Is science a religion?

[yesiam6]

It's imo the opposite of a religion
it's based on facts and not on pure faith like religion is

[1715204826]

1715204826

[1715204826]

1715204826

[1715204826]

1715204826

[1715204826]

1715204826

[1715204826]

1715204826

[BADecker]

Science is a method into figuring out the way the physical universe works. Religion is set of values and beliefs that people live by. The closest that they get, to me, is that some people believe that science and god work hand-in-hand, while others believe that one completely disproves of the other. But, ultimately, these two subjects have two completely different concepts. I wouldn't say the scientific method is a "ritual".

<>

Scientism is not even a religion it is just a extreme belief that everything can be explained by scientific methods. Religion in the right sense is a way of life, it is a guide to live a moral life. It is not an explanation of nature rather it focuses on how people should live their lives. In this sense scientism is not in line with religion it is like a cult.

Not at all. Science is actually closer to the opposite of religion. Religions guard their dogma against reasoned criticism, but science invites, rewards and embraces reasoned criticism.

It's imo the opposite of a religion
it's based on facts and not on pure faith like religion is

The point isn't what science is supposed to be. The point is what science is. Here is the point.

Science theory is not known to be fact. When people believe that it is fact, and when these people are the guardian scientists of science, then science becomes a religion for all who believe the unknown to be factual.

If someone gives you a sealed jar and says, "What's in the jar," you might have all kinds of ideas about what's in the jar. But you don't know until you open the jar.

Science theory is like the jar. When the jar gets opened, it is not theory anymore. Then it becomes science fact. But if you take a guess before the jar is opened - before the theory is proven - you don't really know if you are right or not.

When you place so much faith in the idea that you know, before you really DO know, and you spread the info around all over the place, you are doing with science the same kind of thing religious people do with religions.

Science has become a religion.

[Jmild1]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that with a scientific approach you can dobut everyting and with a religious one you can't doubt many things even is they have not much sense.

Yeah, like atheist wants doubts because science can give them information and that's the reason why they are too knowledgeable. While when you're stick in religion it only requires faith for your doubts, you won't really find the answer but you just give it to gods mysterious ways.

[BADecker]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that with a scientific approach you can dobut everyting and with a religious one you can't doubt many things even is they have not much sense.

Yeah, like atheist wants doubts because science can give them information and that's the reason why they are too knowledgeable. While when you're stick in religion it only requires faith for your doubts, you won't really find the answer but you just give it to gods mysterious ways.

Now you are explaining the way many major scientists treat science theory, like it was fact, when they don't know.

[frankmb]

Science is fact searching/discovering adjusting.

There is no comparison with religion since religion has 0 facts.

[BADecker]

Science is fact searching/discovering adjusting.

There is no comparison with religion since religion has 0 facts.

Science is making theories which are not fact, and then believing the theories to be fact before they are proven. This makes science to be believing 0 fact, while many things in the religious books have been proven true. For example, Jericho in the Bible.

[escrowboy]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that with a scientific approach you can dobut everyting and with a religious one you can't doubt many things even is they have not much sense.

Yeah, like atheist wants doubts because science can give them information and that's the reason why they are too knowledgeable. While when you're stick in religion it only requires faith for your doubts, you won't really find the answer but you just give it to gods mysterious ways.

Now you are explaining the way many major scientists treat science theory, like it was fact, when they don't know.

Hey man, if it isn't a fact then why they're moving and making things that they real? Do you think they just invent rocket accidentally? It undergo study just what they always do and the result is happening. They do what they say.

[alplaxxx]

Well, science is not religion and it doesn’t just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion’s virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas, the other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

[btcnijuan]

Education is destroying religion. Science isn't at war with religion, and would happily totally ignore it. Science seeks only to observe and explain the natural world around us. It's actually religion that is at war with science

[WhalingWhales]

I'd like to turn that one upside down if I may.

In Eastern cultures, a valid religion is considered as scientifically verifiable with regard the specific changes in the person... and especially with regard to the direct experience of having a better life. The second may not sound like science, but to the person who has undergone the change, it becomes the absolute truth.

[BADecker]

I think the main difference between science and religion is that with a scientific approach you can dobut everyting and with a religious one you can't doubt many things even is they have not much sense.

Yeah, like atheist wants doubts because science can give them information and that's the reason why they are too knowledgeable. While when you're stick in religion it only requires faith for your doubts, you won't really find the answer but you just give it to gods mysterious ways.

Now you are explaining the way many major scientists treat science theory, like it was fact, when they don't know.

