How good is science as a religion?

[blü 2]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

The focus of the physical sciences is the exploration of reality ─ the world external to the self ─ in order to describe and endeavor to explain it,

So it's not much use when it comes to gods ─ though if they're ever found in reality I dare say it'll be science that does the heavy lifting.

Capitalism is amoral (as @PureX said) and a mix of achievements and abuses. "Trickledown" however is outrageous nonsense, raw sewage. My sympathies to all decent people living in the UK right now.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is common knowledge.

The word Religare and Religio was used commonly even during the roman regime to describe the "binding" soldiers had with the state. Religio used to mean "someone who is bound to his family" as in takes care of his family and fulfils his duties. No God necessary. But again, I accept that you are following a common understanding. Maybe you should read a book by John Morreall or Wilfred Smith.

And about your first question "who", you can read both anti theistic and theistic books on it. People like Gregory Peterson or even some modern day philosophers. This is very common. Even during the so called toppling of the Ottoman Empire the young turks advocated for it.

Cheers.

I see. I'm using the word as it is currently most commonly used and defined in today's dictionaries (and is therefore the likely context in this thread), whereas you're using an archaic definition that was more common in Roman times.

As for Gregory Peterson, I'll have to look and see what I can find.

 

[gnostic]

I think that science is the best religion rational people can agree to and capitalism fails as a moral system.

Natural Science isn’t religion at all, because there are no worshipping done, as there are no gods or spirits in science.

Natural Sciences are simply...

(A) ...knowledge that are “testable” (Falsifiability) and “tested” (Scientific Method, eg observations, experiments, evidence, data),

(B) ...and they may have some uses in jobs people do.​

The last point (B) meaning, there are applications based on sciences, especially in physics, chemistry & biology.

For examples, medical doctor required knowledge from biology (anatomy, physiology), the ability to diagnose injuries, illnesses or disease, and how to treat these ailments with medicine (some knowledge in biochemistry) or surgery.

Another example, in civil engineering, you would require various physics disciplines, like Newtonian mechanics (eg forces, stresses), geology and soil science, hydrology (if you going to specialize in water mains or aqueduct systems), understanding of properties of materials used for construction (eg the properties of steel, wood, concrete, etc).

In computers, you not only to understand the electronics of hardware and components (so some understanding of electricity and magnetism), but if you studied networking you need to understand laser for optic fibre, or wi-fi and satellite networking require understanding of electromagnetic waves.

These three examples I have given, required some basic knowledge in sciences, especially physics, that would apply to the respective fields.

No religions and no scriptures can teach you anything about medical practitioners, civil engineers, computer engineers, network specialists.

Being believers in some religions and worshippers worshiping some gods or spirits, don’t teach you anything about any job or career, not unless you are going to become a priest or clergy.

That’s different between science and religion.

Understanding sciences prerequisite (education) to being part of job, hence certain areas of sciences are required in education, hence Applied Science, sciences that have real-world applications.

Whereas worshippers waste their times praying to gods or spirits that may not even exist, hence I view religion are nothing more than superstitious belief in supernatural beings (eg spirits, gods, angels, demons, jinns, etc) or supernatural events (eg creation, miracles, afterlife, reincarnation, etc), beings and events that cannot be verified or refuted (UNFALSIFIABLE concepts and ZERO EVIDENCE).

Believing in god, scripture or religious sect, won’t teach you anything about medical treatment or constructing buildings or bridge, or how to computer or how to connect your computer to the internet.

 

[firedragon]

I see. I'm using the word as it is currently most commonly used and defined in today's dictionaries (and is therefore the likely context in this thread), whereas you're using an archaic definition that was more common in Roman times.

Actually, what I spoke of is modern day scholarly common understanding. I gave you historical information to give you the background.

Dictionaries are generally very shallow when it comes to topics like this. But I understand what you say.

When people refer to science and scientism as religion, they do not mean it as a belief in the supernatural but the binding people build around it religiously. It is a common discussion. That is why these terms are not making an oxymoron out of the two. Hope you understand.

Cheers.

 

[stvdv]

Effects do exist without apparent cause, and science explores facts, not spirits.

Humanity needs Dharma (Spirituality)
Science without Spirituality leads to trouble

Otherwise we end up with war & destruction

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's funny....in my 20+ years of working in science, discussing science with the public, and debating science with various groups, I've not once come across anyone who holds that view.

For a viewpoint that's allegedly common, it sure is hard for me to find anyone who adheres to it. I guess I need to get out more?

I’d say there are a few advocates of that mindset on this forum. Can’t believe you haven’t come across them tbh.

 

[Valjean]

Can you "demonstrate as a fact with a scientific study of this assertion"?

Huh? What assertion are you talking about? Is it within the purview of science?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why does science need spirituality? How would spirituality add or detract from E = Mc^2?

