Is Science a Religion?

  • #26
459
7
If faith and morals are the defining differences between science and religion what happens when dogma is introduced?

Science has a kind of doctrine that is based on 'tried and true' observations and experiments. Religion has its doctrines based on their faith and moral beliefs. When science becomes dogmatic it becomes indistinguishable from the definition of religion.
 
  • #27
314
1
Modern thought

Huckleberry said:
Is http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=science&x=17&y=10 [Broken], we see that worship of God is worship of an ultimate truth based in fact.

It is easy to accept that religion worships an ultimate truth. but it does not seem clear that science worships an ultimate truth. We understand worship as reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power. Divinity, or the state of being http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=divine&x=16&y=10 [Broken], proceeds directly from a God, which has already been defined as an ultimate truth based in fact. Certainly science has a reverence for truth or it would defy its own definition.

There is still some ambiguity because religion has faith in an ultimate truth that is supernatural. This is irrational because it assumes faith in unobservable phenomena. Science has faith in reason, using the observable to prove ultimate reality. Basically, the goal of science is to prove the existence of God! This is irrational because it is trying to prove the existence of the supernatural. They have an almost opposite dogma, but they must intersect at some point.

This seems to prove to me that irrational beliefs are as vital to human intelligence as rational belief is to the existence of God. Speculative nonsense is as important as indoctrinated logic. Irrational beliefs about the unobservable (speculative nonsense) give rise to new ideas that may one day become the cornerstone of understanding (indoctrinated logic). But to be trapped in either one would produce no usable results.

Would this philosophy hold true for science and religion as well? I realize all the definition hashing doesn't really prove or change anything. This theory is based in speculation. What are your opinions?

What was the question?
Huck
Today's science (relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology ect) may very well become tomorrow's mythology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Religion starts with truths, and allows theologists justify them if inclined. Science starts with observation, which justifies attempts to discover the truth behind it, if inclined.

Religion controls moral/ethical thought and deed. Science is morality blind, but can be restricted by ethics.

Truth in religion is not based on objective evidence. Truth in science, even if wrong, is.

Religious truths are absolute. Scientific truths are dynamic.

No scientist has ever locked up a clergyman for practising his or her religion.

A woman may become Lucasian professor. A woman may not become a bishop, archbishop, cardinal or Pope.

Scientists themselves may become dogmatic, however it is not required by science. In fact, the opposite is true. The same cannot be said for religion. The whole thing would collapse if clergy started saying: "Thou shalt respect the Sabbath. Or not. Whatever's right!"

In short, science may become a religion to one person, but is not a religion in itself.
 

Related Threads on Is Science a Religion?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Replies
53
Views
50K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
97
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top