Is science a religion?

[Cresciuanto]

no it is not a religion . it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and religion is the belief in and worship of a God or gods.

yes it is a fact that science is not a religion. science is the practical experimental study of every thing. but science cannot be separated from Religion. all religions refers scientific study about the facts.

[1714595582]

1714595582

[BADecker]

no it is not a religion . it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and religion is the belief in and worship of a God or gods.

yes it is a fact that science is not a religion. science is the practical experimental study of every thing. but science cannot be separated from Religion. all religions refers scientific study about the facts.

Science is religion if science theory is considered to be science, and is believed as truth.

[Jmild1]

When i think aboabout the facts and not terms, i would think : why this separation between Religion & Science ?

NORMALLY, both exist for the good of Humanity... So, a brave religious follower shouldn't have a contradictory point of view with good aiming Sciences... Also, a brave Scientist can easily be in harmony with the religious values as they present a moral support for him to continue in his way.

BUT, Humans want to find excuses to avoid the obligations of fellowing the right way when it forbids them from getting a "dirty" benefit.
SO, when benefits become more important than values, both Religion & Science become just a "dirty" tool to control ignorant people who don't have enough knowledge to make a proofed decision OR those people who will share benefits.

AND SO, what's the difference between these two words and between any other word if their output is related to the Human's use or abuse 

No it doesn't go that way, people who believe in religion choose to react with it's daily living according to what's written in the teachings they had in a bood, like for example if they'd been teach to hate people that are 3rd sex then they will do because that's been taught on them. While people who use to believe in science will study first if it's acceptable to do those things or not, and will give a reason why it's not and why it is.

[redsun114]

my personal view is that science is not a religion, but all religions are science at all. if we speak about Islam. Being Muslim I have a little knowledge about Islam. for example in Islam Allah says that discover the world as it is for your benefits. so every thing that science is discovering today are present there in Holly Quran. you can really find the answer of any problem in Holly Quran.

Really?  Point me to the chapter that explains cancer and its cures.  Celiac disease, no?  How about HIV?  Hearing loss?

Gravitational waves?  Theory of relativity, Maxwell equations? No?  How about electricity?  Heart pacemaker?  Personal computers?
HTML coding styles?  Internet protocols: SMTP, HTTP, NNTP, FTP?  How about bitcoin?  Show us where in Quran, Allah is explaining bitcoin!!!

Maybe DNA sequences of animals that Allah created? Black holes? Supernovas?  Black matter?

Please be specific.  Just list the chapters that cover the above topics.

Oh come on. We, humans are very anxious. Qurans may have some the scientific terms of that time, that maybe irrelevant at the time, however the inception of research had begun a long time ago, form which quran, tripitaka, bibal, vedas, and many other had written.

May be those books are the research of the people of that time who created stories through it, or stories are made by the misheard of people. In a Hindu's religious book 'Mahabharata' there's a character whose symptoms of disease are similar of that of HIV-AIDS.

Even in that book there's a term of sex change which is portrayed in their own style of curse and whatsoever.

Even the bible has talked about the relativity term but somehow seems irrelevent to us but finds to accurate more or less.

[helloeverybody]

I wouldnt consider science as a religion at all. Science is not based on any imaginary entity. A scientist would search for facts and if the facts found supported the opposite of his/hers theory's then they would accept this. Religion on the other hand even with solid proof will still not change their belief . The only people that considor science as a religion would be religious people because they seem to beleive that everyone has to have some sort of belief system.

[abugseuf]

i think science is no a religion at all but it cannot be separated from religion. every religion do believe on science. but science does not work some time in religion. so i like to say that science is a part of religion but religion is not a part of science.

[ausbit]

my personal view is that science is not a religion, but all religions are science at all. if we speak about Islam. Being Muslim I have a little knowledge about Islam. for example in Islam Allah says that discover the world as it is for your benefits. so every thing that science is discovering today are present there in Holly Quran. you can really find the answer of any problem in Holly Quran.

Really?  Point me to the chapter that explains cancer and its cures.  Celiac disease, no?  How about HIV?  Hearing loss?

Gravitational waves?  Theory of relativity, Maxwell equations? No?  How about electricity?  Heart pacemaker?  Personal computers?
HTML coding styles?  Internet protocols: SMTP, HTTP, NNTP, FTP?  How about bitcoin?  Show us where in Quran, Allah is explaining bitcoin!!!

Maybe DNA sequences of animals that Allah created? Black holes? Supernovas?  Black matter?

Please be specific.  Just list the chapters that cover the above topics.

Oh come on. We, humans are very anxious. Qurans may have some the scientific terms of that time, that maybe irrelevant at the time, however the inception of research had begun a long time ago, form which quran, tripitaka, bibal, vedas, and many other had written.

May be those books are the research of the people of that time who created stories through it, or stories are made by the misheard of people. In a Hindu's religious book 'Mahabharata' there's a character whose symptoms of disease are similar of that of HIV-AIDS.

Even in that book there's a term of sex change which is portrayed in their own style of curse and whatsoever.

Even the bible has talked about the relativity term but somehow seems irrelevent to us but finds to accurate more or less.