Hey man, if it isn't a fact then why they're moving and making things that they real? Do you think they just invent rocket accidentally? It undergo study just what they always do and the result is happening. They do what they say.

Rocket making doesn't have anything to do with science theory. It has to do with engineering. Engineering is the taking of science and making it work. Then science takes what the engineers made work, and adjust their science so that they can say that they thought it up. Science theory is like this a lot. Some science theory that is believed to be fact, will never get to fact status, even if it is fact. Big Bang Theory is like this. Can't prove Big Bang no matter how hard we try. If it is fact, we will never know. But it probably isn't fact.

[yueno]

Well science may a little comparison in bible. Why? Because during god create planets and sun. Scientists said that there is big bang theory happen million years ago. Adan and Eve created by god. Scientist said that the revolutionary of human being is based on ape. There is alittle comparison about it. And also base on history scientist made a statement about biology which god says "GROW AND MULTIPLY". Everything happens in this land that scientist predict is GOD's made. So theres a connection between RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

[ObscureBean]

Science and religion are essentially one and the same thing and can be used interchangeably in any context. They are the two faces of the same coin.
One face being aware of the other is what gives rise to individual identities.
Basically, everyone has a unique personal balance of the two, that unique balance is what gives a person his/her unique identity.
No two person can ever experience the exact same balance.

For example:  balance1/person1: Science (77.8745%) - Religion (22.1255%).
It is possible for another person to outwardly appear to have to the same balance but only if a limit is set to the number of decimal places.
If no limit is set, then at some point, if you keep increasing decimal places, a divergence is guaranteed to occur. Hence unique identities.

[Moloch]

Science and religion are essentially one and the same thing and can be used interchangeably in any context.

Where do you people get such ideas?

Science is about finding the truth via evidence & experimentation, and correctly predicting future results (like cosmic background radiation)

Religion is about telling stories which are bullshit, have zero scientific merit, and are not capable of predicting anything

[ObscureBean]

Science and religion are essentially one and the same thing and can be used interchangeably in any context.

Where do you people get such ideas?

Science is about finding the truth via evidence & experimentation, and correctly predicting future results (like cosmic background radiation)

Religion is about telling stories which are bullshit, have zero scientific merit, and are not capable of predicting anything

You're not looking at it from a fundamental perspective.
 
Both religion and science are systems of belief/faith. You believe in science, you believe in God.
Getting on a plane and while not fully understanding how it all works, requires what would qualify as 'faith'. Taking a pill when ill, requires faith in science because you have no idea how the chemicals work.

Both science and religion are systems of reason. Religion is not random, it follows a logic.

Both science and religion rely on assumptions.
No experiment/test in science can ever be truly conclusive. You can perform a test a million times and get the exact same result every time but there is absolutely no guarantee that on the million and one attempt, you'll get the expected result. Since there is no way to test something infinitely, science assumes a particular result to be true after a finite number of tests. That is why nothing in science is set in stone, theories that were once thought to be complete can still be improved upon as more tests are performed and new findings are uncovered.

[Gronthaing]

Both science and religion rely on assumptions.
No experiment/test in science can ever be truly conclusive. You can perform a test a million times and get the exact same result every time but there is absolutely no guarantee that on the million and one attempt, you'll get the expected result. Since there is no way to test something infinitely, science assumes a particular result to be true after a finite number of tests. That is why nothing in science is set in stone, theories that were once thought to be complete can still be improved upon as more tests are performed and new findings are uncovered.

Aren't you proving his point? True that science isn't set in stone. It changes to accommodate the latest findings. But religion doesn't change. People and society might change and choose to ignore one part or another of their religion. Most people certainly do. But that's it. Religion is as useless to understand and change the world now as it was in the past.

[ObscureBean]

Both science and religion rely on assumptions.
No experiment/test in science can ever be truly conclusive. You can perform a test a million times and get the exact same result every time but there is absolutely no guarantee that on the million and one attempt, you'll get the expected result. Since there is no way to test something infinitely, science assumes a particular result to be true after a finite number of tests. That is why nothing in science is set in stone, theories that were once thought to be complete can still be improved upon as more tests are performed and new findings are uncovered.

Aren't you proving his point? True that science isn't set in stone. It changes to accommodate the latest findings. But religion doesn't change. People and society might change and choose to ignore one part or another of their religion. Most people certainly do. But that's it. Religion is as useless to understand and change the world now as it was in the past.

Again, you're missing my point, it doesn't matter whether religion changes or not, they are both built on assumptions.

