Is science a religion?

[Sled]

Yes it looks like religion but based on facts and explanation which is the opposite of religions.
I say science is religion because atheist is believing that everything has an explanation
which is fact unlike religion is praying someone to god and the person will be well which has no scientific explanation.

[jamesford]

Nope. science deals with proof and real things they cant see.

Religion mostly is centered on miracles.

[Buffer Overflow]

The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

Scientific theories are backed up by a body of evidence, they are not 100% speculation as you wrongly claim.
The bible is backed up by wishful thinking, which is 100% blind speculation, ie faith.

You are simply too proud and stubborn to admit the bible is wrong, which the insurmountable evidience says it is.

[ainzley]

I honestly don't think it is. Religion requires, at least on some level, faith that what you believe in is true (assuming you believe in a literal adaptation of the bible). Science on the other hand asks you to question theories and is the main driving force behind new discoveries. People that simply accept the state of things and believe "that's that and that's the way it always has been" aren't going to be pushing the envelope of human success anytime soon.

Just my 2 cents 

[BADecker]

The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

Scientific theories are backed up by a body of evidence, they are not 100% speculation as you wrongly claim.
The bible is backed up by wishful thinking, which is 100% blind speculation, ie faith.

You are simply too proud and stubborn to admit the bible is wrong, which the insurmountable evidience says it is.

Oh quit picking on me, Fluffer.

You know as well as I that many scientific theories are backed up by lots more than simple evidence. Many have all kinds of facts backing them up. The thing that makes them to be theories is the way the evidence or facts are combined. It isn't the facts or evidence that are theoretical or questionable. It is how they are used and combined that makes the whole thing questionable theory.

The Bible is eye witness accounts in many cases, backed up traditionally as such by one of the most stubborn of all nations, the Jews. It is sound psychology in other areas. It is common social relationship styles in other areas. It is workable law and order in other areas, law and order that are implemented in society all around us, because it works.

Wake up.

[TECSHARE]

I honestly don't think it is. Religion requires, at least on some level, faith that what you believe in is true (assuming you believe in a literal adaptation of the bible). Science on the other hand asks you to question theories and is the main driving force behind new discoveries. People that simply accept the state of things and believe "that's that and that's the way it always has been" aren't going to be pushing the envelope of human success anytime soon.

Just my 2 cents  

This is something I think most anti-religious people have completely backwards about people of faith. You claim that religion only has a limited unchanging view of the world that never develops and that science is constantly questioning reality. In some ways science teaches people that they should stop questioning reality and stop seeking for personal understanding because some one has already figured it out, so don't bother even trying to figure it out for yourself. Think about your time in school. Did you feel like they were encouraging free independent thought or that they were usually just telling you to shut up, absorb and regurgitate information? This kind of critical thought and free thinking is actually punished in most school systems because it is not necessary for someone to become a reliable worker.

On the flip side of this consider any inventor or creative person ever. The though process almost always starts out as some kind of flash of intuition and then careful thought and examination back from that concept gives that idea a foundation in reality and helps make it possible. In my opinion faith nurtures this part of the mind by giving it foundational concepts that are beyond the human senses giving the brain a sort of scaffolding on which to develop this forward thinking and creative ability to visualize things that do not yet exist. Even with institutionalized religion aside, any kind of faith in a deity or deities of any kind is an exercise in the practice of giving formless concepts form, which is at the heart of all of human creations with or without faith. In my opinion faith is something that can help develop this thought process. Of course the opposite can be true for both the belief system of science and the belief system of religion, but I feel like this is more a result of the limited capacity of the individuals that practice them rather than the concepts themselves.

[Sithara007]

Surely, science is not a religion. All religions have their own myths and the respecting people follow their customs. The real fact is,all of the rules and regulations of different religions behind a solid scientific reason. It shows that the result is good or bad.

[romero121]

Surely, science is not a religion. All religions have their own myths and the respecting people follow their customs. The real fact is,all of the rules and regulations of different religions behind a solid scientific reason. It shows that the result is good or bad.

Yeah Science and Religion are entirely different. As said religion is based on spiritual beliefs with ancient following but science is based on truth which gives proof for existence.