The books that we read nowadays that deals with the term relativity and other scientific terms maybe the book that would seem irrelevent to the next generation because at their time, they would discover more and more and may find even big bang thoery and relativity are useless and are waste of time as we look at the religious books now.

[BADecker]

my personal view is that science is not a religion, but all religions are science at all. if we speak about Islam. Being Muslim I have a little knowledge about Islam. for example in Islam Allah says that discover the world as it is for your benefits. so every thing that science is discovering today are present there in Holly Quran. you can really find the answer of any problem in Holly Quran.

Really?  Point me to the chapter that explains cancer and its cures.  Celiac disease, no?  How about HIV?  Hearing loss?

Gravitational waves?  Theory of relativity, Maxwell equations? No?  How about electricity?  Heart pacemaker?  Personal computers?
HTML coding styles?  Internet protocols: SMTP, HTTP, NNTP, FTP?  How about bitcoin?  Show us where in Quran, Allah is explaining bitcoin!!!

Maybe DNA sequences of animals that Allah created? Black holes? Supernovas?  Black matter?

Please be specific.  Just list the chapters that cover the above topics.

Oh come on. We, humans are very anxious. Qurans may have some the scientific terms of that time, that maybe irrelevant at the time, however the inception of research had begun a long time ago, form which quran, tripitaka, bibal, vedas, and many other had written.

May be those books are the research of the people of that time who created stories through it, or stories are made by the misheard of people. In a Hindu's religious book 'Mahabharata' there's a character whose symptoms of disease are similar of that of HIV-AIDS.

Even in that book there's a term of sex change which is portrayed in their own style of curse and whatsoever.

Even the bible has talked about the relativity term but somehow seems irrelevent to us but finds to accurate more or less.

The books that we read nowadays that deals with the term relativity and other scientific terms maybe the book that would seem irrelevent to the next generation because at their time, they would discover more and more and may find even big bang thoery and relativity are useless and are waste of time as we look at the religious books now.

But God's Word remains true. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. The vast numbers of Bible believers show it.

[Blackmet]

At my opinion science is not a religion, cause religion is phenomenon when people believing on different stuff without any proofs. Science can't live without proofs.

[Buffer Overflow]

But God's Word remains true. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. The vast numbers of Bible believers show it.

Less than a third of the world is Christian, bible believers are the minority. Using your fallacious logic, that means the bible must be false because most of the world believes it's nonsense.

You didn't acquire the nickname "BADlogic" easily your know. You've really put the work in. 

[BADecker]

But God's Word remains true. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. The vast numbers of Bible believers show it.

Less than a third of the world is Christian, bible believers are the minority. Using your fallacious logic, that means the bible must be false because most of the world believes it's nonsense.

You didn't acquire the nickname "BADlogic" easily your know. You've really put the work in. 

These vast numbers of Bible believers were very few at the beginning of Christianity. God's mercy will endure forever with regard to all of them. But He won't wait forever for the rest of you. How do we know this? People die, the unbelievers to lock them into destruction, the believers to lock them into salvation.

That's okay if you don't understand this. But it's too bad you are headed in the direction you are.

[Buffer Overflow]

But God's Word remains true. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove it. The vast numbers of Bible believers show it.

Less than a third of the world is Christian, bible believers are the minority. Using your fallacious logic, that means the bible must be false because most of the world believes it's nonsense.

You didn't acquire the nickname "BADlogic" easily your know. You've really put the work in. 

These vast numbers of Bible believers were very few at the beginning of Christianity. God's mercy will endure forever with regard to all of them. But He won't wait forever for the rest of you. How do we know this? People die, the unbelievers to lock them into destruction, the believers to lock them into salvation.

That's okay if you don't understand this. But it's too bad you are headed in the direction you are.

The fact remains, even before deducting all the Christians that pretend they are Christian, for example family expectations, social circles, threats of violence from other Christians, the numbers that realise the bible is a load of baloney *far* outnumbers the remaining that the penny hasn't dropped for them yet, if ever.

So applying *YOUR* logic, the bible is false.

[StingrayX]

When i think aboabout the facts and not terms, i would think : why this separation between Religion & Science ?

NORMALLY, both exist for the good of Humanity... So, a brave religious follower shouldn't have a contradictory point of view with good aiming Sciences... Also, a brave Scientist can easily be in harmony with the religious values as they present a moral support for him to continue in his way.

BUT, Humans want to find excuses to avoid the obligations of fellowing the right way when it forbids them from getting a "dirty" benefit.
SO, when benefits become more important than values, both Religion & Science become just a "dirty" tool to control ignorant people who don't have enough knowledge to make a proofed decision OR those people who will share benefits.

AND SO, what's the difference between these two words and between any other word if their output is related to the Human's use or abuse 

No it doesn't go that way, people who believe in religion choose to react with it's daily living according to what's written in the teachings they had in a bood, like for example if they'd been teach to hate people that are 3rd sex then they will do because that's been taught on them. While people who use to believe in science will study first if it's acceptable to do those things or not, and will give a reason why it's not and why it is.

