Is science a religion?

[BADecker]

No, religion doesn't explain everything about the world. For example. Show me where Christianity talks directly about that one weed growing between the cracks in the pavement outside your apartment. No explanation exists about that weed in the Christian religion. A broad generalization might exist, wherein the weed might or might not exist. But religion falls far short of explaining everything about the world. Why does it fall far short? Because that isn't what religion is there for.

Science is there to explain everything about the world. But it does not. Science is not internally consistent. For example. There are 3 major Big Bang theories that are all different. There are 4 Black Hole theories that are distinctively different. There are scientists who understand that none of these have been proven to be fact. There are other scientists, some of which believe in each theory. There are still other scientists that believe the theories aren't true, but that something like them is true.

Science is picky in the detail area. Because of this, when it doesn't find all the details, it is almost useless.

Religion covers the broad generalities. Religion is better than science, because religion shows all sorts of things that science will never be able to show, because of the complexity of nature, the universe, and life. That's the reason why many scientists have turned science into a religion for themselves, by believing in parts of it that have not been proven to be fact.

Just like other religion, scientists have turned science into religion, hopeful and believing that parts of science are true, when in reality these parts have not been proven to be true... just like religion.

Of course religion explains everything about the world.

Your example: "about that one weed growing between the cracks in the pavement outside your apartment" -- the answer is of course "God". In fact, you've shown us that the answer for any question for which you don't know a well-defined answer has -- so far on this board --  always been "God".

You believe in God at last!!! All my talk hasn't been for nothing, after all.

[BADecker]

Science is better than any religion.
Religions are based on lies.

Especially the religion of science theory.   

[BADecker]

Science is better than any religion.
Religions are based on lies.

Moreover science is based on facts and religion is based on miracles.

Right, at least at the in deepest and greatest point of science. Since science has shown that God exists, but hasn't shown the miracles of how God created everything, we need religion to even accept the miracles.

[BADecker]

Agreed science theory is mostly based on mathematical patters, how we intemperate the patterns can be very subjective.

And since math is an invention and a language of man rather than a fundamental part of the universe, its truth lies in the heart and mind of man rather than in the universe.

[BADecker]

i think science and religion is two separate things cant be combine together, science cant make miracle but the religion can
so for me science is science, religion is a religion they are two different things

Science itself is not religion. Religion itself is not science. But both join each other in the heart and mind of man.

[Tusk]

Agreed science theory is mostly based on mathematical patters, how we intemperate the patterns can be very subjective.

And since math is an invention and a language of man rather than a fundamental part of the universe, its truth lies in the heart and mind of man rather than in the universe.

Maths is not an invention, 1+2  has and always will = 3, maths is a discovery, it is the language of the universe and applies equally to ourselves as it does to aliens.

[organofcorti]

No, religion doesn't explain everything about the world. For example. Show me where Christianity talks directly about that one weed growing between the cracks in the pavement outside your apartment. No explanation exists about that weed in the Christian religion. A broad generalization might exist, wherein the weed might or might not exist. But religion falls far short of explaining everything about the world. Why does it fall far short? Because that isn't what religion is there for.

Science is there to explain everything about the world. But it does not. Science is not internally consistent. For example. There are 3 major Big Bang theories that are all different. There are 4 Black Hole theories that are distinctively different. There are scientists who understand that none of these have been proven to be fact. There are other scientists, some of which believe in each theory. There are still other scientists that believe the theories aren't true, but that something like them is true.

Science is picky in the detail area. Because of this, when it doesn't find all the details, it is almost useless.

Religion covers the broad generalities. Religion is better than science, because religion shows all sorts of things that science will never be able to show, because of the complexity of nature, the universe, and life. That's the reason why many scientists have turned science into a religion for themselves, by believing in parts of it that have not been proven to be fact.

Just like other religion, scientists have turned science into religion, hopeful and believing that parts of science are true, when in reality these parts have not been proven to be true... just like religion.

Of course religion explains everything about the world.

Your example: "about that one weed growing between the cracks in the pavement outside your apartment" -- the answer is of course "God". In fact, you've shown us that the answer for any question for which you don't know a well-defined answer has -- so far on this board --  always been "God".

You believe in God at last!!! All my talk hasn't been for nothing, after all.

Mine apparently has.

[CheapYoutubeHits]

Science is a religion cause people believe in it

[BADecker]

Science is a religion cause people believe in it

Correct. People religious believe as truth, some aspects of modern science which are not known to be true, and which are so wildly unbelievable that they would almost have to be miracles to be true.

[Tusk]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

[benedictonathan]

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

[BADecker]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

[BitcoinBlackjack]

I personally would not classify it as a religious because it's always changing, whereas religions are the same today as they were a thousand years ago it seems!

[organofcorti]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

[XodhvdjI]

following the actual title, science isn't a religion. It's s physical substantiated characteristic. Sciene isn't something you can deny because there's physical evidence to actually make it substantial while religion does not and that would be the difference between religion and science.


With that being said, Scientology is a way to get Christians and other religious people to stop being who they are.

[Farhad shaikh]

Science is not a religion. But it,s a way of Religion.Is we think about Islam. then we see Islam Religion is totally scientific. And now we can told that Science is not a Religion. Religion is Science.

[BADecker]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

[organofcorti]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

[BADecker]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

[organofcorti]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural".