Science: The One True Religion

Is science a religion? I think it is the one religion that is ruled by reason and assumes nothing. That's not to say that religion holds no use in this world though. I believe science is a building being built with religion as its supports until science is complete. So basically religion is hope until science finds the answer. We've seen in the past that mysticisms and bold assumptions are often disproved by science. So I guess religion is also that friend that lies to science's face and motivates science to find the answer. Religion states what science doesn't know yet, therebye aggrivating science to find the answer. I am confident that when science is completed, it will be the only religion accepted.

Science and Religion are completely different. Religion claims fact. Science claims theory. Religion is irrational and illogic. Science is rational and logical. Science is based on testable hypotheses that require a logical criterion and evidence.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Religious belief is not of knowing all, it is about faith....your imagination. It is not of reason. It is a social construction, and a very illogical one. Most believers of the paranormal choose not to understand how to be skeptical and hold such claims up to basic standards of logic and reason

Now, one might ask, why should anyone wish to avoid anything that would introduce God into a scientific theory; and the answer is that God makes a poor addition to any scientific theory precisely because God explains too much. Being omnipotent, God can do anything. Thus, if we ask, "Why is the sky blue?" we could simply say, "Because God makes it blue." Since this doesn't really explain anything, it must be a strong principle of science to exhaust all other forms of explanation before resorting to something that will simply end inquiry. This must be true about life on earth just as much as about the color of the sky.

The ultimate goal of science is to understand the natural world in terms of scientific theories, which are logical reasons. The pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops is typically:

1. Consider a particular phenomenon.
2. Propose a postulate to explain that phenomena.
3. Present evidence to support the postulate.
4. Allow others the opportunity to present evidence to either support or contradict the postulate.
5. If after a reasonable amount of time and logical evidence the postulate still stands up strong, it may be promoted to the rank of theory.
6. If it is disproven, goto 1.
7. If, after a much longer time, the theory is very strong and essentially unchallenged, it may be promoted to the rank of law.

Scientific ideas have followed this whole process. Based on these criteria, "the world is only 10000 years old" is not a scientific theory at all. The reason for this is that it completely sidesteps the all-important points (3) and (4). The argument for religion in every account I have read is something along the lines of 'the universe is incredibly complex, therefore it must have been created by a higher power'. That is not a theory. It's a postulate, and one which it not logically defensible at that.

Science and Religion are completely different. Religion claims fact. Science claims theory. Religion is irrational and illogic. Science is rational and logical. Science is based on testable hypotheses that require a logical criterion and evidence.

Are not opposites the phenomenon of life? Fact : Fiction, Wisdom : Insanity, Logic : Illogic. Just because two things are complete opposites does not mean they are not the same animal. Think of religion and science as two ends of a balance. I'd say, at the current state of the balance, the balance is tilted in the way of religion. Only through more knowledge and understanding through the way of science can the balance be shifted. So your statement is wrong. Science and religion are not completely different, they are just two ends of the same balance.

I don't think the concept of a "balance" that exists between the two philosophies is legitimate. It seems rather fallacious.
Science considers the nature and the development of concepts and terms, hypotheses, arguments and conclusions. Science explains natural phenomena and predicts natural occurrences. The types of reasoning that are used to arrive at scientific conclusions are developed through the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific method as I have already mentioned. Chris IF you disagree, that science and religion are different, then comprehensively explain what you are trying to evoke, and try to justify it clearly. That is what this forum is for.

I don't understand what's so confusing. He's saying he feels that two things can be attatched through the fact they are on the complete opposite sides of the spectrum. I think he's right because opposites are similar. Infact with electricity a negative is attracted to a positive which would be the complete opposite of one another. A lot of people say their religion is a philosophy. I would think that science is more a philosophy of trial and error. They think of an idea to how something may work try it out in an experiment and see if it works. But, this is where things get interesting. If you came up with an idea don't you think you would be more prone to making it work and be biased to it. Like think are they going to rather be like, yes I proved myself wrong or no I proved myself right. Which is sort of like the philosophies of religion out there in that their biased towards the results. They don't want to fail in the same way the scientist's don't want to fail.

Right, opposite ends of the same beam {balance}, eh?
Perhaps the fact that both science & religion become system of beliefs?
Science is according the position of being logical? Isn't the belief in science supported by those who have little or no understanding of the principles applied just as misleading? Is not their faith that sciece [man's wisdom] will provide the means & answer for all our ills, just as much an article of faith in a religious context?

If religions seek God, and the truth is God, then, to me, the process of knowing God is through understanding.'

Both religion and science aim to gather more understanding. Whilst religion is more set in stone, science gives reasonable, testable grounds upon which to verify or nullify hypotheses; in most cases. However, science teaches us nothing of how to conduct ourselves; it really knows nothing of how to teach a man to have faith; it doesn't say how to have a code of ethics for our normal everyday lives. Nor does it dig deep down into why.

Science does though scratch away at the surface without aiming to understand the root causes. Maybe the religious are right; but it is because of the illumination of philosophical scientists that the word 'maybe' can be assigned here, since probability is a mathematical principle owed to scienece. We must break away from the scientist and science. General science is slowly progressive; it is wrong to suggest that the works of Galileo, Newton and Einstein are represenatative of science; these are our greatest thinkers-who have been proved rightly. I would suggest reading their thoughts on religion and science, and see the valuable aspects of both. It is easy to say how good science has developed tools for us, and allowed us to understand more, but never forget how much teachers such as Moses, Jesus, Buddah, Mohammed, etc., have done for our civilisation. Sure, we can look at what has resulted from misunderstanding what they really were about, but that will happen; look for the root of what and why they said the things they did; and you might find a truth higher than the truths of science, and understanding deeper than the surface of things.

