Science is a Religion
I've waited for the other two religion threads to die down a bit before posting this one. Here's the spark for the idea from the Noah's Ark thread.
Original Post by d_thomas02:
Original Post by santonacci:
Well, since the OP was focusing on the Noah's Ark thing, that's what posters responded to. If you want to criticize Islam or Buddhism, or Wicca, you're free to start your own thread - I'm sure it will be interesting.
An interesting idea. Not as you've outlined it, but a thread on how today's belief in science is as much faith based as any religion.
And here is the premise.
Science is a natural faith-based religion. Scientists (PhDs) are our High Priests, whom we depend on to discover the light of knowledge from the dark unknown. Scientific journals are our Scriptures, once published and accepted by peer review becoming the Holy Word. Grad students are the lower priests who help the High Priests translate the Word into lay terms. Etc. etc.
Original Post by d_thomas02:
An average person will never (not rarely) never make the effort. If she were to make the effort, she would no longer be considered an average person. The attempt alone would elevate her into the extraordinary category of person. :-)
From my first post, I've espoused the premise that science is a natural religion; i.e. a religion based on principles derived solely from reason and the study of nature and therefore differs from a revealed religion, yet still requires faith from the masses as we do not have the resources to independently verify new findings in the rarefied fields of today's science.
Then you are talking about "science" as a vaguely defined, ever-shifting thing based purely on the hoi polloi's interpretation (and manipulation of the definition by people hostile) of it, not Science, the act of understanding the universe more fully based on the acquisition of empirical evidence to leading to and in support of predictive theories.
You're playing games with words here, like the oft-misused (often deliberately, a la C-cat) term "theory"(*) as a synonym for "guess". Your version of the word "science" can literally mean anything, and when you redefine words outside of their original intended meanings, you can attach any sort of grotesque nonsense and rubbish to them. You seem to be playing similar word games with the word "religion", making it so broad as to be essentially meaningless. In my opinion, it takes more than someone declaring "I need air to breathe!" to make the claim that he's a member of the Cult of Air.
In short, whether or not clueless people treat science like a religion, doesn't make it one. I'd suggest that's more a problem due to adherents of myth-based belief systems training children to be unquestioningly credulous from an early age.
... and frankly, most scientists I know I couldn't give half a frozen rat's ass as to whether or not the teeming masses who are ignorant of science consider it a "religion". If it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy clinging to their bronze age myths, zombie cannibal cults, djinns and thetans, so be it... so long as those myths aren't turned into our laws, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The problem, of course, comes when cynical power dealers have access to large sums of money from other completely delusional people, otherwise known as "faith-based politics'.
As to "faith", the second definition is probably the most useful one: belief in the absence of proof... although I would go farther still, and say belief in denial of proof. Trust, in this context, is the expectation of future performance based on past performance. Both faith and trust are guesses, only trust is predicated on evidence. If you're completely foreign to how science is done, or how science paved the way for technology to apply those discoveries, then the two would be functionally equivalent... however, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't experienced electricity, powered flight, television, radio or any of the other things science as made possible.
The fact that science is "rarified" and that some facts get accepted without personal verification doesn't make it a matter of faith. The facts are still there, anyone with the aptitude or desire can make their own observations to confirm or disprove the original data (this happens all the time, by the way, and amateur scientists make all sorts of groovy discoveries - some of the work by amateur astronomers with image post-processing is truly outstanding, for instance!) Trust (not faith) comes into play here: you're getting information that's peer reviewed. It's possible to trust the process because there's hundreds of years of evidence to show that it works, albeit imperfectly... which is why most scientists don't completely trust the process perfectly, but they do enough to permit progress to continue in their spheres of interest. One of the greatest "crimes" in the world of science is attempting to circumvent that process of peer review trust, literally resulting in the deaths of careers of those would-be scientists that violate it (like Pons and Fleischman).
