While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How good is science as a religion?
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The question itself makes no sense, no different than asking "How good is religion as a science?"
Or...."How good is a screwdriver as a shoe?"
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Science cannot be a religion by definition and application, and capitalism isn't a moral system.
PureX
Veteran Member
Science is not a religion, and capitalism is amoral. However, there are people that worship science as the source of all knowledge, and there are others that believe capitalism is the solution to all society's ills.
Of course they are wrong on both counts.
stvdv
Veteran Member
How good is science as a religion?
Not good at all
Lacking the essence
Science needs Spirituality
Science knows hydrogen and oxygen
BUT...Who created hydrogen and oxygen?
Water is the effect, hydrogen and oxygen are the causes
Nothing can exist without a cause. The effect gradually changes.
That which changes is science. The changeless cause is spirituality.
How religion is science as good? Capitalize your Morals
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Science is not a religion and capitalism says nothing about how to act morally
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Most people will not believe it but since God invented science, everything in science points to God.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Where in the Bible does it say God invented science? Just curious.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
The same place it says dinner is a religion.
Scientism absolutely exists and is adhered to by many self identified skeptics who overestimate the utility of science and empiricism as the only or best way to accrue knowledge in every aspect of life. Or by people who tout said importance of science but don't actually keep up with it, so instead nurture traditionalist views that have been long debunked while being 'more intelligent than thou.' (For example people who fly off the handle when someone calls humans monkeys.)
However, this philosophical dead end doesn't meet the criteria of being a religion. And I think the tendency to conflate 'passion' with 'religion' does a discredit to religion, watering down the term to meaninglessness.
However, this philosophical dead end doesn't meet the criteria of being a religion. And I think the tendency to conflate 'passion' with 'religion' does a discredit to religion, watering down the term to meaninglessness.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
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?
Orbit
I'm a planet
Good thing you realize it's not there.
You don't usually come across it within the academic sphere because academics are taught to be highly suspicious of claims and conclusions (at least I was) and to recognize gaps in utility like social sciences or where falsification isn't possible.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?
Honestly where you see scientism the most is in 'skeptical' communities.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
I'm a little surprised you know what is or isn't there.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Do you have examples? I'm really curious about these people.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As a scientist now retired, no serious scientist would ever make such a claim as that's the polar opposite of the paradigm we use. This is why we much prefer to avoid using words like "proof" and even "fact", thus much more likely to use a term like "evidence".
Orbit
I'm a planet
Why? I was raised Christian and remained so until I reached about 50 years of age. Of course I know what is and isn't there.
Well, the one I gave in my original post was about people who in the year of our lord 2022 (joke) still argue with creationists about calling humans monkeys. Excepting the few who saw that AronRa video way back in like 2009, they're mostly using this faux taxonomy they're convinced is 'settled science,' and tend to think a lot of their traditionally held 'coming of agethism' (joke) views are settled science.
So they have this misplaced reverence for out of date ideas because it has significance to their debate, not significance to academics at large.
In the academic world the closest to scientism I see is when people who are in 'pure' science majors or fields denigrate the utility of 'soft' sciences, like things outside hard empiricism can't have said utility.