Is science a religion?

[laptop]

Laptop, we've been through this a million times before.

When have you produced actual evidence of actual scientists claiming absolute truth? (And the point of what I said about exasperated responses to vague religious handwaving such as yours is that you need to look at the totality of someone's work; a single quote won't do.)

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.

Even if true, that'd be you trying to change the subject from the truth-claims of science and religion to a literary-criticism approach to the ancestry of ideas; and that'd also be you trying to move away from the subject of the content of one scientific theory and away from the structure of the scientific endeavour.

Would that be (a) because you can do lit-crit or (b) because lit-crit allows armwaving at will, or both?

 

[nicknacknoo]

I think science as religion is a set of beliefs that are chosen to adhere to to form a world view. Like religion, science is based on a series of narratives. Even when science is starting to explore an issue, a narrative is involved. So I don't see science as any different to religion. Facts? No such thing - unless I sit here holding a pencil continuously repeating 'This is a pencil' etc. 'Facts' change continuously. Its a fact in that moment.

 

[pbman]

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.

By all means prove they are so perfect and ethical that they wouldn't dream of overlooking evidnece they don't like.

The rest of us know better.

 

[pbman]

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.

Your right, but it does support the bible as a historical reference.

And the bible supports god.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's an organised set of rules used to explain life and the universe.

Like religion people believe in science as an explanation for everything that is, yet it's never come up with anything other than mechanics. Things that don't seem to be actually physical exist (eg, consciousness and thought), but science has no explanation for them and mostly even denies the existence of them (not the examples I've given, obviously).

Is it a religion, or like one at least? (should this be in the philosophy thread? - sorry if it should, I'm newish)

IMO, science is a method of inquiry, not a codification of laws or rules.

 

[pbman]

Contradicting yourself a tad, no?

Not really, i meant the christian ones or at least those with on open mind on the topic.

 

[brixtonvilla]

*rapidly googles names, beliefs character and track record of every archaeologist working on Biblical-era Palestine*

No, YOU come up with some fucking evidence. You made the contention that archaeologists "would" distort/manipulate evidence. You back it up instead of squirming and asking everyone to prove you wrong. Or just admit you've shot your mouth off. Either suits me.

 

[axon]

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.

The consensus (at the moment) for scientists is that conciousness is physical. If something doesn't have a physical basis then it cannot be observed or measured, and it therefore falls into the realms of beliefs, faiths, and religions.

Science only deals with coming up with explanations for evidence provided. Good science (not scientists though ) can never be wrong, because as soon as new compelling evidence is produced, then whatever theory is being abounded is changed to fit the evidence. This differs from many religions where the evidence is selected to fit the theory.

 

[phildwyer]

Even if true, that'd be you trying to change the subject from the truth-claims of science and religion to a literary-criticism approach to the ancestry of ideas; and that'd also be you trying to move away from the subject of the content of one scientific theory and away from the structure of the scientific endeavour.

When I say that science is ahistorical, I don't mean that its truths don't change, I mean that science attempts to account for those changes on a purely internal level: Einstein refuted Newton or whatever. Scientists are generally unable to connect changes in scientific truths to changes in wider society, even when the connection is obvious to everyone else. For example, even if Darwin had not admitted it (which he did) it would be obvious to the casual observer that his theory was connected to capitalist economics. Only a scientist could dispute this.

So science is ahistorical in the sense that it views its own history as somehow separate from the rest of history. Scientists do not believe that scientific truths are influenced by extra-scientific factors. That is why their faith is a dogma. Religions, on the other hand, are overtly historical, and happy to draw connections between their internal development and those of wider society.

 

[phildwyer]

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

Blimey Bloom, you're asking me "what is truth," that's no easy question. Let me think about it for a while, have a few drinks and that, and get back to you.

 

[In Bloom]

When I say that science is ahistorical, I don't mean that its truths don't change, I mean that science attempts to account for those changes on a purely internal level: Einstein refuted Newton or whatever. Scientists are generally unable to connect changes in scientific truths to changes in wider society, even when the connection is obvious to everyone else. For example, even if Darwin had not admitted it (which he did) it would be obvious to the casual observer that his theory was connected to capitalist economics. Only a scientist could dispute this.

So science is ahistorical in the sense that it views its own history as somehow separate from the rest of history. Scientists do not believe that scientific truths are influenced by extra-scientific factors. That is why their faith is a dogma. Religions, on the other hand, are overtly historical, and happy to draw connections between their internal development and those of wider society.

