A link between science and religion.

[_TKO_]

I have long believed that science is a modern religion. Perhaps this is one reason (http://wired.com/news/technology/0,70015-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_15) why.

[kurto]

I am always bothered by people who try to say aetheism or science are also religions. It is sloppy and improper word usage.

From One Look Dictionaries:
[ QUOTE ]
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this dictionary, religion expressly requires a belief in a supernatural being.

From Websters:
[ QUOTE ]
religion
One entry found for religion.


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


[/ QUOTE ]

#4 could apply except that most science doesn't rely on faith... it relies on rigorous testing.

As you can see, the primary definition of religion requires a divine supernatural presence. When people use this definition of religion (which they usually are when they're discussing various faiths), to say "science" or "aetheism" is also a religion, is to use a different meaning of the word religion.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, the primary definition of religion requires a <u>divine supernatural presence</u>.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definitions you provided do not universally lead to the stated conclusion. You reach that conclusion by taking a specific subset of those definitions. In fact, only a minority of the provided definitions suggest that religious requires the belief something supernatural that is both divine and a being.

[ QUOTE ]
[...]most science doesn't rely on faith... it relies on rigorous testing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific "fact" is not fact at all. The problem with modern science is that there are no rigid rules. I beg you to go beyond the basics of Newton's and Bhor's laws. Modern theories give rise to the notion that those theories, while valid and applicable in some cases, are merely simplifications of more complex and uncertain ideas. Theories are only valid for as long as they have not been disproven. This doesn't mean that current scientific facts are correct; it means that they are longstanding.

Science relies on both faith and rigorous testing; the same is true about religion.

Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of God, but it is not fact.
Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of predictable laws that govern the universe, but it is not fact.

Here's some more insight (http://strivinglife.net/articles/htm/wakinglifescript_htm.php#six).

[madnak]

Science is concerned with physics, religion is concerned with metaphysics. I believe religion is fundamentally about the things that can't be proven, and science is about the things that fundamentally can be proven. A certain religious context can invalidate a certain scientific context by nullifying the premises that underly that scientific context (nothing can be proved outside of a limited context, after all). Science can also invalidate a religious context by providing empirical evidence directly contrary to the empirical claims (if any) of the religion.

But they are not the same. Science is purely empirical, religion is primarily metaphysical and only peripheral empirical (if at all).

Regardless, I don't see how LSD bears on this debate.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Science relies on both faith and rigorous testing; the same is true about religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Science is based on a belief in whatever is functionally most likely. The fact that scientific belief has changed is a direct indication that science is not a religion. If science were based on "faith," we would still be following Newton's laws. When new information comes to light, science reevaluates its stance. That is a critical difference between science and religion. Religion never reevaluates.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The definitions you provided do not universally lead to the stated conclusion. You reach that conclusion by taking a specific subset of those definitions. In fact, only a minority of the provided definitions suggest that religious requires the belief something supernatural that is both divine and a being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not list a subset of the definitions, I printed the entire list of definitions from 2 sources. The definitions from OneLook ONLY provided for supernatural entities. Websters provided 2 definitions which did not require this, one which would not apply in the context it is used and the other still requires "Faith" (which I already pointed out, science relies on testability).

[ QUOTE ]
only a minority of the provided definitions suggest that religious requires the belief something supernatural that is both divine and a being.


[/ QUOTE ] Try looking some up yourself. The majority of definitions require belief in a supernatural being.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific "fact" is not fact at all. The problem with modern science is that there are no rigid rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry... you just lost me. This is entirely inaccurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Science relies on both faith and rigorous testing; the same is true about religion.


[/ QUOTE ] LOL Religion doesn't rely on testing... matter of fact, it usually fails testing. It relies on 'faith'. If it could withstand testing, it wouldn't require faith.

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of God

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'm willing to take bets with others on the forum that xTKOx has his own standards of what constitutes evidence.

Care to link to some evidence?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I don't see how LSD bears on this debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes us much sense as some of his other replies.

[NFKB1]

[ QUOTE ]

Theories are only valid for as long as they have not been disproven. This doesn't mean that current scientific facts are correct; it means that they are longstanding.

Science relies on both faith and rigorous testing; the same is true about religion.

Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of God, but it is not fact.
Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of predictable laws that govern the universe, but it is not fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with your grouping of science and religion by those criteria.

The difference between "longstanding" scientific theories and religous beliefs is that scientific laws can be empirically proven wrong and religious beliefs cannot.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Science relies on both faith and rigorous testing; the same is true about religion.

