Yet another topic spawned from the Homosexuality and Religion thread. The statement was made that science could become the next big religion after as a response to another comment saying that religion would eventually die out and be replaced by a world that demands hard answers rather than taking everything on matters of faith.

Frankly I can't see science becoming a religion since it has none of the workings of religion in the first place. There is no mythology, dogma or ceremony surrounding any of the scientific disciplines. Nothing is taken on faith, any theory or scientific law has a basis and even proof with reguards to it being proveable, possible and most likely highly probable.

Then there's the question of simply, what is science? I think it's too broad a topic to summarise but I know that mathmatics, physics, chemistry, biology, geometry and even economics are all sciences simply due to the nature at which they are studied, proven and applied.

So what is science? And can it become the next religion? Since it's been argued that one day it will replace religion.

Personal definition? Science is what we call our attempt to discover/understand the natural world. Can it become "the next religion"? Isn't there already a "Scientology Church" or some such out there? I'm not religious myself (am Catholic, believe in God, don't give a crap about the Church) so it's immaterial to me. If people want to um.. worship science as their God(?), let 'em. Live and let live.

Way to close the topic in a hurried attempt to keep anyone else from making a rebuttal to your points. PS, being a scientology student doesn't necessarily make you right. It means that you're still studying, and that your opinion really has no more credibility than the rest of ours unless you actually back it up, rather than stating your creditentials. ON TOPIC!!! Way to read my post, champ. Let's relive those wonderful memories, shall we?

There are two ways you can define religion. Functionally, and substantially. Defining religion functionally means you define it by what it does, i.e giving people a higher being/reality to believe in. A substantial definition is what it is; so, substantially, a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs. Depending on how you define it, what counts as religion changes. substantially and functionally science falls short of being a religion.

Alternatively, you can use Ninian Smart's (don't laugh) 6 dimensions of religion: Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, Ethics, Social, and Experiential. Science lacks all of these. Rules do not count as doctrine or ritual.

Science fails to be classified for several reasons whichever way you look at it:

- It does not engender faith in the supernatural. Science is looking at the facts and making a logical conclusion.
- It doesn't have a single set of doctrine/dogma (for example, physicists do not follow the same rules as biologists relating to their area of work)
- There is no mythology (yes, there is spoeculation and prediction based on current evidence, but that is by no means mythology)

And I never said that science will replace religion. I just said that religion will lose all social significance in the wake of rationality and logic. Basically, secular humanism will become the norm. So, yeah. I DID actually back up my point. I was trying to close the topic because that particular thread wasn't about the definition of "religion".

And now I'm done with this thread.

Heh, didn't even read that thread, but maybe I should, I think I was missing out on some action :p

I just said that religion will lose all social significance in the wake of rationality and logic Although this would be the LOGICAL thing to follow, I disagree. Some people need to believe that there's something "bigger" than them. I guess it doesn't matter whether it's aliens for some or a supreme being for others but many people have some sort of need that is fulfilled by the belief in the unknown and unexplainable.

For the Christian faith, I'd say poor people in particular. If I were poor, I'd sure like to think that because of the crap life I'm having now, I will get to drink unlimited beer and all that jazz at Jesus' pad when I die (provided I was a good boy).

science is understanding, something religion is very uncomfortable with

as to the math NOG so nicely said there isn't any theories or experiments in. thats wrong, experiments no, you cant really do experiments on numbers. but theories pops up all the time, for instance the theory on primes are much debated (i think thge word are prime, its a number only divideble by it self or 1, into a number with no decimals) the first positive prime is 1.

Mathematics havent found a way yet to find out wether or not prime numbers continue into infinity or if there is an end to them. and research and theories in that subject is an ungowing debate. Since this is importent to know in incrypting and so forth.

Secondly as other areas expand, quantum physics and so forth, new mathematic laws and theories regarding that area evolves.

so math is just as much a science as physics.

as for science replacing religion, i doubt it. while science does produce some answers to uncertenties in life, it dosn't provide them all. science has currently no answer as what happends when you die, and some people need something to believe in there, to give them a hope for something to continue after death, religion gives them that and thats good for does people.
I see nothing harmfull in religion, as long as it dosn't try to affect scientific research with its dogmas, and while i hope religion will go more into the background and the personal, i dont hope or think it will disappear.

In Pratchett's words...Science is a method of finding more and more ways in which theories CANT be wrong... :p

Of course, I'm paraphrasing from his novel, "The Science of Discworld"...but this reflects my sentiments perfectly.

Science is the process of continual research and testing of established fact with the aim of better understanding the universe and everything in it.

Having said that, it CAN be a religion, in the way an atheist is religious by virtue of his vehement disbelief in any form of God...because reason and scientific logic often replaces most religious dogma...

