How good is science as a religion?

[metis]

We all act on our beliefs and there's nothing wrong in believing Darwin was right. There is a problem with believing in Darwin or believing in science.

With Darwin, we know that he was right on some things and wrong on some others, so we certifiably don't consider him to be a "prophet".

 

[vulcanlogician]

You seem to be treating the words "scientism" and "science" as interchangeable synonyms. Is that your intent? Please explain.

No. They are not interchangeable. Scientism is a bias toward the best evidence science can provide. Science just tries to know the world through empirical observation and experimentation.

Two different things. Not synonymous.

 

[gnostic]

We glorify ourselves, that's the point. And we are headed for trouble when we do.

That said, there are some human acheivements which I think we can reasonanly describe as glorious; The Cistine Chapel, for example, or Mozart's Requiem.

There are nothing wrong about recognizing achievements of people for their works, and giving credits where it’s due.
That’s not about glorifying or worshipping anyone.

The thread’s topic by @robocop (actually) is about equating “science” as a “religion”:

“How good is science as a religion?”​

Religion is defined as -

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power especially of personal God or gods.

A particular system of faith and worship.​

(The above’s source is quoted from Oxford Dictionary of English. They are dictionary’s definitions, not my own.)

Neither definitions apply to Natural Sciences, as there are no “worshipping” of any supernatural or superhuman god or gods, involved.

Science isn’t even study of god or religion. If you want study religion, then try theology, Bible study, comparative religion or comparative mythology. None of these subjects concern with Natural Sciences.

Natural Sciences are about studying natural phenomena, trying to understand WHAT it is and HOW it work. So sciences are about testing the falsifiable explanatory/predictive model (eg hypothesis or theory), and these tests require evidence or experiments, or both.

A hypothesis is a proposed solution or solutions as to the WHAT & HOW questions. The testing is only way to analyze if the hypothesis is scientifically viable solution.

The evidence and experiments are required, as they are only objective way to test the models of a hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is a set of procedures that involved 2 main stages:

1. formulation of the hypothesis
   
2. testing the hypothesis (with evidence or experiments)

The tests will determine if the hypothesis is "scientific" or "not scientific".

Now, the Scientific Method only applied to -

• Natural Sciences studies of nature (eg natural phenomena, natural processes).
  
• Physical Sciences, studies of physical objects that are man-made, like technology (eg civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electronics, computers, medicine and medical technology, etc).

There are some overlaps between Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, because they involved knowing the same sciences, like physics, chemistry, etc.

There are other sciences that don't require Scientific Method, as they have their own ways of testings:

• Formal Sciences, which logic and mathematics. Mathematics are method of problem solving, using numbers and equations (eg equation solving).
• Social Sciences, which is the studies of -
  
  • human behaviors (eg psychology, behavioral science, etc),
    
  • human cultures (eg sociology, human geography or demography, anthropology, human customs, etc),
    
  • human activities (eg again human customs, history, archaeology, political sciences, economics, laws, etc).

No matters, which of these sciences and their respective fields, none of these involve in worshipping any supernatural entities (eg gods, spirits).

Scientists are not gods or prophets, they are not all-seeing or all-knowing, and there are nothing supernatural about scientists.

I find robocop's motives questionable when he (or she) would equate science and religion as one and the same. They are not the same.

 

[robocop (actually)]

What you are saying is that the outcome of capitalism is not moral, not that Capitalism is a moral system. Correct?

I think you had a typo.
If you meant to say, "What you are saying is that the outcome of capitalism is moral, not that Capitalism is a moral system" I would somewhat agree. It fails as a moral system, but it has some pros too.

 

[robocop (actually)]

There are nothing wrong about recognizing achievements of people for their works, and giving credits where it’s due.
That’s not about glorifying or worshipping anyone.

The thread’s topic by @robocop (actually) is about equating “science” as a “religion”:

“How good is science as a religion?”​

Religion is defined as -

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power especially of personal God or gods.

A particular system of faith and worship.​

(The above’s source is quoted from Oxford Dictionary of English. They are dictionary’s definitions, not my own.)

Neither definitions apply to Natural Sciences, as there are no “worshipping” of any supernatural or superhuman god or gods, involved.

Science isn’t even study of god or religion. If you want study religion, then try theology, Bible study, comparative religion or comparative mythology. None of these subjects concern with Natural Sciences.

Natural Sciences are about studying natural phenomena, trying to understand WHAT it is and HOW it work. So sciences are about testing the falsifiable explanatory/predictive model (eg hypothesis or theory), and these tests require evidence or experiments, or both.

A hypothesis is a proposed solution or solutions as to the WHAT & HOW questions. The testing is only way to analyze if the hypothesis is scientifically viable solution.

The evidence and experiments are required, as they are only objective way to test the models of a hypothesis.

The Scientific Method is a set of procedures that involved 2 main stages:

1. formulation of the hypothesis
   
2. testing the hypothesis (with evidence or experiments)

The tests will determine if the hypothesis is "scientific" or "not scientific".

Now, the Scientific Method only applied to -

• Natural Sciences studies of nature (eg natural phenomena, natural processes).
  
• Physical Sciences, studies of physical objects that are man-made, like technology (eg civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electronics, computers, medicine and medical technology, etc).

There are some overlaps between Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences, because they involved knowing the same sciences, like physics, chemistry, etc.

There are other sciences that don't require Scientific Method, as they have their own ways of testings:

• Formal Sciences, which logic and mathematics. Mathematics are method of problem solving, using numbers and equations (eg equation solving).
• Social Sciences, which is the studies of -
  • human behaviors (eg psychology, behavioral science, etc),
    
  • human cultures (eg sociology, human geography or demography, anthropology, human customs, etc),
    
  • human activities (eg again human customs, history, archaeology, political sciences, economics, laws, etc).