Of course scientists aren't isolated from the culture they live in. The point is that in science ideas stand and fall on evidence, not by how well they conform to cultural expectation. Your insistance on making a big deal about the influence that Darwin's contemporaries had on him is an irrelevance.

 

[laptop]

Religions, on the other hand, are overtly historical, and happy to draw connections between their internal development and those of wider society.

Blimey, you don't understand much about the serious adherents of the major religions, do you?

I conclude that you're making up your own religion. Bloody hippy

 

[nick1181]

So science is ahistorical in the sense that it views its own history as somehow separate from the rest of history.

"It" views? Science is a method, not a thing with opinions.

Scientists do not believe that scientific truths are influenced by extra-scientific factors.

Bollocks - make an hypothesis, create an experiment to test it, see how you go. Saying "Scientists do not believe" is a generalisation and a crock of shite. How do you know? have you done a survey or something? Which particular scientists did you ask? Was it a significantly large sample size? Was it randomly enough drawn for you to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from it?

Oh and there's no such thing as a "scientific truth"

That is why their faith is a dogma.

Well it might be if the whole premise wasn't utter cobblers, but unfortunately it is.

 

[pbman]

Blimey, you don't understand much about the serious adherents of the major religions, do you?

I conclude that you're making up your own religion. Bloody hippy

He did say, that he belived milton was a prophet........

 

[jacobs steel]

Is science a religion?

Hi. Just read the thread. Isn't it all about an objective we know isn't there

 

[rappunnzel]

Hi. Just read the thread. Isn't it all about an objective we know isn't there

I don't know.

I don't know anything.

 

[jacobs steel]

I don't know.

I don't know anything.

It's I know nothing

 

[Crispy]

Scientists are generally unable to connect changes in scientific truths to changes in wider society, even when the connection is obvious to everyone else. For example, even if Darwin had not admitted it (which he did) it would be obvious to the casual observer that his theory was connected to capitalist economics. Only a scientist could dispute this.

Well, that's because in most cases, there is no connection. It doesn't matter what society is doing, a lead weight dropped off a tower will still accelerate at 9.8ms/s. You can argue that some theories are reliant on changes in culture - for example modern medicine could not have come into being without the cultural relaxation about the sanctity of the human body that allowed disections. Certainly, there are fashions in science. Victorians imagined the cosmos as an intricately engineered machine. Quantum mechanics brought the paradigm of inherent randomness. Today, it's very hip to desribe things in terms of emergent behaviour.

However, no matter how influenced, the science still works. Theories are made, tested, improved, discarded and so on. Fashions change, but the good theories hang around. There are still theories from 300 years ago that hold water - it's a slow process. Whatever your individual beef with Darwin is, it's irrelevant in the grander scheme of things. It might take time - hundreds of years maybe - but if there is a better theory to describe the creation and change of life on earth, it will be found. Yes, it may require a change in culture, but it will still be science.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

even if darwin is found to be inacurate i imagine it will only in the way you would consider newton inacurate rather tan some compleate turn it on it head sorta thing

 

[likesfish]

Darwin now we come to the nub of it
creationism bizare mid west belief system discredited
intelligent design creationisnm take 2 its not science you can't dress it up as credible science.
good science works whatever your belief system you go looking to see if you can disprove a theory.
science does'nt standstill don't like darwin fine disprove him but use science rather than god told me this is true

 

[brixtonvilla]

Still no sign of the great Atheist Archaeologist Conspiracy then, pbman? Thought not.

 

[Funky_monks]

Right, here's my tuppence'orth.....

For the uninitiated, science should (although does not always due to the human ego) work something like this:

A scientist observes an a natural event (his could be anything from a specific behavioural pattern in a higher vertebrate, to one liquid changing coulor in the presence of another).

Scientist then hypothesises that the event he has observed is due to (a) having an effect on (b).

Scientist then thinks up numerous tests to disprove his hypothesis, usualy published in scientific form and reviewed by a number of other scientists in a similar field before publication.

If none of these work, then hypothesis is accepted until further tests can be thought up, and hypothesis is accepted.The information accepted is usually very small and specific, e.g. "At Menai Bridge, Anglesey, the number of Semibalanus balanoides present increased significantly over the period 1989-1995".