[BADecker]

Surely, science is not a religion. All religions have their own myths and the respecting people follow their customs. The real fact is,all of the rules and regulations of different religions behind a solid scientific reason. It shows that the result is good or bad.

Yeah Science and Religion are entirely different. As said religion is based on spiritual beliefs with ancient following but science is based on truth which gives proof for existence.

... except that they both are fact in some areas, and religion in other areas.

[Jmild1]

It's not, but there are people that making a movement with accrediting science, I.e. Scientism. A religion is a faith based so a science will never be a religion

[designerusa]

While many in main stream science claim to be atheist and believe in the Big Bang and the eventual Deep Freeze due to entropy. Is it not curious to consider that the very underpinnings of this belief is based on mathematics, was it too created in the big bang? if so how was it constructed? one digit at a time?

I think not it has always been there and will always remain its an eternal masterpiece that permeates every conceivable facet or reality yet in its self it is purely abstract. Without it nothing would exist, but it in itself it is nonexistent and existent at the same time. It is the language of the living universe. Its permutations are infinite, yet it did not grow, it has always been complete and eternal.         

Do you smoke your weed before or after reading from your holy book?

From the nonsense you posted, I conclude you are a Muslim.

Eternal masterpiece?  Shoot, the weed you are smoking is gooood.

Our universe the most hostile environment to life that you could imagine. 

i completely agree with you.. is our universe a eternal masterpiece ? the answer is absolutely not.. i think our universe is a garbage dump of other better places that we have never known..

[BADecker]

It's not, but there are people that making a movement with accrediting science, I.e. Scientism. A religion is a faith based so a science will never be a religion

In the strict sense, science is not religion.

When scientists and politicians take science theory (which is not know to be fact) and state and teach that it is fact, especially when they know that it is not fact, they are creating a religion. When people believe that science theory is fact, they have a religion going for themselves.

[Gronthaing]

The Bible is eye witness accounts in many cases, backed up traditionally as such by one of the most stubborn of all nations, the Jews. It is sound psychology in other areas. It is common social relationship styles in other areas. It is workable law and order in other areas, law and order that are implemented in society all around us, because it works.

Wake up.

Eye witness accounts are the worst type of evidence. People willingly and not distort what they see. If they even understand what they are seeing. And part of the bible was written long after it happened. Like the new testament. Not by the people who lived through it. Then the books that would constitute the bible were chosen by the church. Hardly a trustworthy source. By the way we no longer believe we should have slaves. Not that those social rules didn't exist before the bible too.

[BADecker]

The Bible is eye witness accounts in many cases, backed up traditionally as such by one of the most stubborn of all nations, the Jews. It is sound psychology in other areas. It is common social relationship styles in other areas. It is workable law and order in other areas, law and order that are implemented in society all around us, because it works.

Wake up.

Eye witness accounts are the worst type of evidence. People willingly and not distort what they see. If they even understand what they are seeing.

The difference regarding the Old Testament is that the miracles of Moses were so great that, even if there was some discrepancy among the witnesses (which there was not), the record of Moses has come down to us today untarnished. How can it be untarnished? Because of the greatness of the Moses miracles, the stubborn nation of Israel has essentially incorporated the Torah - and really, the whole Tanakh - into their family line forever. The O.T. is the truth.

There is great common sense in the writings of the bible. They make tremendous sense.

And part of the bible was written long after it happened. Like the new testament. Not by the people who lived through it.

Not true. The New Testament writers are who they say they are. Even Paul the Apostle, a great N.T. writer, was living throughout the life of Jesus on earth.

Then the books that would constitute the bible were chosen by the church.

Wrong. The O.T. is the same Tanakh that the people of Israel believed. The reason that the Church selected the N.T. writings that they did was, many false or tarnished writings were being added to the N.T. The Church selected the writings based on how they matched the O.T. of Israel. If things were found in a N.T. book that didn't fit with the O.T., that book was left out of the Bible. This is the way that the Bible remains the truth.

Hardly a trustworthy source. By the way we no longer believe we should have slaves. Not that those social rules didn't exist before the bible too.

Slavery is a benefit to a destitute person who turns his life over to another who can save him. Slave and indentured servant are often used interchangeably.