Interesting thread and of course I have a few thoughts on the topic.

IMO science is a religion for some people. ie: Medicine. How many people really question their doctor.

Science is always in a state of change but so is religion which is why we have so many sub-religions.

Once upon a time and actually not that long ago in the history of humans religion and science were one. Science grew out of religion. Did it out-grow religion? I think it just freed its self from the strictures of Religion.

I doubt science will ever replace religion. I just hope that Religions (note the capital R) get a little more tolerant of each other.

edit: I have not read the thread that spawned this one and hope I maintain sufficent strength of will to not read it.

science has currently no answer as what happends when you die i contest that, according to science, if you are dead you have no Consciousness therefore nothing happens after you die because there is no evidence to the contrary, you die and decompose

Isn't there already a "Scientology Church" or some such out there?Believe me; science and scientology do not come into contact at any point.

Having said that, it CAN be a religion, in the way an atheist is religious by virtue of his vehement disbelief in any form of God...because reason and scientific logic often replaces most religious dogma...I'm not following you. Atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps it to hobbies. Even vehemently not collecting stamps is not a hobby...

Painting science as a replacement for religion is a bit outdated, isn't it. 100 years ago, in the times of Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, and Nietzsche, science - or rather technology - may have been expected to become the next big religion or ideology.

But today? Apart from the fact that science is lacking all qualities that make up a religion, I think that we're rather on the downward swing again.

People are placing more trust in homeopathy, reiki or traditionial chinese medicin than they are placing in science and reason. Being an advocat for science makes you seem heartless today.

Shure, science could be considered religion as much as religion science. If you really want to mix up facts with belief.

IMO, science simply leads to atheism, which is an idealogy. Not science itself. If the religions want to compete, they should compete against atheism (a.k.a pagans and heretics), not the advance of technology.

First of all - scientology and science have nothing to do with each other.

And I've noticed a definite trend towards science as a religion. People (especially politicians) shouting how something must be true because a scientist has a theory supporting it, people attacking others for a different view on astrophysics (wikipedia)...

People lacking a grasp on what science means see it as a religion. One to follow or oppose.

People lacking a grasp on what science means see it as a religion. One to follow or oppose. Blind faith creates problems whether it is science or religion. That is my firm opinion. Please note the word 'blind'.

I'm with Nakia and Taza - science can be placed in the role of religion in a person's life.

And in some circles (academicia?), belief in science already HAS become the 'next big religion' (aka belief system) for quite a while.

I don't see it replacing the existing religions, but it's certainly co-existing (a little adversarily, just like its elder peers ;) ).

Excuse me while I go pray to the chemicals in my lab and hope my experiments turn out okay. I must commit my entire being to my dynamic scanning calorimeter so that it may notice me and smile down upon me and favor me with good results.

Science is not a religion; however, there are a few scientists who seem to act as if evolution is their religion. Damn annoying.

@T2Bruno, Of course science isn't a religion and never will be. No true scientist would consider it as such. Tho I have met a lot of doctors who give the impression that they think they are still priests of whats-his-name and the patients should bow down to them.

No it is the lay-person who treats science as a religion. They read something in a popular science magazine or see it on TV and it becomes 'gospel' to them.

Mustn't continue this because I just came from a discussion and am still a wee bit upset.

I think there's been a big misunderstanding here somewhere. When most people, myself included, say that science has become a religion, we mean to the masses that don't understand it. Sure, to the guy with a PhD in Molecular Biology it is cold hard facts, but then you get the interview with the news reporter who doesn't know anything, gets a bunch of stuff wrong, and then makes unsupported claims off of that false knowledge and large portions of the masses say, "I believe! I believe!"

Take evolution, for example. The scientists behind this topic look at tons and tons of evidence gathered from around the world and carefully consider it. Some are convinced it is true, some are convinced it isn't, but all admit there isn't enough proof to claim one way or another absolutely. This isn't a problem. The problem comes when a high-school science teacher who hasn't carefully considered (or even seen) this stuff presents a theory on evolution that is 30 years old and has already been proven flat out wrong to a class of 15-17 year olds who don't know anything and they all raise their hands in the air and say, "I believe! I believe!" And if they don't, they fail. Most of them promptly forget about it, but a large number continue to believe and when the news reports (mostly eroniously) on this proposed Intelligent Design theory being taught, they get all up in arms because, to them, evolution has become an unquestonable issue of faith.

That may not fit the technical definition of a religion, but it is close enough for me. When people start looking to this vague idea of 'the experts' for answers to questions like 'how should I live my life, what happens when I die, why am I here, and the like, they are essentially treating this vague concept as a pantheon, with all the various authors of self-help books and psychological dogma (and some of that really is just that) representing favored deities and said books, web-sites, and interviews being the 'holy texts'.