By comparing a number of papers from the UK, all showing that the numbers of this particular barnacle species increased over the same period, one could then examine, say water temperature readings where published. Lets say that it increased significantly over this time period. One coud then, backed by this evidence, theorise that this temperature increase was the main cause of the increase in this species, perhaps tying in papers written on the subjects range in warmer climes.

Thus you have a scientific theory: "An increase in mean water temperature positivley affects the distribution of Semibalanus balanoides"

A theory is accepted until it is disproved, and thus science is dynamic.

Religion is not.

(I am aware the first part is a gross oversimplification)

 

[rappunnzel]

Right, here's my tuppence'orth.....

For the uninitiated, science should (although does not always due to the human ego) work something like this:

A scientist observes an a natural event (his could be anything from a specific behavioural pattern in a higher vertebrate, to one liquid changing coulor in the presence of another).

Scientist then hypothesises that the event he has observed is due to (a) having an effect on (b).

Scientist then thinks up numerous tests to disprove his hypothesis, usualy published in scientific form and reviewed by a number of other scientists in a similar field before publication.

If none of these work, then hypothesis is accepted until further tests can be thought up, and hypothesis is accepted.The information accepted is usually very small and specific, e.g. "At Menai Bridge, Anglesey, the number of Semibalanus balanoides present increased significantly over the period 1989-1995".

By comparing a number of papers from the UK, all showing that the numbers of this particular barnacle species increased over the same period, one could then examine, say water temperature readings where published. Lets say that it increased significantly over this time period. One coud then, backed by this evidence, theorise that this temperature increase was the main cause of the increase in this species, perhaps tying in papers written on the subjects range in warmer climes.

Thus you have a scientific theory: "An increase in mean water temperature positivley affects the distribution of Semibalanus balanoides"

A theory is accepted until it is disproved, and thus science is dynamic.

Religion is not.

(I am aware the first part is a gross oversimplification)

So, we can't actually be sure then, that any scientific theory is actually the truth (whether it's a theory that's held water for 300 or more years or not)?

Is it true that, in the same way as if you look out away from the earth at the entire cosmos and it being mostly made up of space, if you look at everything on it's smallest levels - right down to in between protons and electrons and all the quantum 'particles' that there is just mostly space? The forces from the actual objects - planets, stars, protons, electrons, waves, particles, etc - hold the objects where they are in that space, but there is actually nothing in between. Am I right?

 

[brixtonvilla]

Is that what's known as dark matter?

 

[rappunnzel]

Is that what's known as dark matter?

No, dark matter is something else. They they believe dark matter exists because it sometimes appears to obscure stars from view.

 

[nick1181]

So, we can't actually be sure then, that any scientific theory is actually the truth (whether it's a theory that's held water for 300 or more years or not)?

That's right. Uncertainty is built into the very structure of it, as it should be.


From time to time you get religious idiots saying "oooh, science doesn't have all the answers does it?" and then you get them trying to argue that religion is better than science - and they clearly don't have the slightest idea what science actually is.

The same stupidity is happening on this thread but expressed in an intelligent way.

I'm not talking about you personally btw.

 

[rappunnzel]

That's right. Uncertainty is built into the very structure of it, as it should be.


From time to time you get religious idiots saying "oooh, science doesn't have all the answers does it?" and then you get them trying to argue that religion is better than science - and they clearly don't have the slightest idea what science actually is.

The same stupidity is happening on this thread but expressed in an intelligent way.

I'm not talking about you personally btw.

That's good because I think religion is shite.

 

[axon]

So, we can't actually be sure then, that any scientific theory is actually the truth (whether it's a theory that's held water for 300 or more years or not)?

Exactly. All science says is "here is an explanation of a phenomenon that fits with all of the data so far obtained".

 

[Funky_monks]

Is it true that, in the same way as if you look out away from the earth at the entire cosmos and it being mostly made up of space, if you look at everything on it's smallest levels - right down to in between protons and electrons and all the quantum 'particles' that there is just mostly space? The forces from the actual objects - planets, stars, protons, electrons, waves, particles, etc - hold the objects where they are in that space, but there is actually nothing in between. Am I right?

Absloutley no idea, I'm a biologist.

Exactly. All science says is "here is an explanation of a phenomenon that fits with all of the data so far obtained".

Thats it put far more succinctly that I did.

 

[Wookey]

How do we feel about the scientific analysis of religion then?

For example, there are forensic archiologists who have tested silt formations to historically place the Great Flood.