Religion of Science: A Brief History

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Royce
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Religion Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical relationship between science and religion, exploring the evolution of scientific thought and its perceived status as a belief system. Participants reflect on the development of scientific theories, notable figures in science, and the societal structure of scientific disciplines.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the history of science, emphasizing the transition from Classical to Modern Physics, highlighting figures like Newton, Einstein, and Schrödinger.
  • Another participant argues that while science can be treated like a religion by some, it fundamentally differs in that it relies on objectivity rather than worship.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion of science as a religion, suggesting that the fervor some exhibit towards science resembles religious zeal.
  • A participant critiques the initial post, implying that the title detracts from the content's value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that science is not a religion, but there is contention regarding the implications of treating science with a religious fervor. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which science can be compared to religion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the historical development of scientific thought and the structure of scientific disciplines are presented without consensus or verification, reflecting personal interpretations and opinions.

  • #91
Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most.
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by russ_watters
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.
Shall I post the entire Apostles Creed? Pretty much EVERY belief in EVERY religion is based on faith. Again, that's part of the definition of religion.

A few:

God
Garden of Eden
Noah's ark
Noah's age
Moses
10 Comandments
Prophet Isaiah
Virgin birth
Resurrection
Heaven
Hell
Satan
Burning bush
Speaking in tongues
Soddom and Gamorrah (badly spelled)
Transmutation (Catholic communion)
Jonah

Clearly the list is endless.
 
  • #94
Faith is not an absolute. Islam and Judeo-Christian are only two religions amoung how many(?) that have one absolute, that God is. Off hand I personally don't know of any others. I am not an expert however.
 
  • #95
So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false.
 
  • #96
Quoted from Alexander
"So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false."

_______________________________

Only according to your personal truth, logic and facts. Since I don't and can't accept your personal beliefs as my own, we disagree.
Our disagreement is fundamental and can not be reconciled. There is therefore no point is discussing this further. We simply agree to disagree and move on.
 
  • #97
Of course, you can disagree with anything and everrything. Say, you may disagree that 2x2=4. And we all respect that. Opinion is something which is private and we don't have right to change it.

I was talking about accepted definition of truth as according to dictionary (truth = what complies with observed facts). By THIS definition science is true and religion is false.

ONLY by THIS commonly accepted definition of truth. In no way I try to say that by your own, proprietary definition of truth it shall be the same.

In fact, by selecting very different definition of truth (let's then call it "truth" to distinguish from commonly accepted definition) it can be vice versa - religion can be "true" and science can be "false".
 
  • #98
Okay, Alexander, Suppose I say that a number of religion events, phenomena or miracles have been seen, documented, verified and colaborated. Would you then accept it as fact=truth?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K