Take evolution, for example. The scientists behind this topic look at tons and tons of evidence gathered from around the world and carefully consider it. Some are convinced it is true, some are convinced it isn't, but all admit there isn't enough proof to claim one way or another absolutely. Wrong. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The main research nowadays concentrates on the mechanisms by which it happens; that evolution happens, however, is certain.

The problem comes when a high-school science teacher who hasn't carefully considered (or even seen) this stuff presents a theory on evolution that is 30 years old and has already been proven flat out wrong to a class of 15-17 year olds who don't know anything and they all raise their hands in the air and say, "I believe! I believe!" And if they don't, they fail. That's why you have schoolbooks (which are not written bt people who don't know anything about the subject) in high school and follow a curriculum in which the experts who really do know the stuff are heard. If curriculums and school books around there are filled with 30 year old information which is incorrect then the US educational system must really suck. Most teenagers are critical enough (atleast around here) not to take the teachers words for granted and even question them in class.
Also a biology teacher has studied evolution and its scientific base so they have quite adequate competence in the subject. They might not be experts and know everything about it but they most certainly know enough to teach the basics.

The intelligent is not taught in here and I basically view it as complete garbage, not even the Christian community supports it in any way, so it has not even a basis of support to justify even a mention of it. It's basically an artificially forged hypothesis with no scientific ground made up to defend religious views.

[ December 06, 2006, 20:46: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

Frankly I can't see science becoming a religion since it has none of the workings of religion in the first place. There is no mythology, dogma or ceremony surrounding any of the scientific disciplines. Nothing is taken on faith, any theory or scientific law has a basis and even proof with reguards to it being proveable, possible and most likely highly probable.Who's the judge of the possible and impossible? How exactly do you know something is impossible, at any rate? Or how can you decide if something you can barely fathom is possible or not, let alone probable? Finally, how highly is highly and what's the measure of probability, who decides etc?

This being said, science in a healthy approach is different from religion, although some analogies exist. At the moment science starts fancying dogmas, taking things on faith and so on, but most notably forgetting that it doesn't have all the answers and has not answered all the questions and is not infallible, it stops being science. This way, so long as the name of science is rightly applied, then yes, it's not religion, because by definition, science is not a form of religion. But what sometimes actually happens in the science world, is that some aspiring scientists start preaching and prophecising.

Take evolution, for example. The scientists behind this topic look at tons and tons of evidence gathered from around the world and carefully consider it. Some are convinced it is true, some are convinced it isn't, but all admit there isn't enough proof to claim one way or another absolutely.Most physicists would admit that the theory of gravity isn't absolute one way or the other, either. By and large, scientific theory (at risk of stating the obvious, the word theory does not mean random idea without much in the way of evidence' in this context) doesn't deal in absolutes.

Most of them promptly forget about it, but a large number continue to believe and when the news reports (mostly eroniously) on this proposed Intelligent Design theory being taught, they get all up in arms because, to them, evolution has become an unquestonable issue of faith.No, it's because intelligent design is an issue of faith. It's Christian creationism with a thin veneer of scientific reasoning and a non-specified creator. It's because the entire effing impetus behind ID is that evolution (it is claimed) is incompatible with the Bible, and so they want something they see as threatening to their religion removed from schools.

To be clear: I have indeed read some of the pleasant fellows espousing ID. It's crap. Pure and simple. At best, it's an attempt to prove God exists (because, y'know, that's possible). At worst, it's religious dogma by another name.

If you watch South Park, you've already seen seen how science can become a religion. Really, ANYTHING can become a religion. Ping pong rule variations can become a religion. Cats vs. dogs can become a religion.

Religion, when you trim it down, is about answers, just as science is. Even atheism is about the answer being that there is no answer. :heh: Which means that it comes as no surprise that the enemy of religion is questions. Question someone's religion, and they might get pissed. Question someone's scientific method, and I bet more than a few scientists would get pissed too. ;)

And even as many people can fuse questions with science, so do some people fuse questions with their faith. The only problem with faith OR science is misuse. When an answer becomes so absolute that not even reality can change it, that's when we have problems. At the moment this isn't happening with science (as a whole, anyway), but that doesn't mean it can't.

Nice one, Fel, I'm impressed. ;)

And just look how short it was! :p ;)

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Does anyone else see a contradiction there?

