Is science a religion?

[phildwyer]

The difference is that although scientists believe their method is the only means to truth they don't believe that it gives you that truth NOW, or that that truth is fixed and immutable, as religions do.

There is no religion in the world that believes this, you merely show your ignorance. Science, on the other hand, *does* believe this. Scientists do not admit that their "truths" are historically contingent, they claim that they are absolute. Religions, in contrast, see truth as revealed in history. That is the essential difference between the two systems of belief.

 

[brixtonvilla]

Fancy coming up with some evidence of archaeologists destroying Biblical evidence PB? More to the point, why would they?

 

[longdog]

No doubt, and a lot of other archaelogists would be happy to destroy or ignore proof of the bible as well.

What 'proof' is there in the bible?

Just one single instance of there being any proof of anything?

 

[In Bloom]

There is no religion in the world that believes this, you merely show your ignorance. Science, on the other hand, *does* believe this. Scientists do not admit that their "truths" are historically contingent, they claim that they are absolute. Religions, in contrast, see truth as revealed in history. That is the essential difference between the two systems of belief.

What is truth?

(and do you intend on responding to my response to you?)

 

[brixtonvilla]

phildwyer - isn't the Koran pretty sure of its claims to being immutably true? Bible also has some pretty strong claims - "I am the way, the truth and the light - no man comes to God except through me" ring any bells?

 

[pbman]

Fancy coming up with some evidence of archaeologists destroying Biblical evidence PB? More to the point, why would they?

They would do so, because they wouldn't want to be forced to changed their belifes.......

Who would?

Its not an easy thing to do. Its much easier just to ignore things that don't fit,or to not even look.

 

[rappunnzel]

What do you mean? What's not physical then?

And how does that make it like religion?

(Why doesn't everyone just ignore pbman? He's a moron who no one listens to)

There used to be an argument about whether consciousness is physical or not, but now some scientists are starting to believe that it exists independently to our brains, which explains out of body experiences etc. Some hospital emergency rooms in the US are taking this so seriously that they're putting numbers near to the ceilings to see if patients who 'leave their bodies and look down on themselves' can recall them.

Also, I've read that in quantum mechanics, some 'entities' behave differently when they're being observed. ? (Have no idea how they know how they behave when not being observed.)

All this suggests forces that don't seem to be physical. Thought is definitely not physical.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

There is no religion in the world that believes this, you merely show your ignorance. Science, on the other hand, *does* believe this. Scientists do not admit that their "truths" are historically contingent, they claim that they are absolute. Religions, in contrast, see truth as revealed in history. That is the essential difference between the two systems of belief.

So what sort of thing would have to be 'revealed in history' to make Christians believe that the world was not created by God, for example?

And science, correctly applied, should always be open to anything being challenged upon the introduction of new evidence.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

there are many cases of archeologist investigating biblical myths and finding them at least partailly accurate... particularly in egypt... they don't aim to destry the bible they mearly wish to distinguish between the rality and the myth

 

[mentalchik]

Fancy coming up with some evidence of archaeologists destroying Biblical evidence PB? More to the point, why would they?

I may be wrong here but is'nt there in fact more instances of organised religion going to great lengths to cover up archaeological finds that may contradict long held tenets of said religions ?

 

[laptop]

Scientists do not admit that their "truths" are historically contingent, they claim that they are absolute.

Many, many scientists are very bad at the philosophy of science and quail before the word "epistemology". It's fun winding them up, from a position of knowledge of the terms of the debate.

But claiming that their truths are absolute? Who? I think that's just a straw man, deployed (a) because you think it suits your argument and (b) because it allows you to feel better about constantly losing arguments.

The nearest you'll get to a claim of absolute truth is someone here answering some bollocks from an apologist for some half-baked religious creed - you for example - who hasn't been arsed to type out all the reservations and qualifications, that one time.

 

[longdog]

They would do so, because they wouldn't want to be forced to changed their belifes.......

Who would?

Its not an easy thing to do. Its much easier just to ignore things that don't fit,or to not even look.

I think you need to loosen that tin-foil stetson of yours peebs.

Just give us one example of how an archeologist could be in a position where he would need to cover up eveidence to avoid giving creedence to biblical 'truth'.

Are we talking about fossilised angels here or what?

 

[phildwyer]

What is truth?

Said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

 

[pbman]

What 'proof' is there in the bible?

Just one single instance of there being any proof of anything?

What kind do you want acheological proof?

For example, until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend

.

In 1990 Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, used hieroglyphic clues from a monolith known as the Merneptah Stele to identify figures in a Luxor wall relief as ancient Israelites. The stele itself, dated to 1207 B.C. celebrates a military victory by the Pharaoh Merneptah. “Israel is laid waste” it reads. This lets us know the Israelites were a separate people more than 3,000 years ago

.

Now let’s look at the era from Solomon to around 400 BC where the Old Testament ends. The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible.
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.”
R.D. Wilson who wrote “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” pointed out that the names of 29 Kings from ten nations (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and more) are mentioned not only in the Bible but are also found on monuments of their own time. Every single name is transliterated in the Old Testament exactly as it appears on the archaeological artifact – syllable for syllable, consonant for consonant. The chronological order of the kings is correct.

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

The more they look the more achelogical proof they find.