Evidence is consistently provided to show the existence of God, but it is not fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

yeah...those statements are pretty HIT sohn

a lot of historical facts are proven to be true that help the case for the bible's accuracy in the historical sense (although this also doesn't hold up)

But I would like to hear some of this evidence supposedly proving the existence of god. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[_TKO_]

"I believe religion is fundamentally about the things that can't be proven, and science is about the things that fundamentally can be proven."

It sounds as if your bias is towards science. The truly religious would argue the other way.

"Science is based on a belief in whatever is functionally most likely."

This is true... and it is a belief that the most likely answer is the correct answer. Scientific theories typically ignore anomalies. Praying to God is assuming to bring good things in most cases; when it doesn't, the result is passed off as an anomaly.

"The fact that scientific belief has changed is a direct indication that science is not a religion. If science were based on "faith," we would still be following Newton's laws. When new information comes to light, science reevaluates its stance. That is a critical difference between science and religion. Religion never reevaluates."


The Pope does reevaluate (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html). Jews reevaluate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha).

"Regardless, I don't see how LSD bears on this debate."

The reason for bringing this up is that several scientific breakthroughs were attributed to drug use. Religious experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen) is also often correlated with drug use.

[_TKO_]

"The majority of definitions require belief in a supernatural being."

My original comment was based on the definitions you listed. I won't look up all definitions, as I think the ones you provided are sufficient. The entire set of definitions includes both science and religion, and likely other concepts as well. As for the majority... well I agree with you in that it doesn't really prove either of our points.

"Scientific "fact" is not fact at all. The problem with modern science is that there are no rigid rules."

"This is entirely inaccurate."

Let me do your homework for you. Type 1 Science (http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/macinnis/story.htm) involves rigid rules. But consider this theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy) and this other theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle).

"Religion doesn't rely on testing... matter of fact, it usually fails testing."

Testimonials are important to religion. I will agree with you that testing the existence of God is difficult to do in the scientific sense. However, religions often use miracles (results without tests) as a foundation.

Care to link to some evidence?

Sure (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=3945416&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=1&amp;v c=1).

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between "longstanding" scientific theories and religous beliefs is that scientific laws can be empirically proven wrong and religious beliefs cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

However, it's also interesting to note that religious beliefs are typically only valid because almost everybody else believes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion#Psychiatric_definition) in them.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds as if your bias is towards science. The truly religious would argue the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many religious people who don't believe science is a religion. I guess if they were "truly" religious it would be otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
"Science is based on a belief in whatever is functionally most likely."

This is true... and it is a belief that the most likely answer is the correct answer. Scientific theories typically ignore anomalies. Praying to God is assuming to bring good things in most cases; when it doesn't, the result is passed off as an anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree on both counts. Scientists believe in the most likely answer, but they make no claim of certainty. I suppose to some degree this depends on your definitions. I could see a "spiritual" person accepting some margin of error regarding his beliefs, but a "religious" person, as i define it, must claim certainty in his convictions. Scientists always, always admit a margin of error. Also while it is true many scientists have a tendency to dismiss what doesn't fit their theories, I also think most of them would admit that this is behavior is to be mitigated to the greatest possible degree and that it is anathema to scientific inquiry. Scientists put a lot of effort into resolving anomalous results. I suspect many of the "anomalies" you're referring to are actually urban (http://www.straightdope.com/index.html) legends (http://66.165.133.65/snopes.asp).

[ QUOTE ]
The Pope does reevaluate (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html). Jews reevaluate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe those are officially considered "clarifications." However, if the Pope does change Catholic doctrine directly, then the Catholic Church of the past was, in fact, wrong. Scientists acknowledge that many scientific beliefs of the past were held in error. I think most scientists will acknowledge that there are probably many inaccuracies in current thought. I'm sure that a few of our valued scientific beliefs will eventually be refuted, perhaps even evolution. But until that time it makes sense to believe in what we can determine based on the information available to us. I don't think many Christians would be willing to allow for such a possibility of error.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for bringing this up is that several scientific breakthroughs were attributed to drug use. Religious experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen) is also often correlated with drug use.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that you are arguing hallucinogenic drugs increase a person's insight or understanding. Regardless of the accuracy of this position, I fail to see how it implies that science is a religion. You'll need to present more than a loose correlation to support your argument. Otherwise I could say "convicted felons wear orange, and the hari krishna wear orange, so the hari krishna must be convicted felons."

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
It would appear that you are arguing hallucinogenic drugs increase a person's insight or understanding. Regardless of the accuracy of this position, I fail to see how it implies that science is a religion. You'll need to present more than a loose correlation to support your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never suggested that this was the case. I just thought it was interesting (and was the intent of this entire thread).