I like how Chimera pretty much disregarded all other possible outcomes and assumed that he was right without stating any evidence at all to back up his point :lol: . For although I personally support evolution, I'm afraid it's not proven. It's a theory, and like a scientific law, theories are not proven. Yes, I am holding my old physical science textbook open in front of me, so before this issue comes up again like it did in the H&R thread, "Scientific laws, similar to theories, are not and CANNOT be proven...," which rather contradicts your point that evolution is "both a fact and a theory."

Frankly I can't see science becoming a religion since it has none of the workings of religion in the first place.Yes, but the point is can Science push religion out of some people's lives?

Basically, secular humanism will become the norm.Basically, elevating the human to the most importance over God. Beware of Pride. What if Humans don't belong at the top of the food chain?

science is understanding, something religion is very uncomfortable withNot exactly uncomfortable, but slower to accept what Science teaches. For those that have a personal conviction that God is real, the teachings of Science must be carefully examined to fit with this ideal. But as long as some of the ones trying to teach science insist that the belief in God be discarded, that chasm will always exist...

IMO science is a religion for some people. ie: Medicine. How many people really question their doctor.There's the rub. People don't ask enough questions of either their doctor or Science teacher, nor their priest, rabbi, bishop or whatever. People need to understand the science they are taught, the upkeep of their body or how to live the faith that they claim to. We don't learn these things without asking the right questions...

People are placing more trust in homeopathy, reiki or traditionial chinese medicin than they are placing in science and reason. Being an advocat for science makes you seem heartless today.These methods tend to get results. Science has not been successful in finding out why, and has been dragging their ass in favour of their own answers, so people get fed up...

I think the reason that religions that date back thousands of years thrive in the face of newer philosophies is just that fact--that these newer philosophies don't attempt to address the questions that these religions address.

Blind faith creates problems whether it is science or religion.Those supporting Science over religion need to remember that there are some questions that science cannot answer, just as those that follow religion must remember that by their faith, they are accountable to their supreme being for whatever they do.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The main research nowadays concentrates on the mechanisms by which it happens; that evolution happens, however, is certain.That sounds like what should be examined. I question some of the extrapolations made however.

Religion, when you trim it down, is about answers, just as science is.And what if the truth is somewhere in between the two? Religion gives us an oversimplified version of creation (basically 1 chapter to discuss something that scientists would assemble a room full of textbooks to discuss) because that's not their focus. But for Science, they have to allow for the possibility that God DOES exist and had a hand in all that exists today. Basically, how did God do it rather than replacing God in our lives...

the enemy of religion is questions.Actually, it's not the enemy, but the means of gaining your faith. Through prayer, you take your questions to the Lord, and you get your answer. Not always the one you look for, but you get answers. The problem comes when people don't go to God, but elsewhere for such answers...

And what if the truth is somewhere in between the two? That will only happen if an experiment is done improperly and the wrong conclusion is reached. Low probability given current conditions, but still possible. If they're done properly, science will be either right or undecided.
But for Science, they have to allow for the possibility that God DOES exist and had a hand in all that exists today. Aaaaaaaand the problems begin. So science must bend to your religion even in areas where it's provably wrong? :rolleyes: I don't think so. Now, absolutely NOTHING that science can find out could ever destroy the possibility that God (or whoever) made the universe perfect on the first try and just never had to screw with anything beyond its creation. Seeing past the beginning of time would likely require omniscience (okay, now I'm a little creeped out that the word has 'science' in it), which would result in us knowing everything anyway. But the idea that what science has found out should be tailored to what YOUR book says is beyond ludicrous.
Basically, how did God do it rather than replacing God in our lives... Do you have any idea how many scientists are religious? Science isn't the anti-religion you think it to be.
Actually, it's not the enemy, but the means of gaining your faith. Aye, that's how it should work, but sadly most people simply 'inherit' their faith without asking any questions. And I suppose I should have qualified that as 'infallible' religion, or something like that.
The problem comes when people don't go to God, but elsewhere for such answers... No, the problem comes when people are inflexible, like you are right there. So utterly sure that your answer is the best one, that it can't possibly be wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does anyone else see a contradiction there? only you qouting Chimera out of context, he does in fact explains it nicely. everybody can see evolution happening in nature, so evolition in it self is a fact. just like everybody can feel gravety pulling them back when they jump, so its a fact we have gravety.

now the theory behind evolution and gravety, is the theory of what mechanism that make does things work. the theories produces an answer to that by exeminen the data we have and by testing it self, but since we lack the tools (be it math or something else) we cant prove it in all circumstances, that is why they are both called theories, as well documented as they are.

as for the remarks on ID and why it shouldn't be thought in school. No mather ow you look on it, this "theory" or rather hypothesis, boils down to a powerfull creator (god) having made all things, which there is no scientific evidence for. no mather how you present ID its based on believe, not facts and therefor it has no place in a classroom, except if the class is about religion.

and again to blckdeth. try reading simple math. any law there is allways proven, else it isn't a law.
hell anyone that has had math in college should know that.