 

[brixtonvilla]

Sorry pb, who are "they"? Which archaeologists? And how do you know that archaeologists - established, professional scientists who regularly change their conclusions based on physical evidence - "would" distort information (and risk professional ridicule and rather than face some internal crisis of faith? This seems a little paranoid. Evidence rather than speculation on what anonymous groups of people might do, please.

 

[pbman]

I think you need to loosen that tin-foil stetson of yours peebs.

Just give us one example of how an archeologist could be in a position where he would need to cover up eveidence to avoid giving creedence to biblical 'truth'.

Are we talking about fossilised angels here or what?

Is your imagination that limited?

 

[pbman]

I may be wrong here but is'nt there in fact more instances of organised religion going to great lengths to cover up archaeological finds that may contradict long held tenets of said religions ?

Not true archlogicly speaking, the more we look the more we see, that the places and people in the bible, are confirmed by archelogy.

 

[pbman]

Sorry pb, who are "they"? Which archaeologists? And how do you know that archaeologists - established, professional scientists who regularly change their conclusions based on physical evidence - "would" distort information (and risk professional ridicule and rather than face some internal crisis of faith? This seems a little paranoid. Evidence rather than speculation on what anonymous groups of people might do, please.

Human nature rules most everywere.

 

[brixtonvilla]

I don't think there's much dispute that the civilizations and settlements described existed, although there's dispute over whether they were quite as great as more recent Jewish/Christian historians claim. Still no evidence of a cover-up/distortion, though...

 

[phildwyer]

Many, many scientists are very bad at the philosophy of science and quail before the word "epistemology". It's fun winding them up, from a position of knowledge of the terms of the debate.

But claiming that their truths are absolute? Who? I think that's just a straw man, deployed (a) because you think it suits your argument and (b) because it allows you to feel better about constantly losing arguments.

The nearest you'll get to a claim of absolute truth is someone here answering some bollocks from an apologist for some half-baked religious creed - you for example - who hasn't been arsed to type out all the reservations and qualifications, that one time.

Laptop, we've been through this a million times before. On one such occasion, I pointed out that Darwin's contention that evolution is driven by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment was influenced by the economics of Malthus and Adam Smith. This you and your crazed scientist mates furiously denied. You claimed that Darwin's theory is absolutely true, and not the product of a historically contingent environment. Having demolished your argument, I referred you to Stephen Jay Gould's _The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_, which supports my case. Have you read it yet?

 

[longdog]

The more they look the more achelogical proof they find.

Contradicting yourself a tad, no?

 

[brixtonvilla]

Is that really the best you can do? They're human, of course they'll distort evidence? Puh-lease. Come up with some evidence please, you're starting to look silly.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Not true archlogicly speaking, the more we look the more we see, that the places and people in the bible, are confirmed by archelogy.

How many scientists claim differently? It's quite likely that a lot of the stuff in bible is historically accurate, and most scientists would accept that.

But that doesn't support the existence of God, or that the universe was created in seven days etc, etc. You could just as easily look to the Greek myths, Gods on moust Olympus and so on, and base your argument on the existence of ancient Athens.

 

[Andy the Don]

Science is..

1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Richard Feynman

Therefore science is not a religion because there is no room for blind faith in science. In science there has to be provable & measurable facts. We know the earth is round & the earth travels around the sun because we have proved it to be true. The medieval catholic church took it as a matter of faith that the sun travelled around the earth.

 

[Crispy]

Scientists do not admit that their "truths" are historically contingent, they claim that they are absolute.

That's so wrong. Scientific truths are only as true as the evidence that was gathered to prove them. New evidence changes the truth. You don't see people with unshakeable faith in Newtonian mechanics whilst ignoring relativity or quantum mechanics.

It's also important to realise that religous truths are also flexible and have changed over history. However, in most cases, the systems built around those religions deny or obscure change to give an impression of absolute unquestionable truth.

I also think it's very very important to make the difference between science and scientists - just as it is very important to distinguish between religions and their followers. By making that division, it's easy to see where both religion and science get their bad reputations. People are greedy, selfish, vengeful and jealous and will bend whatever explanatory systems are available to them in order to gain power.

EDIT : Like the Feynmann Quote

 

[In Bloom]

Said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.

I'm quite willing to stay for an answer, fancy trying to give one?

 

[KeeperofDragons]

The difference between science and religion summed up

religion says faith can move mountains

science says you need dynamite



KoD

 

[In Bloom]

Laptop, we've been through this a million times before. On one such occasion, I pointed out that Darwin's contention that evolution is driven by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environment was influenced by the economics of Malthus and Adam Smith. This you and your crazed scientist mates furiously denied. You claimed that Darwin's theory is absolutely true, and not the product of a historically contingent environment. Having demolished your argument, I referred you to Stephen Jay Gould's _The Structure of Evolutionary Theory_, which supports my case. Have you read it yet?

Your version of reality is both interesting and creative, well done

 

[In Bloom]

Another good Feynman quote (and one that phildwyer would do well to think about )

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?"

 

[nick1181]

Religion is basically a structure for controlling people that has been perverted so far from what the original Messiahs were teaching that
a) they would barely recognise it if they saw it now, and
b) they would never stop throwing up if they did

I think the founding fathers of science would (quite rightly) be fairly impressed with what science has achieved. I doubt you could say the same for the original teachers of the major religions.

And no, Science isn't a religion. People who say this tend to be religious (or <airquotes>spiritual</airquotes>) and are, irony of ironies, attempting to call it a religion to discredit it.