No matters, which of these sciences and their respective fields, none of these involve in worshipping any supernatural entities (eg gods, spirits).

Scientists are not gods or prophets, they are not all-seeing or all-knowing, and there are nothing supernatural about scientists.

I find robocop's motives questionable when he (or she) would equate science and religion as one and the same. They are not the same.

I think of science as a religion that rational people everywhere can agree on. It doesn't need to have any of the stuff you mentioned.

 

[firedragon]

I think you had a typo.
If you meant to say, "What you are saying is that the outcome of capitalism is moral, not that Capitalism is a moral system" I would somewhat agree. It fails as a moral system, but it has some pros too.

So you think the outcome of capitalism is moral. Okay.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So you think the outcome of capitalism is moral. Okay.

Somewhat, anyway.

 

[firedragon]

Somewhat, anyway.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Five Solas]

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

Science is not a religion.
Capitalism is not a moral system

 

[cladking]

With Darwin, we know that he was right on some things and wrong on some others, so we certifiably don't consider him to be a "prophet".

Now that We know what He was right about and wrong about We finally know everything and confirms Our faith in the Church of Homo Omnisciencis.

Praise be to Man, His Handy Work and His Wisdom.

 

[cladking]

Science is not a religion.
Capitalism is not a moral system

Capitalism as is practiced today is Greed and the rejection of any moral system and is justified in purchased science.

 

[metis]

Now that we know what he was right about and wrong about we finally know everything and confirms our faith in the Church of Homo Omnisciencis.

Not really, as I believe faith comes from the inside, not the outside.

 

[Five Solas]

Not really, as I believe faith comes from the inside, not the outside.

Nope. Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, that is to say, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Sola Fide
We cannot generate saving faith from the inside.

 

[cladking]

Not really, as I believe faith comes from the inside, not the outside.

I hardly disagree.

I've always said that people pick and choose their beliefs before they see only their beliefs and act solely on what they believe before eventually becoming their beliefs.

In a very real way we are the individual whom is picking and choosing his beliefs. In a very real way this individual remains the same no matter what beliefs he chooses or how long he lives. Some might call him the "soul" or "personality" or any number of words might apply. Perhaps it is formed by the individual's genes or by the consciousness which arises therefrom. Perhaps it was created by God and merely manifests as consciousness that is suitable.

But be this as it may we are each still a product of our own making. I always tell children to be careful what they choose to believe because they will become those beliefs. If you choose to believe in ugly things you will become a product of that.

 

[cladking]

Not really, as I believe faith comes from the inside, not the outside.

I believe Darwin was wrong across the board. He had nothing right because his premises were flawed. Things he got that seem to be right are only correct in a left handed sort of way.

But this is still the foundation of many peoples' beliefs. They believe in Darwin and they believe in science.

Science isn't about belief; it is experimental results vis a vis its assumptions and axioms. Schools now teach "Science" as a religion.

 

[gnostic]

Capitalism as is practiced today is Greed and the rejection of any moral system and is justified in purchased science.

Is communism any better?

With Communism, the ownership of businesses and profits go to the governments, who grow fat and rich, due to corruption and greed by their oligarchic-style governments, leaders, politicians and military leaders.

Both capitalism and communism are in their respective theory are good, in an ideal world, but in practice, greed and corruption can and have occurred both side of economies, because there are no things as ideal world or utopia.

Both systems, capitalism & communism systems are both economic systems, so they are tied to political systems and social systems, neither are moral systems.

Also, neither systems have anything to do with sciences. That just another one of your paranoid fantasies - your latest conspiracy theory.

It’s funny how you blame Darwin for everything.

 

[ScottySatan]

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

I think it's a fair question because many ask it.

In science, there is dogma, there is faith.

There is no ritual. There is no baptism, no marriage, no funeral rites prescribed. There is no social function. Therefore science is not a religion.

Lots of people confuse religion with science because it has faith and origin stories. But science offers no comfort to the grieving, and is comfortable in saying "we don't know...yet".

 

[cladking]

It’s funny how you blame Darwin for everything.

Darwin wanted to believe in science and survival of the fittest so he did and he took the world with him down the rabbit hole.

Obviously Darwin wasn't solely to blame. Champollion set the stage and nobody had to follow Darwin. In the 19th century there was no means to understand the nature of consciousness or the language underlying human consciousness. There was no means to perform relevant experiment in the field and no history of experiment that applied. It was quite natural that the theory would arise when and as it did. If it weren't Darwin someone else would have dreamed it up.

Now we have an economy without morals that answers to Greed. It runs on inefficiency and waste because profits are no longer dependent on building a better mousetrap but on using employees, suppliers, and customers. If you run short then call up your favorite government official to change the rules in your favor.

Capitalism is based on competition and this includes competition for capital. No such competition exists any longer.

But science offers no comfort to the grieving, and is comfortable in saying "we don't know...yet".

Except that most believers in science already have every answer.

 

[metis]

Nope. Ephesians 2:8: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, that is to say, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Sola Fide
We cannot generate saving faith from the inside.

There's a misunderstanding of where I was coming from, as I mean that we need to be receptive, otherwise it'll just pass us by.

 

[metis]

I believe Darwin was wrong across the board. He had nothing right because his premises were flawed. Things he got that seem to be right are only correct in a left handed sort of way.

But this is still the foundation of many peoples' beliefs. They believe in Darwin and they believe in science.

Science isn't about belief; it is experimental results vis a vis its assumptions and axioms. Schools now teach "Science" as a religion.

As a scientist, now retired, the above is 100% wrong and on multiple counts. However, it has long appeared to me that you have a very closed mind, so I'm not going to waste either of our time. Science is not based on blind belief as everything is subject for further testing.