But for Science, they have to allow for the possibility that God DOES exist and had a hand in all that exists today. since there is absolutely no data supporting the excistence of an all powerfull being, no. Sorry but science dont have to take fantasies into account, neither God, unicorns or goblins that steal your car keys has any place in science or should be considered before making a theory.
Allthough the later can be annoying when your late for class ;)

Yes, but the point is can Science push religion out of some people's lives?
i think this depends on the religion, today, young people in the developed world (the west i mean) are less open to the control of religion, when ive entered a church it seems to be nearly all old people and young children who are brought by their parents, given a choice, i doubt those kids would choose to spend their sunday afternoon in church

But this isn't necessarily due to an increasing grasp of science on those kids. Evolution for example is simply a non issue when it comes to religious conviction. Honestly, virtually all Christians apart from a few protestant groups in Northern America have no problem with aligning scientific progress with their personal beliefs.

The big religion killer today is rather moral standards, isn't it? Religious convictions appear to be anachronistic to many people because of issues like celibacy, women priesthood, same-sex marriages or condoms. Most people I know are or have been Catholics - and I don't know a single one who left the Church because of evolution or gravity. Whereas there are many who couldn't cope with the Pope's ideas of battling AIDS.

Those supporting Science over religion need to remember that there are some questions that science cannot answerThe mechanism how science is replacing religion in some sense is that research and scientific education will give different types of answers to how things work. As religions have to change more or less during the course of times, science as such does not threaten religious beliefs. But as some mysteries of life are answered by science, it will reduce the interest towards religions for finding answers.

There are some questions that science may not be able to solve as of yet. Mainly because the questions are too complex and maybe because of that they have not been posed as questions of scientific inquiry, yet.

Many people aren't satisfied to the way how science works, one of the things being that it might be easier to think that religions give answers that seem to have more certainty. And because of the vast quantities of data science produces, it is getting more complex in the process. Most of the people might search for answers that they can comprehend without going through years of education.

Now the interesting thing is that morals as a question of science is a rather novel idea. Research is going on and as the approach is not religious, one of the findings of behavioral sciences is that religion tends to keep individuals more happy. Of course this can be discredited from a lot of different angles.

The thing that every scientist should remember is that as making science shouldn't be dispassionate work, it should be done by people who have as little passionate predispositions about what they're resesarching as possible. Making hypothesis is essential for research, but you're going the wrong way if your working hypothesis becomes something that you don't want to be disproven by anyone. Then it's more of a religion for you, and then it wouldn't be science anymore.

If you'd like to apply this type of thinking to specific religious beliefs, a christian person should accept the possibility that God does not exist. What would faith be if there would be no possibility for doubt after all?

The thing that every scientist should remember is that as making science shouldn't be dispassionate work, it should be done by people who have as little passionate predispositions about what they're resesarching as possible. Making hypothesis is essential for research, but you're going the wrong way if your working hypothesis becomes something that you don't want to be disproven by anyone. Then it's more of a religion for you, and then it wouldn't be science anymore. I'm afraid that this isn't the way it works in real life. It was Karl Barth who first described how science makes significant progress and how new scientific theories replace the old ones. He used the word "paradigm shift" for the occurences where a scientific world view was replaced by a new one. These paradigm shifts never take place in an ordered, rational, passionless way, but are rather subject to irrational bickering between the opponents and the followers of any big new theory.

Take Einstein, for example, who refused to believe that Quantum Mechanics was a good way to describe the processes on the atomic level.

It is, however, foremost the passionate types who make an impact and who are capable of advancing our knowledge. Or so I believe.

It is our human nature that makes us cling to our accustomed views and ideas, no one is completely free of this. Hence, the supporters of a new theory are mostly the young and impressionable scientists, whereas the older and established scientists stick with the conventional theory.

A paradigm shift often only occurs after the old generation of scientists has died away. Nothing to do with logic and reason, I'm afraid.

I like how Chimera pretty much disregarded all other possible outcomes and assumed that he was right without stating any evidence at all to back up his point [laughing out loud] . For although I personally support evolution, I'm afraid it's not proven. It's a theory, and like a scientific law, theories are not proven. Yes, I am holding my old physical science textbook open in front of me, so before this issue comes up again like it did in the H&R thread, "Scientific laws, similar to theories, are not and CANNOT be proven...," which rather contradicts your point that evolution is "both a fact and a theory."1st: she
2nd: a physical textbook is not a good source for biology education.