Sorry for the late response but I am wondering why did you put a " fellower of Religion " VS a " researcher in Science "?
 If we invert by putting the " researcher in Religion " ( those who convince people by all kinds of explanation )  VS a " fellower of Science " ( those who repeat every scientific result without having the right background ) ? ...
Here we will have the same conclusion : IT DEPENDS ON THE PEOPLE'S USE OR ABUSE.

Notice : I'm trying to make people think about the common points of the Humanity rather than looking at each others with a mind full of preconceptions .

[RealityTruth]

most people I know say they believe in science without understanding anything about it so it seems to be a religion

[helloeverybody]

most people I know say they believe in science without understanding anything about it so it seems to be a religion

Not rally , science is based on proof whereas religion is not, you cant compare the two as the same thing.

Science would teach us to ask for evidence before believing but religion would teach us to believe first and consider evidence last. 

[cluit]

no it is not a religion . it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and religion is the belief in and worship of a God or gods.

But after that is science theory, which is not known to be fact just like many people don't know if God is fact or not. When people believe science theory to be fact, they are making science a religion for themselves. Since this includes many of the major scientists, science has become a religion.

I think science is a part of religion. And quantam theory is a perfect example of it. More or less scientists who are involved
in researches of quantam theory are involved in either Buddhism or Hinduism lastly.

[BADecker]

Scientists who believe that science theories are true, when those science theories have not been proven to be true, are a little like the blind leading the blind that Jesus talked about. Regarding the blind leading the blind, Jesus said they both would fall into a ditch. The difference with the blind scientists is that they like it there.

[PokerFace3]

my personal view is that science is not a religion, but all religions are science at all. if we speak about Islam. Being Muslim I have a little knowledge about Islam. for example in Islam Allah says that discover the world as it is for your benefits. so every thing that science is discovering today are present there in Holly Quran. you can really find the answer of any problem in Holly Quran.

Really?  Point me to the chapter that explains cancer and its cures.  Celiac disease, no?  How about HIV?  Hearing loss?

Gravitational waves?  Theory of relativity, Maxwell equations? No?  How about electricity?  Heart pacemaker?  Personal computers?
HTML coding styles?  Internet protocols: SMTP, HTTP, NNTP, FTP?  How about bitcoin?  Show us where in Quran, Allah is explaining bitcoin!!!

Maybe DNA sequences of animals that Allah created? Black holes? Supernovas?  Black matter?

Please be specific.  Just list the chapters that cover the above topics.

Oh come on we humans are very anxious. Qurans may have some the scientific terms of that time, that maybe irrelevent at the time, however the inception
of research had begun a long time ago, form which quran, tripitaka, bibal, vedas, and many other had written. Maybe those books are the research of the
people of that time who created stories through it, or stories are made by the misheard of people. In a Hindu's religious book 'Mahabharata' there's a
character whose symptoms of disease are similar of that of HIV-AIDS. Even in that book there's a term of sex change which is portrayed in their own style
of curse and whatsoever. Even the bible has talked about the relativity term but somehow seems irrelevent to us but finds to accurate more or less. The books
 that we read nowadays that deals with the term relativity and other scientific terms maybe the book that would seem irrelevent to the next generation because
 at their they would discover more and more and may find even big bang thoery and relativity are
useless and are waste of time as we look at the religious books now.

[lixer]

Science is not a religion, in any way. Science is based on facts and researches and religion is based on beleiving without asking questions.

However, both science and religion based on some hypothesis that disproved with time by more strong hypothesis. By more strong hypothesis I mean the one which more strictly connected to the facts. But they both based on believing that facts they represented are the truth. By this way, religion is protoscience and science is criticism of the religion. Although both they have something common and they are not opposites, but science genetically succeeds religion as more accurate approach to reality. See "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, my friend.

Yes, I agree that religion is protoscience and science is criticism of the religion.

Science and religion can never match up. Science is the accurate way of perceiving reality through evidences and experiments whereas Religion is based on faith and belief.

[BADecker]

Science is not a religion, in any way. Science is based on facts and researches and religion is based on beleiving without asking questions.

However, both science and religion based on some hypothesis that disproved with time by more strong hypothesis. By more strong hypothesis I mean the one which more strictly connected to the facts. But they both based on believing that facts they represented are the truth. By this way, religion is protoscience and science is criticism of the religion. Although both they have something common and they are not opposites, but science genetically succeeds religion as more accurate approach to reality. See "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper, my friend.

Yes, I agree that religion is protoscience and science is criticism of the religion.

Science and religion can never match up. Science is the accurate way of perceiving reality through evidences and experiments whereas Religion is based on faith and belief.

Actually, it is only certain parts of science that are accurate. When science theory is believed to be fact, it acts worse than religion for the science believers, because such science might be fact, or it might not be.

Religion is way better for people, because religion (even violent Islam) has good morals that direct the lives of people well if they are followed. And in the case of Christianity, there is salvation to eternal life.

Science can't offer this. In fact, most of the time even science fact does no good. It is science fact being applied by engineers that does the good. On top of this, because much of science is not factual at all, it is the engineers taking it, and tweaking it into things that become the modern conveniences of life that is important. It isn't science. It is engineering that is beneficial.

Science has become a religion to its believers.