Scientists are human, of course, and they can and often do have opinion on things they don't have personal knowledge of just like anyone else, but they aren't scientific ideas. A high energy physicist may have opinions about abiogenesis, but that doesn't make those opinions scientific. They're just opinions. If he then professes his opinions as facts, based on his personal feelings about them, then he's gone fully into faith-based "magical" thinking and is most definitely not making scientific statements.
PS - PhDs as "high priests"? You clearly need to hang out in more science-based IRC channels. Half of 'em I wouldn't piss on to put out a fire, let alone take their opinions on science without a whole mess of independent peer review. "Trust, but verify" is the touchstone of all serious scientists... and a PhD is just the science community's way of saying "You've now achieved the minimum requisite effort to get our attention. Don't waste it."
(*) - Personally, I think we should get back into the vogue of calling thing "Laws". The only difference between a theory and a law, in science, is that laws merely describe observations whereas theories provide an explanation for them (and both are invalidated in the face of contradictory evidence). Theories are, therefore, super-sets of laws... let's roll 'em all back into a single term, call it the Law of Evolution (which is valid by current definitions) and tell the regressive conservatives to go suck a foetus.
Original Post by d_thomas02:
Please don't take this the wrong way, santo. I have the utmost respect for your views and share many of them, including this one, yet what came to mind when reading this was...so, which ever way the wind blows. hmmm.
Yeah...you know us science acolytes...groupies...advocates- so prone to flip flopping.
-------
@ Hata - excellent post.
Interesting read so far.
How many of us have seen Saturn with your own eyes through a telescope? It's big. It's easy to find and I bet you can borrow the use of a telescope to see it.
The way I see it, the human race is entering its teenage years.
Original Post by caloricat:
Original Post by fredajones:
Original Post by kathygator:
The belief that no God exists requires just as much faith as that God does.
That is complete and utter rubbish.
Actually, I agree with KG. For an athiest to look at the complexity of life, the "miracles", and the fact that there must have been "something" that started all this mess...and still thumb their nose at the mere idea of a divine creator...that's faith.
And for santo who believes so much in science...do you believe in evolution? Relativity? You realize these are merely "theories"...they've never been proven, they've just also never been "disproven".
And that is scientific method...what "christian scientists" often ignore...that true science is about having a theory and trying to disprove it.
You premise is nonsense because you not have to "believe" in anything to not believe in a god.
Freda: Agreed. But with regard to a self-identified 'atheist' - which was the context within which I made my comment - my point stands, I think.
To declare oneself an atheist (Santo's philosophical semantics aside), one must actively make a decision about God, in other words: choose whether or not to believe.
Such a decision can only be based in faith - or to quote Hata's 'belief in the absence of proof'.
Original Post by kathygator:
Such a decision can only be based in faith - or to quote Hata's 'belief in the absence of proof'.
I don't think I'd call it faith. It's a decision based on reasoning and logic.
There is no proof that God doesn't exist. Hence: faith.
Original Post by hatamoto:
You're playing games with words here,
As to "faith", the second definition is probably the most useful one: belief in the absence of proof... although I would go farther still, and say belief in denial of proof.
While agree with most of your post, this stood out. It looks like some game playing with words.
I don't think it's even possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Again, that's definitely not faith.
I agree with this. It is a leap of faith because no one knows either way. To believe in ANYTHING that can't be proven is faith and/or belief, whichever word is preferred.
It isn't a matter of faith until you decide to label yourself an atheist. Once you make your pick in the God/No God poll, your dealing with faith. Because while there are numerous facts you can cite to disprove religion, there is no fact to cite that proves how the universe came into being. (see Knowan's thread)
And I think I'd have to disagree that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I could test the DNA of every human on the planet and prove that I only have 2 children, that a third doesn't exist.
Original Post by santonacci:
I personally thought it was awesome when the story came out about the possibly faster than light particle - I'm looking forward to seeing if that's validated and what will happen.
Santo, Did you see this?
:)
Interesting!
