A link between science and religion.

[_TKO_]

I have long believed that science is a modern religion. Perhaps this is one reason 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.

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[_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. Jews reevaluate.

"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 is also often correlated with drug use.