Lol, you don't realize that religion is the question, science is the answer. Without one, you have neither. Now to say that science doesn't give ethics for our normal every day lives is completely wrong. Haven't you ever studied psychology? It's the SCIENCE of the human mind and gives many answers on how we should live. For instance, when you go against your own personal morals, mental illnesses may occur. Same thing when traumatic experiences happen, mental illnesses occur. The mind is a studied science.

You can't disagree that when science is complete, religion will be useless, because religion gives us answers for questions we don't have the answer to YET. Religion is the supports (hope) while the building (science) is being built.

Good points: just think a little deeper. Theres a big but, we have to be careful what we consider religion, what we consider science, what we consider art, what we consider philosophy. I think psychology is a science and is philsopohy. Ethics is more akin to philosophy. In fact, Freud actually left medicine to take up his physcological understandings reasoning later that it was philospohical knowledge he had always yearned for. Indeed, many will not classify psycologists as scientists because there are no strict ways of treating the patients or the problems; its very much just about talking.

Some ancient civilisations built pyramids about the stars, certain magnetic traces can be found to accord to the positioning of houses; energy lines correlate almost exactly to the natural order of certain villages. In reality there are 13 months because there are 13 moons. What we call mysticism today actually had some sound science behind it. It was innate knowledge of science. And many would argue the Greeks had a better civilised world than we do today. So, whilst we do have computers, etc. we have lost some natural tendencies to understand what nature really is about; and not just that Force = mass x accelleration. Intuition is a tool disregarded (Indeed I've proved this by saying that physchology is not a pure science because it doesnt have an exact method by which to cure a problem (or it doesnt have root understanding).

I've already said science is scratching away at the surface, but religion as Einstein said ('science without religion is lame' really serves no real purpose without being guided in the direction that best serves humanity and its effect on nature. Maybe science will remedy these but its not a religion; its a record and at the same time a tool or method to understanding one branch of life; that mostly being the observable physical world. It assumes fact without suggesting its meaning. To really understand nature you have to be with it; not seprate feom it with a magnifying glass.

I think my point is that there is no one true religion; but that the proponents of the ideas we have; Pythagoras, Buddah, Jesus, Mohammed, Socrates, Aristotle, Da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, etc. have all added valuable contributions and are remembered for one reason or another. It is these men whose inspirations have come from something a little more than the mild minds of most men speak about. The problem, I'm sure most of them had, was communicating what it is they felt or understood; how much have just a few individuals actually set what we now call religiona nd science (and in general)? Think on this.

Alright maybe I was wrong in saying that science is a religion. But perhaps the two make up something else entirely? Or not something else but a broader idea that we're missing. Maybe they make up conscious thought?

Science can be a religion for a person who believes in God when we truly search for that God and not assume and test all thoughts.

Einstein believed in a Cosmic religion (something he created) and related it to Buddhism and didn't believe in a personal God and also believed that this would one day be the future religion.

One could call Einstein the father of intelligent design who did not believe in natural selection.

"Natural selection arises without the need to posit a designer' (Darwin). If Einstein truly did not believe in natural selection, I'd be surprise, very surprised. I reckon what it is he was trying to deal with was the problem we nowadays have between creationism and evolution. Einstein believed, to be more precise, in essentially Spinoza's God, whereby everything is determined and everything is one, nature, or God. The key is that God does not favour one being over another and does not intevene since 'he' or rather nature is emotionless; how can a being seperate from what is infinity exist, and thus if God is perfect how could he change from one moment to the next to show emotion, or, a promotion or lessening of character?

If science has evolved today, as it has, we might ask, would have it evolved as it would if the Bible or any religios text had not existed? Compare this answer with the thought that had any species become extint in any period of time, the Permian, The Devonian, The Cambrian 'explosion', or indeed, had any animal survived where it shouldn't YOU would almost certainly not be here now. There's a little phrase I seem to remember the Beatles singing...speaking words of wisdom "Let It Be'.

I can't remmeber which philosopher said it but he said 'when you think you are doing something, God is really doing it for you'. Whilst I dont agree entirely in this absolute determinism, I canot prove against it.

hmmm, that's an interesting thought heyjme. I wonder how religion would have evolved without religious texts. When you put it like that it seems as though these religious texts are binding chains upon the evolution of religion. They are just points in the evolution of religion that have just stopped. But of course they aren't the end all faith. A bleeding heart Christian would disagree. But don't we call those people crazy?

If you want to study the evolution of a religion without text, study the Hopi indians, or any of the indians, but Hopi managed to stay intact.

Chinese whispers.

It would be interesting to know where the Hopi get their superstitious roots from. Kokopelli, I think I'm right in saying is their main God, but he's a flute player; be nice to know where this came from!

I think the fascinating thing for me is that through philosophers and scientists of the ages, we are coming round to similiar ideas of Buddhism, but without, possibly, the feelings that Buddhists have. There are similarties between Budhist texts and Christian texts, and even plausible ideas that Jesus was trained as a Buddhist (check it out). It interests me to know the root causes of things, and because Buddhism existed about 400-500 years before Christianity, or thereabouts, I trace back to this. Indeed, coupled with really ancient Greek texts, and indeed some old Ancient Egypt texts, Christianity and other religions kind of evolve. What fascinates me is the origins of religion...who or what came up with what first and what propogated us all to have concious actions over our unconcious actions...theres a good starting point to start pondering on.