Is science a religion?

[Gimpeline]

so you understand my question after all.

[BADecker]

so you understand my question after all.

I am not really interested enough in smocking to attempt to understand your question, or to answer it.

[Gimpeline]

Good. I'm tierd and need to go to bed anyway. Good luck trolling the forum 

[BADecker]

Good. I'm tierd and need to go to bed anyway. Good luck trolling the forum 

Who knows? I might even do some trolling someday. But, there isn't any such thing as luck. Everything was set in place by cause and effect.

[Gleb Gamow]

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.         

How big is your consciousness and what shape does it have?

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.

Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness whilst also acknowledging philosophical and metaphysical explanations with regard to the study of the universe. Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time.[1] Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Elements of the scientific method were pioneered by ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars. Roger Bacon, who is often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.[2] Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs.

Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate a conflict thesis, holding that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually and politically throughout history. This thesis is held by some contemporary scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and Carl Sagan, and some creationists. While the conflict thesis remains popular for the public, it has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science.[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, such as Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or independence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels.

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion; many in the United States reject the idea of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith", a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally

Besides incorporating "RESPECT" into your user name, one gains respect on this forum by not cited sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Oh, and see my current sig if you're bored, seeking a good laugh. It's a gas!

[coin revolution]

Science is not a religion. In classical belief systems, you accept without question. But science is based on experimentation and observation. Scientists are questioning. Scientific theories develop over time. But belief systems are not changed.

Science != Religion

I agree with you on part of science. Science is facts and hard evidance, so in sciend there is eithar truth or false answer. But religion is not blind belief, for some people that is. There are those who choose to be blind. But there is also questioning in religion, there is diferent understanding of same sentence. Religion is not something that you need to believe blindly, well that is what I think.

A person who begins to question the religion becomes an atheist over time. Because religious arguments and scientific arguments are in conflict with each other.
If one starts to question the religion, it will reject the religion . Because religions want their ideas to be accepted without questioning.

Science always encourages interrogation.

I have to agree with you there that mostly religion is ran by faith while science by reason. Though i don't really agree that these two can't go along with each other. Sometimes, people have to believe in something that they can't really explain to be better persons. I myself prefer proof before i believe in something but there are times when you just have to take a leap of faith.

People have tried to explain what they did not know with religions. Over time scientific explanations have begun to void the publicity of religions.

Today we know how the rain is falling. We know how earthquakes have come to occur. People used to explain the events of nature with religions. Now we know how natural events have come to occur. We can explain nature events. We did not need the religions to explain them.

[Tyrantt]

if science = religion, therefore religion = science, but that's not true, so science =/= religion.

[BADecker]

Science is not a religion. In classical belief systems, you accept without question. But science is based on experimentation and observation. Scientists are questioning. Scientific theories develop over time. But belief systems are not changed.

Science != Religion

I agree with you on part of science. Science is facts and hard evidance, so in sciend there is eithar truth or false answer. But religion is not blind belief, for some people that is. There are those who choose to be blind. But there is also questioning in religion, there is diferent understanding of same sentence. Religion is not something that you need to believe blindly, well that is what I think.

A person who begins to question the religion becomes an atheist over time. Because religious arguments and scientific arguments are in conflict with each other.
If one starts to question the religion, it will reject the religion . Because religions want their ideas to be accepted without questioning.

Science always encourages interrogation.

I have to agree with you there that mostly religion is ran by faith while science by reason. Though i don't really agree that these two can't go along with each other. Sometimes, people have to believe in something that they can't really explain to be better persons. I myself prefer proof before i believe in something but there are times when you just have to take a leap of faith.

People have tried to explain what they did not know with religions. Over time scientific explanations have begun to void the publicity of religions.

Today we know how the rain is falling. We know how earthquakes have come to occur. People used to explain the events of nature with religions. Now we know how natural events have come to occur. We can explain nature events. We did not need the religions to explain them.

Science is not religion.

Our knowledge about the things you mention is far from complete. That's why we have theories about these things. When people believe the theories to be factual, when it has not been proven that they are factual, they have turned the theory into a religion for themselves.

Back to religion again. This time it is science theory religion. At the same time, pure science is not religion.

[googie4]

No. People don't worship it.

[Bee Leb07]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

[BADecker]

No. People don't worship it.