Equester explained it quite nicely. Here is another nice explanation: fact and theory (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html)

@Chimera:

1. Your gender is irrelevant to this case, even if you did happen to be a female, it's not like we could tell. Don't try to victimize yourself by stating that you're a female; no one cares.

2. This topic is not necessarily purely biology. I'm afraid that you're not qualified to make that assessment, and none of us are, either, although I'm pretty sure that any text directly supporting my case is sure-fire evidence IMO. This is what makes Equester's argument pointless, perhaps you should try learning from his mistakes...

1. Your gender is irrelevant to this case, even if you did happen to be a female, it's not like we could tell. Don't try to victimize yourself by stating that you're a female; no one cares.:rolleyes:


This topic is not necessarily purely biology. I'm afraid that you're not qualified to make that assessment, and none of us are, either, although I'm pretty sure that any text directly supporting my case is sure-fire evidence IMO. MSc in biotechnology, working in a microbiology lab.

This topic is not necessarily purely biology. The statement of whether or not evolution is a fact or a theory is not necessarily a topic of biology? :confused: Damn. I have both an undergraduate and graduate degree in biology, and a whole hell of a lot of my courses were on evolution and genetics (the two go hand in hand). I wonder why they required me to take so many of those courses if they were not necessarily purely about biology?

I'm afraid that you're not qualified to make that assessment, and none of us are, either Now I'm really left scratching my head. Perhaps Chimera isn't qualified to make that statement, but to say that none of us are is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? [EDIT] Chimera beat me to the post button - as it turns out she is qualified [END EDIT] Don't you think anyone with a science background (even a basic one) would be able to tell you there's a difference between theory and fact (or law as it's typically called in the scientific community).

Let's take two examples to clear things up, and I'll deliberately stay away from evolution as that seems to be a bit of a sore spot for you for some reason.

One theory is called "Atomic Theory". No one has been able to conduct a comprehensive study of the universe to tell with absolute certainty that the most basic structure any pure element can be broken down into and still retain the properties of said element is an atom. So it's a theory.

On the other hand, we have the Law of Conservation of Matter. This basically states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Everything is made up of something (even if they aren't atoms) and when Something A reacts with Something B, then the resulting product(s) of the reaction will have the same mass as the combination of the mass of Something A and Something B. It's a law because there's no way to make something out of nothing or to turn something into nothing. And to a scientist law = fact. That's not to say that the resulting product(s) can't have completely different properties or matter state than the original Something A or Something B had.

Mathematics is another field in which there are a great many laws. There are also a ton of different theories as well, and they mean different things. The most well-known is probably the Pythagorean Theorem. However, I'm not a mathematician, so I'm probably not qualified to talk about that.

As I peruse this thread a lot of thoughts are generated. Please remember my comments are what come into my head today; tomorrow I may think something different.

From Dictionary.com

1) religion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

2) science
noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.I do not see religion and science as mutually exclusive or necessarily at odds or competing with one another. Human beings do that not religion or science which are defined by and established by humans. (Hokay, I know, yes, Religion was established by God!).

Which came first science or religion? I'm going to do a bit of role playing here.
Grog was out hunting with others from his cave when a thunder storm arose. Lighting struck a dry tree and it burst into flame. To make a long story short Grog felt the heat from the fire and the thought came, "Warm, nice." (It was a rather cold day) He was very brave and decided to take a burning branch back to the cave. Now Hagor was also a thinking man but slightly different.

"Grog, from sky came!. Sent us from sky." He stared awestruck at sky. The two cave men carefully carried the burning branch back to the cave, feed wood, kept it alive.

One saw the practical use; the other the wonder of the gift from something or someone high above them. Thus was born science and religion and they walked hand-in-hand for many centuries.

Now being a woman (maybe not pertinent to this thread but certainly pertinent to me) I tend to be practical (don't argue that here; that's another topic).

My reaction to this whole thing of religion vs science or will science take the place of religion is wtf does it matter?

I can turn my electricity on without worshipping a god and I can pray without turning my electricity on. Believe me there is very deep thought there but you may have to think about it for awhile. I certainly will.

Think I'd better stop before my post gets longer than Chev's or Gnarf's.

If to find out the basis for how and why things work (or try to), without resorting to blind faith, is a religion, then I subscribe to that religion.

Science is how things work.
Religion is why things work.

I like that, Taza. :thumb:

The statement of whether or not evolution is a fact or a theory is not necessarily a topic of biology? Evolution may be primarily biology, but the rest of this argument isn't. That is what I'm getting at.