As for the rest of your post, I think you've made some excellent point and have given me reason to challenge my own stance on this issue. I still think that scientific theories require empirical evidence and a little bit of belief; and that many religious foundations (but perhaps not all) require a lot of belief with little or no empirical evidence.

The origin of my belief (as stated in the OP) was from reading about theories in chemistry and physics. Personally, I found most of the desciptions to be at least a little ridiculous, and remained to be amazed that they would be published. I suppose that they've been around for so long that they are basically accepted as fact. I think it's valuable to question such things as often as possible. The other reason I believed this was because, in ancient times, God (or severals Gods) was considered to be responsible for making everything work. I now believe that scientific theories can more or less describe most day-to-day occurences. The possibility that someone would so blindly hold God responsible didn't seem so ridiculous once I accepted that I do the same with science.

I'll still end this post by quoting the great bisonbison: "Whatever is will be whether you believe in it or not."

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire set of definitions includes both science and religion, and likely other concepts as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not accordingly to one look: Nowhere in these definitions does science fit:
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
noun: institution to express belief in a divine power

[ QUOTE ]
As for the majority... well I agree with you in that it doesn't really prove either of our points.


[/ QUOTE ]

The majority of definitions speak to religion being a set of beliefs centered around "A God". So it makes my point perfectly. Perhaps you miss my point.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me do your homework for you. Type 1 Science involves rigid rules. But consider this theory and this other theory.


[/ QUOTE ]
They are theories and, unlike religion, they are tested. The other thing about science that religion lacks is, science, because it does survive testing, can be utilized and can be predicted. Certainly new theories arise in science; but, they are then studied and tested to see how accurate they are. Unlike religion... which has no such value and any problems with it are simply dismissed as a matter of faith.

[ QUOTE ]
Testimonials are important to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet they are meaningless. 100 people could leave a Penn &amp; Teller show and claim they turned a woman into a tiger... or someone could say they prayed for help when their plane was going to crash and believe that, when their plane lands safely, that God intervened. But both examples show how frivolous such testimonials are.

[ QUOTE ]
I will agree with you that testing the existence of God is difficult to do in the scientific sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nor do even the teachings of various churches withstand rational scrutiny.

[ QUOTE ]
However, religions often use miracles (results without tests) as a foundation.


[/ QUOTE ]
Since they're not tested, there is no proof whatsoever that there was anything divine.

I only skimmed the first 30 or so posts of the link you provided, but it seemed more arguments about the ridiculous positions that religion has taught (the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc.) I missed anything in their that could be interpreted as evidence that there is a God.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is concerned with physics, religion is concerned with metaphysics. I believe religion is fundamentally about the things that can't be proven, and science is about the things that fundamentally can be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hasten to add, however, that science itself rests on metaphysics.

Also, you can't 'prove' any empirical theory (unless you are using 'prove' in a very loose sense), and it's a matter of debate as well whether or not scientific theories can be conclusively disproven.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]

Scientific theories typically ignore anomalies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do scientific theories not ignore anomalies, it is the anomalies themselves that drive progress in science and result in the adoption of new theories.

[madnak]

Well, that's why I included the statement about context. All scientific thought must exist within a bounded and clearly defined context in order to be relevant. Religious thought, on the other hand, attempts to frame that context itself.

Science can't "prove" any specific fact, but it can prove that certain patterns exist in human experience. What the patterns "mean," and whether they are complete, are not questions for science (unless new empirical information arises that allows for a more complete pattern to be identified).

[Bork]

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:

Science makes powerful and accurate empirical predictions.
Science has delivered to us all the modern technology we now enjoy.
Scientific claims can be falsified.

Religions are quite happy to makes claims without evidence.
These claims stand the test of time because of two facts:
They are in large part unfalsifiable.
There are large incentives to believe built into most religions.


Even many religious zealots recognize that religion and science are distinct. They believe on faith and scientists believe because of observations and best explanation reasoning.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Scientific theories typically ignore anomalies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do scientific theories not ignore anomalies, it is the anomalies themselves that drive progress in science and result in the adoption of new theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theories do not deal with the anomalies; scientific research does.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Scientific theories typically ignore anomalies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do scientific theories not ignore anomalies, it is the anomalies themselves that drive progress in science and result in the adoption of new theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theories do not deal with the anomalies; scientific research does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific research? What scientific research did Einstein do when formulating relativity theory? None. What he did was perform thought experiments in his head which were driven in large part by the anomalies that confounded Newtonian mechanics. The new theory came about precisely because of those anomalies, otherwise there would have been no need for a new theory. Far from ignoring those anomalies, the new theory explained them, and was empirically more accurate as a result.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
the new theory explained them

[/ QUOTE ]

...but the old theory ignored them. This is exactly my point.