Some people worship science. In this forum section, some people seem to think that science will find all the answers and cure all our woes, even if it is in the future. That's a form of worship... or at leas very similar. Where is the dividing line between worship and non-worship?

[BADecker]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

Religion does not always have a belief in God... at least not formally or directly. There are religions in India that are this way, and many Chinese religions have ancestor worship rather than God worship as the base of their religion.

[BADecker]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

Religion does not always have a belief in God... at least not formally or directly. There are religions in India that are this way, and many Chinese religions have ancestor worship rather than God worship as the base of their religion.

Are you saying you have been wasting time believing in YOUR God?

What? You can't read? Who in the world reads the stuff in the forum for you?

[BADecker]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

Religion does not always have a belief in God... at least not formally or directly. There are religions in India that are this way, and many Chinese religions have ancestor worship rather than God worship as the base of their religion.

Are you saying you have been wasting time believing in YOUR God?

What? You can't read? Who in the world reads the stuff in the forum for you?

Ok, let me dumb it down for you.  - You said the "dumb" part. Probably you can only "dumb" things down.

How do you know that believing/worshiping in ancestors is not the right religion? - Obviously, it's the right religion for them, or at least they think it is, or they would not be doing it.
How do you know that your religion is not a false religion? - My personal religion is not entirely correct. But even your personal religion has lots of elements of truth in it. The important part is that my religion includes enough of the Word of God that I will be saved for eternal life.

When it comes to religions people don't know much but they believe in everything their religion says. - This is correct. But if people study about the way that things work in life, and happen to apply their studies to the idea of God, people will see that God exists. Then, if they happen to be inclined to apply their studies to the Bible, they will see that the Bible is the Word of God. Then comes the believing part.

[Malsetid]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

Religion does not always have a belief in God... at least not formally or directly. There are religions in India that are this way, and many Chinese religions have ancestor worship rather than God worship as the base of their religion.

Are you saying you have been wasting time believing in YOUR God?

What? You can't read? Who in the world reads the stuff in the forum for you?

I kinda got your point there sir. Yeah religiin doesnt necessarily have to be a certain god. Some people believe that evrything came from nature and that in the end we all would go back to it. Some people believe that past personalities are worth following more than any diety. Religion i think is not confined to worshipping. There are some religiins that doesnt rewuire worship, only belief and trust

[Gaaara]

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.         

Science is not a religion, science brings every pieces of evidence to prove something, while religions gives a person hope and pride from where does life came from. So science is an information for human kind its just a knowledge of we human created.

[BADecker]

No, science cannot be a religion. Science is a organized knowledge which is understood through observation and experiments. It has no spiritual fact. On the other hand, religion is the belief in God and also worship of a superhuman power or spiritual things. It's come from the faith. So, we can differentiate science and religion by this factor.

Religion does not always have a belief in God... at least not formally or directly. There are religions in India that are this way, and many Chinese religions have ancestor worship rather than God worship as the base of their religion.

Are you saying you have been wasting time believing in YOUR God?

What? You can't read? Who in the world reads the stuff in the forum for you?

I kinda got your point there sir. Yeah religiin doesnt necessarily have to be a certain god. Some people believe that evrything came from nature and that in the end we all would go back to it. Some people believe that past personalities are worth following more than any diety. Religion i think is not confined to worshipping. There are some religiins that doesnt rewuire worship, only belief and trust

There are many religions that teach opposing things. Which one is right, and why is it important?

[BADecker]

Science is not a religion, science brings every pieces of evidence to prove something, while religions gives a person hope and pride from where does life came from. So science is an information for human kind its just a knowledge of we human created.

Science is not religion. Science has facts. Science also has hypotheses and theories which are not known to be fact.

When a person believes science hypotheses and theories to be fact, especially when he knows they have not  been proven to be fact, he has a religion going for himself there.

When many people believe the same science theory to be fact, especially when they know it is not fact, they have a church going, expecially when they get together and talk about it.

One big example of this is, big bang theory, which will never be proven to be factual. But if big bang theory is proven possible sometime, it will never be proven to be the way the universe came into existence.

People who believe that big bang is truth have a religion going for themselves. When they get together and discuss it, finding comfort in thinking that they know big bang is where everything came from, they have a church meeting going on.

[jems]

science is not a religion

[Kotone]

How big your consciousness is? Science are not religion but they are not believing on religion they respect it scientist you think they believing on what normal people believing some of them they proved something that people what believing is just a myth for them i don't say it all