Science has many meanings. Some women call their range or their washer and dryer science.

Science in the pure sense is not religion.

Science in the theoretical sense can be religion if the scientists believe it as truth when they don't know that it is truth.

[yvv]

No. Science is anti-religion.

[BADecker]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

[yvv]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles.

[BADecker]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles.

Wrong!

In a formal religion, the God that science has proven to exist, makes promises to people. If the people want to believe Him, they must take Him on faith.

In science theory (which is part of science) some facts that are proven to exist, come together in a new way with a promise of something else that has not been proven yet. If scientists believe the theory to be fact, they do so on faith, because it hasn't been proven yet.

So, faith is the foundation in both religion and science, being only less firm than the foundation of facts of both religion and science.

[yvv]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles.

Wrong!

In a formal religion, the God that science has proven to exist, makes promises to people. If the people want to believe Him, they must take Him on faith.

In science theory (which is part of science) some facts that are proven to exist, come together in a new way with a promise of something else that has not been proven yet. If scientists believe the theory to be fact, they do so on faith, because it hasn't been proven yet.

So, faith is the foundation in both religion and science, being only less firm than the foundation of facts of both religion and science.

Blah blah blah. Tell your fairy tails to retard kids who have no brains and enter your totalitarian religions  cult.

[BADecker]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

From a point of view of ignorant religious obscurantists, may be so. In reality, there is nothing in common between science and religion. They are just two different worlds based on completely different principles.

Wrong!

In a formal religion, the God that science has proven to exist, makes promises to people. If the people want to believe Him, they must take Him on faith.

In science theory (which is part of science) some facts that are proven to exist, come together in a new way with a promise of something else that has not been proven yet. If scientists believe the theory to be fact, they do so on faith, because it hasn't been proven yet.

So, faith is the foundation in both religion and science, being only less firm than the foundation of facts of both religion and science.

Blah blah blah. Tell your fairy tails to retard kids who have no brains and enter your totalitarian religions  cult.

So, you a believer in science can't find a logical answer, yet you condemn the logic. You have a great religion for yourself, there.

[yvv]

So, you a believer in science can't find a logical answer, yet you condemn the logic. You have a great religion for yourself, there.

I am not a believer. In contrast to you, I understand the logic and can apply it properly to every day problems. I don't have no religion for nobody. You fool yourself with your religious myths.
 

[organofcorti]

The belief that science is not a religion, in the face of it being proven to be a religion, is a religion itself.

 

No, it's not.

[Bitguybillionaire]

A religion must include a god and a place of worship. Science has neither. If you believe in science you are an athiest. Scientology isnt a religion either, it is more of a cult

[BADecker]

A religion must include a god and a place of worship. Science has neither. If you believe in science you are an athiest. Scientology isnt a religion either, it is more of a cult

But the definition of "religion" doesn't say that a god is a requirement of religion. However, the activities and thinking of mankind in his presumptuousness, suggests that mankind makes himself out as though he were a god. So, religion always has a god, even though the definition doesn't require it.

[organofcorti]

A religion must include a god and a place of worship. Science has neither. If you believe in science you are an athiest. Scientology isnt a religion either, it is more of a cult

But the definition of "religion" doesn't say that a god is a requirement of religion. However, the activities and thinking of mankind in his presumptuousness, suggests that mankind makes himself out as though he were a god. So, religion always has a god, even though the definition doesn't require it.

Your definition doesn't. But as pointed out many times before, the standard dictionaries (those that existed long before "dictionary.com") have definitions of religion that include terms such as "supernatural belief" and "god or gods" in their definitions.

[Jmild1]

Isn't a spammer should be ban in any forum? As I see there's no evidence nor facts presented and that would be equal to an opinionated spam. Because the cycle is just keep on repeating. Refuted>Make an escape loop>Answer with another safe escape. Right badecker?

 

[Buffer Overflow]

Isn't a spammer should be ban in any forum? As I see there's no evidence nor facts presented and that would be equal to an opinionated spam. Because the cycle is just keep on repeater. Refuted>Make an escape loop>Answer with another safe escape. Right badecker?

 

To be fair the whole forum should get together and have a pact to just ignore him. Once nobody is listening to him, he'll goto another forum to spread his lies.