Believe it or not religion is not as "useless" as a lot of modern people tend to think.
For all of its might, science has one fatal flaw (described at the end of my last comment). Mathematics, the very building block of science, breaks down when handling infinities. That's where religion steps in to fill in the gap, God being infinite and all. Science and religion complement each other., they define each other. The links I'm alluding to here are obscure but very real. Science couldn't survive without some form of religion to push against.

[Gronthaing]

Both science and religion rely on assumptions.
No experiment/test in science can ever be truly conclusive. You can perform a test a million times and get the exact same result every time but there is absolutely no guarantee that on the million and one attempt, you'll get the expected result. Since there is no way to test something infinitely, science assumes a particular result to be true after a finite number of tests. That is why nothing in science is set in stone, theories that were once thought to be complete can still be improved upon as more tests are performed and new findings are uncovered.

Aren't you proving his point? True that science isn't set in stone. It changes to accommodate the latest findings. But religion doesn't change. People and society might change and choose to ignore one part or another of their religion. Most people certainly do. But that's it. Religion is as useless to understand and change the world now as it was in the past.

Again, you're missing my point, it doesn't matter whether religion changes or not, they are both built on assumptions.

Saying they are both built on assumptions and expecting that to mean "Science and religion are essentially one and the same thing and can be used interchangeably in any context" doesn't make sense. Your own description of science shows you know the attitude of science and religion when assumptions are challenged is different.

Believe it or not religion is not as "useless" as a lot of modern people tend to think.
For all of its might, science has one fatal flaw (described at the end of my last comment). Mathematics, the very building block of science, breaks down when handling infinities. That's where religion steps in to fill in the gap, God being infinite and all. Science and religion complement each other., they define each other. The links I'm alluding to here are obscure but very real. Science couldn't survive without some form of religion to push against.

Don't know about that. What I see is old religious beliefs hiding where science hasn't reached yet. But it's not like religion is providing any vital information. Or directing scientific thought. It's all normal human curiosity and intelligence that can be used in a number of ways. Some more useful, some less.

[BADecker]

Both science and religion rely on assumptions.
No experiment/test in science can ever be truly conclusive. You can perform a test a million times and get the exact same result every time but there is absolutely no guarantee that on the million and one attempt, you'll get the expected result. Since there is no way to test something infinitely, science assumes a particular result to be true after a finite number of tests. That is why nothing in science is set in stone, theories that were once thought to be complete can still be improved upon as more tests are performed and new findings are uncovered.

Aren't you proving his point? True that science isn't set in stone. It changes to accommodate the latest findings. But religion doesn't change. People and society might change and choose to ignore one part or another of their religion. Most people certainly do. But that's it. Religion is as useless to understand and change the world now as it was in the past.

Again, you're missing my point, it doesn't matter whether religion changes or not, they are both built on assumptions.

Saying they are both built on assumptions and expecting that to mean "Science and religion are essentially one and the same thing and can be used interchangeably in any context" doesn't make sense. Your own description of science shows you know the attitude of science and religion when assumptions are challenged is different.

Believe it or not religion is not as "useless" as a lot of modern people tend to think.
For all of its might, science has one fatal flaw (described at the end of my last comment). Mathematics, the very building block of science, breaks down when handling infinities. That's where religion steps in to fill in the gap, God being infinite and all. Science and religion complement each other., they define each other. The links I'm alluding to here are obscure but very real. Science couldn't survive without some form of religion to push against.

Don't know about that. What I see is old religious beliefs hiding where science hasn't reached yet. But it's not like religion is providing any vital information. Or directing scientific thought. It's all normal human curiosity and intelligence that can be used in a number of ways. Some more useful, some less.

Science theory is not known to be fact. If it were fact, it would be science law.

Often science theory is called fact by scientists and others in consensus. Things like Big Bang Theory, Black Hole Theory, E=MC², Theory of Evolution (which should not even be classified as a theory, because evolution has been proven mathematically impossible), etc., are not known to be fact, yet are often treated as though they are fact.

What is the situation when you consider and advertise things to be factual, while at the same time you don't know that they are factual? Isn't this what religion does? Look up the definition of "religion" in all its aspects. It fits what science is doing regarding a lot of science theory.

[Docnaster]

It's quite weird actually, I came from a Catholic university in where we have our own researchers and scientists who believes in the theory of Bigbang but they are all Catholics. It kind of contradicts what they really believe in. But for me I think it will not hinder you in science if you have faith in God. As long as you are not offending any other religion I think that is what really matters and you got to stick in what you belive in the most.