Don't you think anyone with a science background (even a basic one) would be able to tell you there's a difference between theory and fact (or law as it's typically called in the scientific community). Okay, I tried to be patient with this, but I've probably said it 15 times over these last several threads. SCIENTIFIC LAWS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE PROVEN. I understand that the word "law" sounds as though it might be proven, but it's not; that's just the way things are. It might be backed by extremely solid evidence, but the fact of the matter is, in science, laws are not proven, and they will never be. We will never know that matter cannot be created or destroyed; because we cannot test this "law" on every bit of matter in existence; that is the logic of science. Therefore, the Law of Conservation of Matter, or any other scientific law, for that matter (note- this does not always apply to mathematical laws), cannot be proven; it can merely be strongly supported through numerous experiments. The mighty science textbook has spoken :D

Religion is the fear of death. God exists solely because people fear death, and if there is an afterlife, then there has to be a god or deity of some sorts to regulate the afterlife, or the reincarnation, or whatever you believe happens when you die. Science doesnt mystify death, it explains it rationally, that is why science can never be a religion, because its rational. Religion is irrational.

There are also a ton of different theories as well, and they mean different things. The most well-known is probably the Pythagorean Theorem.Theorem's are, for the most part, completely different from theories. If I remember correctly, theorem's have been proven to be true by mathematical formula's and are often called 'mathematical laws.'

EDIT: Thanks Chimera (and Equester) for clarifying what you meant with that fact and theory thing.

[ December 08, 2006, 06:12: Message edited by: ChickenIsGood ]

Aye, that's how it should work, but sadly most people simply 'inherit' their faith without asking any questions. And I suppose I should have qualified that as 'infallible' religion, or something like that.And those that don't ask the right questions tend to get into all other kinds of things. It only works for those that do ask questions...

young children who are brought by their parents, given a choice, i doubt those kids would choose to spend their sunday afternoon in churchI went through a time like that too. Some Sundays I still don't feel like getting up at 7 am to shower, eat, and wrestle myself into a shirt and tie, then have a 45 minute drive to Church, only to sit through 3 hours of meetings then another 45 minute drive home, meaning that lunch sometimes doesn't come until after 2 pm. But at some point, those that faithfully attend go from "because my parents make me" to "feeling that this is what we ought to do".

Honestly, virtually all Christians apart from a few protestant groups in Northern America have no problem with aligning scientific progress with their personal beliefs.I think my biggest problem is that I am asked for details I just don't have, between not having the degree of scientific knowledge that others have and not having witnessed the process of Creation. There has to be a reconcilliation between faith and science, but I don't have all the information to explain it...

The big religion killer today is rather moral standards, isn't it?Bingo. People don't like being told what to do. When I was younger, I didn't like being told that Booze and dope was bad, I had to learn myself the hard way...

Religious convictions appear to be anachronistic to many people because of issues like celibacy, women priesthood, same-sex marriages or condoms. Most people I know are or have been Catholics - and I don't know a single one who left the Church because of evolution or gravity. Whereas there are many who couldn't cope with the Pope's ideas of battling AIDS.And if they don't feel any connection to the doctrine, then they see no reason why they should abstain from sex, or whatever they object to...

The problem with Science and Religion is that one is constently contradicting the other. Anyway, back on the "original" question, I say no. Religion is a matter of faith, while Science a matter of proof and the two (once again) contradict each other. This is a circular argument to which there is no (currently) known answer (which is why these forems are created in the first place).

My reaction to this whole thing of religion vs science or will science take the place of religion is wtf does it matter?Amen.

Theorem's are, for the most part, completely different from theories. If I remember correctly, theorem's have been proven to be true by mathematical formula's and are often called 'mathematical laws.' Well, like I said, I'm not a mathematician - and I don't even pretend to be one on TV. Your statement seems entirely reasonable, and I believe you.

Okay, I tried to be patient with this, but I've probably said it 15 times over these last several threads. With all due respect, I must shamefully admit that I do not read every single response on every single thread in these fora. I only click on the threads that interest me, and if the title doesn't catch my eye, I won't click on it. There are entire threads that I don't read. However, if I intend to post on a thread I do make a point to read all the posts. So it is entirely possible that I missed 10, or 12, or 14 times that you previously said it. (You said it once previously in this thread, so I didn't miss all 15 times.)

Furthermore, I'm not trying to debate you on this topic. It's a classic case of not having a problem with what you said, but taking exception to the way you said it. Allow me to explain by example. Do you think it is appropriate for someone who has read to U.S. Consitution but never gone to law school or studied it, to tell a lawyer that his/her interpretation of the Constitution is wrong? I don't think it is appropriate. And now to draw the parallel... People like me and Chimera who have each spent 6+ years of our lives in a certain field of education, and in my case I also have 8 years of work experience in my field (and Chimera also has work experience), well we really don't appreciate you giving us a condescending attitude towards a topic that you have most likely not studied nearly to the degree that we have. Can you not see how it reeks of arrogance when you tell someone who has a master's degree in science that we're wrong about how we define scientific laws/theories because you read it in a textbook? As if Chimera and I have never read a scientific textbook?