Original Post by kathygator:
It isn't a matter of faith until you decide to label yourself an atheist. Once you make your pick in the God/No God poll, your dealing with faith. Because while there are numerous facts you can cite to disprove religion, there is no fact to cite that proves how the universe came into being. (see Knowan's thread)
And I think I'd have to disagree that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I could test the DNA of every human on the planet and prove that I only have 2 children, that a third doesn't exist.
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. They do not claim to know there are no gods or to have faith that there are no gods. There simply aren't any gods they actively believe in.
It does not take faith to say 'i have not been provided with evidence that unicorns exist'. It is not a claim that no unicorns exist. If evidence is provided to show that a unicorn exists, the belief will change.
To say atheism a religion would imply that theists such as christians or muslims have 2 religions. One where they believe in a specific god and one where they don't believe in all other gods.
How can you be sure that you've tested every single person? What if your third kid is hiding?
Original Post by d_thomas02:
I've waited for the other two religion threads to die down a bit before posting this one. Here's the spark for the idea from the Noah's Ark thread.
Original Post by d_thomas02:
Original Post by santonacci:
Well, since the OP was focusing on the Noah's Ark thing, that's what posters responded to. If you want to criticize Islam or Buddhism, or Wicca, you're free to start your own thread - I'm sure it will be interesting.
An interesting idea. Not as you've outlined it, but a thread on how today's belief in science is as much faith based as any religion.
And here is the premise.
Science is a natural faith-based religion. Scientists (PhDs) are our High Priests, whom we depend on to discover the light of knowledge from the dark unknown. Scientific journals are our Scriptures, once published and accepted by peer review becoming the Holy Word. Grad students are the lower priests who help the High Priests translate the Word into lay terms. Etc. etc.
Being an atheist is not dependent on agreeing with any science.
Original Post by randomv3:
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. They do not claim to know there are no gods or to have faith that there are no gods. There simply aren't any gods they actively believe in.
It does not take faith to say 'i have not been provided with evidence that unicorns exist'. It is not a claim that no unicorns exist. If evidence is provided to show that a unicorn exists, the belief will change.
How can you be sure that you've tested every single person? What if your third kid is hiding?
To say atheism a religion would imply that theists such as christians or islamics have 2 religions. One where they believe in a specific god and one where they don't believe in all other gods.
This.
Original Post by monkey08us:
Original Post by randomv3:
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. They do not claim to know there are no gods or to have faith that there are no gods. There simply aren't any gods they actively believe in.
It does not take faith to say 'i have not been provided with evidence that unicorns exist'. It is not a claim that no unicorns exist. If evidence is provided to show that a unicorn exists, the belief will change.
How can you be sure that you've tested every single person? What if your third kid is hiding?
To say atheism a religion would imply that theists such as christians or islamics have 2 religions. One where they believe in a specific god and one where they don't believe in all other gods.
This.
FYI: i edited the original. I had a brain fart and wrote islamics instead of muslims and reagranged some stuff. Just wanted to add that for clarity.
Original Post by d_thomas02:
The point. Who among us really understands any of this science stuff? Sure I know the theory, even make my living using it (an acolyte). But, I've never directly seen a single atom of iron (to say nothing of a quark). Never held one in my hand. I've seen indirect evidence from my spectrometer and can even give you a qualitative and quantitative summary of the composition of an iron bar that will hold up in a court of law... but I have to take it on faith that the instrument is really able to measure iron.
I have faith that the scientific method works, but how is that different than a Christian's faith in baptism? I can mix iron filings with ground sulfur in a test-tube and heat it over a flame. Each and every time I do this, I have faith that a chemical reaction will occur and I will see these two separate substances transformed into iron pyrite (iron disulfide or fool's gold). A priest can dunk a sinner into water and each and every time a miracle will occur and we will see a born-again Christian emerge.
I know the theory. Given the right conditions, an atom of iron combines with two of sulfur. Given that the recipient has the correct disposition, baptism produces a spiritual rebirth. Both theories can only be believed through faith.