Very good question. Which I’ll answer with a quote from someone far more knowledgeable than I, who has thought deeply about these things;

“Even if there is one possible unified theory , it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for a model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

 

[firedragon]

Huh? What assertion are you talking about? Is it within the purview of science?

You know the assertion you made. Let me cut and paste it again.

"Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed."

What scientific evidence do you have for this assertion?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No amount or form of empirical data could say anything substantive about whether something is art or not.
Aesthetics and ethics are good examples of things that are important to us, yet empiricism can say little to nothing about.

I see a lot of problems with your post here. Why I like abstract or fractals rather than portraits is because of my psychology. Science can study that. Same for aesthetics.
Ethics depends on my bringing up (samskaras) and my society, basically my psychology. Science has studied all that and can find the causes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

This is the last and the biggest problem that science faces. There are theories about it. Science will not shirk this question, neither it will say 'Goddidit'. There have to be reasons, Nothing without reason.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is the last and the biggest problem that science faces. There are theories about it. Science will not shirk this question, neither it will say 'Goddidit'. There have to be reasons, Nothing without reason.

Your faith in science is clearly quite profound. But given that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle tells us we can never have all the information about a system, it seems a stretch to imagine that man will ever have all the answers to life, the universe and everything. This is hubris, and in Ancient Greece, the gods never failed to punish hubris.

Better in my view to accept that not all questions have answers, but go on asking them anyway. Sometimes my old dad’s answer is the only one that serves; only God knows, and God’s not telling.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have many answers to life and universe. But the question of existence vs. non-existence, IMHO is the biggest of all. I am sure future generations will have better information on it.

 

[Valjean]

You know the assertion you made. Let me cut and paste it again.

"Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed."

What scientific evidence do you have for this assertion?

What is science if not a research method, and what other methodology has yielded such an explosion of knowledge and technological progress, in so short a time, as science?

People have had beliefs about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, &c. for millennia, usually based on tradition, religion or mythology, and for most of human history progress has proceeded at a snail's pace. It was only with the advent of the scientific method, of investigation and testing, that human knowledge really took off.

 

[firedragon]

What is science if not a research method, and what other methodology has yielded such an explosion of knowledge and technological progress, in so short a time, as science?

People have had beliefs about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, &c. for millennia, usually based on tradition, religion or mythology, and for most of human history progress has proceeded at a snail's pace. It was only with the advent of the scientific method, of investigation and testing, that human knowledge really took off.

"Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed." you said.

What scientific evidence do you have for this assertion?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Very good question. Which I’ll answer with a quote from someone far more knowledgeable than I, who has thought deeply about these things;

“Even if there is one possible unified theory , it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for a model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

But sadly, just saying "God!" don't make it so. Nor would the answer be necessarily "spiritual." There's no real depth of thought in asserting either position, in the absence of any reason for the assertion.

And it must be remembered that Hawking never stopped searching for the answers to his own question. But where did he look, and where did he not? He looked at every miniscule piece of data he could find, but never thought to look for it in church. He used his powerful reason, but never got out his crystals, or his crystal ball, or checked the entrails of freshly sacrificed chickens.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But sadly, just saying "God!" don't make it so. Nor would the answer be necessarily "spiritual." There's no real depth of thought in asserting either position, in the absence of any reason for the assertion.

And it must be remembered that Hawking never stopped searching for the answers to his own question. But where did he look, and where did he not? He looked at every miniscule piece of data he could find, but never thought to look for it in church. He used his powerful reason, but never got out his crystals, or his crystal ball, or checked the entrails of freshly sacrificed chickens.

Well obviously, “just saying God” without thought or context would be spurious and futile. Erasing the word from one’s vocabulary, equally so.

Which might go some way to explaining why Einstein, Niels Bohr, Paul Dirac, Hawking etc used the word a lot; though what they meant by it might be a discussion in itself. The point is, great minds tend to defy the limitations many of us place on our thinking. They don’t think in boxes.

 

[LuisDantas]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

The question is just too flawed to make sense.

What sort of religion do you want to have for the purposes of this question? What even counts as being "properly" religious? Takes are all over the place for this matter alone.

Science teaches intellectual honesty, which puts it heads and shoulders over the Abrahamics at least... but are those even religions proper?

As for capitalism, it is no attempt at and no substitute for a moral system, even a very flawed one. It seems to be used as a justification for very questionable decisions, but that is it.

 

[PureX]

Who "worships" science? Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed. It's reasonable to give credence to its conclusions, while, at the same time, applying its methodology to disprove them.

Praising, venerating, worshipping, ... it's just a matter of degree. There are a worrisome number of people around these days that feel about science (as they perceive it) the same way theists feel about God (as they perceive it). But at least the theists can see themselves doing it, and admit to it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God does not correct himself (as the times change) and is stuck in foregone centuries, science does with each new information.