I don't know - maybe you have a PhD in some scientific discipline, and maybe you are just as qualified as I am to speak about how people in the scientific community define and use these terms. However, unless you have a college degree in a scientific discipline or work experience in the field, it is extremely unlikely that you know all that much about the scientific community beyond what you've learned in high school and what you read in newspapers and popular journals. While your statement is technically correct - that you can never prove something absolutely - it is a debate that is more suited to the realm of philosophy than it is to science. And philosophy is definitely not my forte. When you have a Mount Everest sized stack of evidence in support of a theory, scientists consider it to be fact - absolutely true in all circumstances. If scientists continually got bogged down in the minutiae of what the exact difference between theory, law, and fact was, and further debated whether or not the theory of gravity works in alternative universes (actually some thought has been given to that, and the answer is it probably doesn't - but I think you get my point) there would never be any scientific progress made at all.

Honestly, the point of my previous post was to poke a little fun at your statements - I certainly wasn't attempting to offend you - although it appears I did not succeed in that regard.

again, all mathemathic laws are proven 100% true inside there perimeter. oh and since we are stading the degrees i had +A math in college and A level physics (i thought i wanted to continue it on university)

when you prove a law in math you set up the boundries of where it applies then prove it to hold true for any possible number inside that perimeter, you do that by not using numbers in your proof.

I think Aldeth just prove how science CAN become religion. Congratulations.

And Gnarfflinger, would you be a completely soulless monster without the fear of punishment?

I can make my own moral judgements without the fear of God or any other higher force. So should you.
Maybe you've just asked all the wrong questions.

While your statement is technically correct - that you can never prove something absolutely - it is a debate that is more suited to the realm of philosophy than it is to science. And philosophy is definitely not my forte. When you have a Mount Everest sized stack of evidence in support of a theory, scientists consider it to be fact - absolutely true in all circumstances.The germ theory of disease is a good example:
it is one of the most important theories in biology (and medicine); it could be said that, as a scientific theory, it "cannot absolutely be proven".
Yet nowadays, it is considered a fact that microrganisms are a cause of many -but not all- diseases.

[ December 08, 2006, 19:07: Message edited by: Chimera ]

Aldeth,

My disagreement with you on the whole Law=Fact issue was not so much condescending as it was me trying to make a point that you cannot actually prove anything in science, so I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant. But it should be noted that six years of study in the field of Biology is not as important in my view of this debate as is philosophy. And while Biology may be your forte, philosophy is mine-- a field which doesn't require years of study to become proficient in. So I feel that in this case, my opinion is just as creditable as yours, even though you are older and have had the opportunity to make the transition into further fields of study, such as college. If another thread deviates towards the subject of microbiology, however, you will undeniably have the stage ;)

While no scientific theory is absolute, the beauty of science is that you can go out and test it to your heart's content till you can disprove it. New information either reinforces it, or makes one modify or even completely discard it. You should also be able to make fairly accurate predictions based on the current theory.

Is it just me who does not really care about "absolute facts" here? Since there aren't any then what's the damn point in pursuing them or even discussing them? The whole point is moot, and in my opinion for all purposes irrelevant. Or if there's any reason to even be considering this I'd like to know exactly why?

If science does become the next religion, Carl Sagan should be the messiah.

Nunsbane, a more blasphemous comment has never been made :eek:

Ahem, I believe you are forgetting about a little someone by the name of Bill Nye... :lol:

And Gnarfflinger, would you be a completely soulless monster without the fear of punishment?

I can make my own moral judgements without the fear of God or any other higher force. So should you.
Maybe you've just asked all the wrong questions.Damnation is one of those wrong questions. How many people get turned off by Hellfire and Brimstone sermons? Perhaps the right question is what's in it for doing that which is right? A discourse on Heaven would be nice, but the effects of kindness on the world as opposed to the consequences of sin on the world.

Thinking of how good the world would be if people put the welfare of others ahead of their own selfish desires is why I do the good things. God is seen not only as a judge but a mentor in this case.

Would I be a soulless monster with no fear of punishment? I wasn't when I didn't fear it. I still had a soul, and as such didn't feel happy putting myself at the forefront. It wasn't until I focused on God and those around me that I felt any fulfillment...

My humblest apologies Blckdeth...Bill Nye is obviously the best choice - he is the light the way and the truth. Amen. :)