That's not true because we can preform tests to show that what has been predicted with science actually happened. Just because you can't see something with your eye doesn't mean you can't observe it through some sort of tool. That's the difference.
Science deals with the natural world: things we can observe and test to our hearts content. Religions deal with the supernatural world: things out of our realm of observation. By definition, religions require faith because they are untestable.
Original Post by randomv3:
Original Post by kathygator:
It isn't a matter of faith until you decide to label yourself an atheist. Once you make your pick in the God/No God poll, your dealing with faith. Because while there are numerous facts you can cite to disprove religion, there is no fact to cite that proves how the universe came into being. (see Knowan's thread)
And I think I'd have to disagree that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I could test the DNA of every human on the planet and prove that I only have 2 children, that a third doesn't exist.
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. They do not claim to know there are no gods or to have faith that there are no gods. There simply aren't any gods they actively believe in. Semantics, IMO. By firm definition an atheist believes in the absence of a supreme being...or 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God'.
It does not take faith to say 'i don't believe unicorns are real'. It is not a claim that no unicorns exist. It's an opinion based on the lack of evidence. Provide proof of a unicorn, and the opinion will change.
False analogy. No one contends that unicorns created the universe, so the question of their existence doesn't matter. The point is not whether or not the God paradigm is a valid one. Only that in picking sides, each side is reduced to a faith based decision.
How can you be sure that you've tested every single person? What if your third kid is hiding? Sufficient technological advances could make it possible to test every human genome, hence proving my third kid never happened.
To say atheism is a religion would imply that theists such as christians or islamics have 2 religions. One where they believe in a specific god and one where they don't believe in all other gods. They don't need a second religion. That premise is built pretty solidly into the 1st one. That whole one true God stuff, and not taking any gods before me thing.
Most of the people I have spoken to, that are atheists, arrived there by rejecting a belief in the existence of God. If there was no suggestion that God existed to begin with, there would be no atheism.
Atheism and theism look like 2 sides of the same coin to me. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, though, and am happy to agree to disagree.
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by randomv3:
Original Post by kathygator:
It isn't a matter of faith until you decide to label yourself an atheist. Once you make your pick in the God/No God poll, your dealing with faith. Because while there are numerous facts you can cite to disprove religion, there is no fact to cite that proves how the universe came into being. (see Knowan's thread)
And I think I'd have to disagree that it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I could test the DNA of every human on the planet and prove that I only have 2 children, that a third doesn't exist.
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. They do not claim to know there are no gods or to have faith that there are no gods. There simply aren't any gods they actively believe in. Semantics, IMO. By firm definition an atheist believes in the absence of a supreme being...or 'the doctrine or belief that there is no God'.
It does not take faith to say 'i don't believe unicorns are real'. It is not a claim that no unicorns exist. It's an opinion based on the lack of evidence. Provide proof of a unicorn, and the opinion will change.
False analogy. No one contends that unicorns created the universe, so the question of their existence doesn't matter. The point is not whether or not the God paradigm is a valid one. Only that in picking sides, each side is reduced to a faith based decision.
How can you be sure that you've tested every single person? What if your third kid is hiding? Sufficient technological advances could make it possible to test every human genome, hence proving my third kid never happened.
To say atheism is a religion would imply that theists such as christians or islamics have 2 religions. One where they believe in a specific god and one where they don't believe in all other gods. They don't need a second religion. That premise is built pretty solidly into the 1st one. That whole one true God stuff, and not taking any gods before me thing.
Most of the people I have spoken to, that are atheists, arrived there by rejecting a belief in the existence of God. If there was no suggestion that God existed to begin with, there would be no atheism.
Atheism and theism look like 2 sides of the same coin to me. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, though, and am happy to agree to disagree.
If there was no suggestion that god existed to begin with, everyone would be an atheist.
Not precisely true. The word atheist wouldn't exist any more than the word theist would exist.
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.