The Old Testament speaks against stealing a person. But to keep peace among corrupt lawbreakers, God regulates slavery to the best benefit of both slave and master.

Saint Paul tells the slaves that if they can gain their freedom, to do so.

The O.T. says that if a slave loves his master, and wants to remain a slave, he can enslave himself to his master for life. Doesn't sound like a bad form of slavery. A lot of homeless people would like a position like that.

Wake up.

[Jmild1]

It's not, but there are people that making a movement with accrediting science, I.e. Scientism. A religion is a faith based so a science will never be a religion

In the strict sense, science is not religion.

When scientists and politicians take science theory (which is not know to be fact) and state and teach that it is fact, especially when they know that it is not fact, they are creating a religion. When people believe that science theory is fact, they have a religion going for themselves.

Theoretical scientist does not express opinion. There data's undergo scrutiny thus making it a concrete base of evidence. Do you even know what's scientific method?

[BADecker]

It's not, but there are people that making a movement with accrediting science, I.e. Scientism. A religion is a faith based so a science will never be a religion

In the strict sense, science is not religion.

When scientists and politicians take science theory (which is not know to be fact) and state and teach that it is fact, especially when they know that it is not fact, they are creating a religion. When people believe that science theory is fact, they have a religion going for themselves.

Theoretical scientist, does not express opinion. There data's undergo scrutiny thus making it a concrete base of evidence. Do you even know what's scientific method?

All people, even theoretical scientists, have opinions about many things.

Concrete base of evidence doesn't take evidence out of evidence status. Concrete evidence is simply evidence that is firm evidence... but it is still only evidence.

A scientific theory can have many scientific facts within it. The theory part is not the facts. The theory part is the relation between the facts, and a new idea. The facts can remain solidly facts. But the new idea is still just an idea. The strength of the combining of the facts in new idea form is what makes the idea a theory.

A few lines about the scientific method doesn't express the details of what the method is all about. Science theory is still theory, even though a lot of people try to suggest the odds of how close to fact it might be.

[Moloch]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Not saying your wrong but..97% might want to keep there jobs?All about the money..

But i am all for believing just in case the 97% are right..Car fumes are like smoking if we can quit then why not..

That assumes a conspiracy. That any scientist with evidence man made climate change isn't real wouldn't be hired anywhere else. Anywhere in the world. Hard to believe. Would need coordination and cooperation of too many people. And in very different countries.

It only assumes a conspiracy if you are ignorant of the facts...

The 97% claim is not based on all scientists, it is based on 73 hand-picked "climatologists"... Who are all paid by the IPCC...

It's as much of a conspiracy as asking 73 priests if they believe God exists and 97% saying yes...

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is lacking... I do not need to prove it doesn't exist until you first prove it does exist... I am not making the positive claim and am not obliged to provide the burden of proof...

A pseudo-consensus among 73 people on your payroll does not evidence make...
In what field of science does a scientist's opinion/belief count as evidence/proof?

Why must I prove gremlins don't exist when you haven't proven your claim that they do exist?

[icecube45]

according to NDT it is haha

[Buffer Overflow]

The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

Scientific theories are backed up by a body of evidence, they are not 100% speculation as you wrongly claim.
The bible is backed up by wishful thinking, which is 100% blind speculation, ie faith.

You are simply too proud and stubborn to admit the bible is wrong, which the insurmountable evidience says it is.

Oh quit picking on me, Fluffer.

Dear oh dear, poor old BADecker and his harrowing tales of persecution. 
I'm sorry the truth is such an interference for your shaky dodgy beliefs. 

Oh make no mistake, I'm not correcting your delibrate misinformation for your benefit. I'm not silly, I know your poisoned mind has set harder than concrete and nothing I say can be it's
antidote. It's for other peoples benefit that may get sucked into your web of sticky lies.

[Gronthaing]

It only assumes a conspiracy if you are ignorant of the facts...

The 97% claim is not based on all scientists, it is based on 73 hand-picked "climatologists"... Who are all paid by the IPCC...

Source? Thought it first came from studies of scientific papers: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/ then reduced to the 97% claim. I know about polls too but not just 73 scientists. Some had thousands answering.