is science a religion?

i think it is, myself.

 

It is the opposite of religion.

 

i did this wrong

how do you make a thread have a poll?

 

I don't consider it a religion, but I understand why some people would.

 

religion = fairytales and unfounded, often false beliefs
science = reality and fact

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einsten

Science is to discover and know. Religion is to follow and hope.

 

Science is neither a religion nor the opposite of religion. Science and religion are playing completely different games.

 

Science is not a religion but some people treat it as such.

 

Science puts its faith in observations which are repeatedly proven and sustainably substantiated.

Religion puts its faith in wishful thinking based on fear of death and the unknown.

 

And why is that?

 

Show me a faith which requires that you attempt to prove it wrong, and changes its most fundamental tenets when you do...

 

the two have a lot in common... a set of beliefs, rituals (science has methods which can be considered rituals).

however, the definition of religion also dictates that it attempts to explain the nature and purpose of our time here on earth. science, while it does attempt to explain cause/effects, does not attempt to explain purpose/place in the universe which i think is the fundamental difference.

 

No.

 

care to... elaborate or anything?

 

no

 

no.
no.
no.

 

This is absolutely true. Science itself -- as in scientific method -- is not a religion. What we need to remember is that science is a method, not a body of knowledge. When it's treated as the former, it is a good way of discovering things about the world around us, and we all use it naturally. When treated as the former, it does become a kind of religion. Many (I would almost venture to say most) people these days take the latter course, unfortunately. Just as people used to look to the black-robed priests for all the answers to the universe, so people now look to their white-robed priests: 'experts'. People trust these supposed scientists implicitly, and think they have all the answers; but this is not how science works. No one ever has all the answers, and the 'scientific community' has been wrong many, many times.

'Science' is separate from the different disciplines of knowledge. What a biologist says does not necessarily have the full weight of science behind it. It has the weight of one person, who is knowledgeable and has formed an opinion based on something. Maybe sound evidence, maybe not. There is not nearly so much agreement in the 'scientific community' as people seem to think. People take this 'scientific consensus' as a stamp of credibility, that 'okay, science says this is true, so it must be so.' The fact that science, in its basic form, can claim objectivity and is a very firm basis for believing something is dangerous when the definition of science becomes unclear. The 'scientific community' is not science, and it does not speak for science. It is a group of people who claim to practice scientific method, and sometimes do so better than others. This 'community' has fallen victim to very widespread pseudosciences in the past -- the American eugenics movement being a fine example. The science was total bullshit, but the vast majority of 'scientists' believed and promoted it. A few didn't, and I would say they were probably the real scientists. Shows a pretty poor ratio, doesn't it?

But back to the original question, science can become a religion if it is misinterpreted and poorly defined, but it is not in itself a religion. And it doesn't conflict with religion or spirituality at all. The science/religion dichotomy we're presented with so often is a false one.

But I digress.

 

i dont think science is a religion. i'm pretty sure science is a dogma if anything. not alot can be proven to be true, and who's to say what we're thinking is true, is really true? it's weird, but i mean, just think of someone from a different planet coming to earth, would atoms be atoms to it? or would it be something else and be composed of something completely different? there has been examples in labs where just because of location and the scientists beliefs that a created element has not been exactly the same in a lab on the other side of the world.....so, what if science isn't something proven, and religion can't be proven, either way it helps people look for hope and progress.

 

Definition of Dogma:
a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

You cannot accept science as a dogma, since science relies on repeatable results. If someone on one side of the world comes up with different results from someone on the other side of the world it will not be peer approved, and thus only considered a hypothesis, not a theory or law.

While the peer accepted approval is part of the scientific community, and at times can be unsound, for most of the time it is necessary to keep crackpots from making unverifiable results. There is the other side when the hypothesis is correct and peers do not accept it for years or decades because of their way of thinking, but when it eventually gets independent confirmation, the naysayers are usually man enough to admit they were wrong and accept the verified results.

Sometimes even the best scientists fall into this trap, such as Einstein when he tried to included a constant into his own theory of general relativity after being shown that his original formula showed that the universe is expanding or contracting. Einstein believed that the universe was static, until it was proved by others that his original work was correct and his modified work was wrong. He then retracted the constant as a "blunder".

 

There is scientific method and the progressive knowledge that it often produces, and there is the disdain for organised religion and use of elements of scientific knowledge as weapons of a holy war. I think that's enough of a difference