Do you believe that science is a religion?

[snr5557]

Please reply with your answer.

 

[River Jordan]

Only according to one very narrow definition of the word, as in an interest that is very important to a group of people. By the same definition, golf, soccer, cooking, and anything else some group of people consider very important are religions.

According to the most common connotation of the word (a belief in god or gods), no. Science is merely the application of the scientific method.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Please reply with your answer.

No it is not

But the theory of evolution has all the attributes of a religion ... it is a "belief system"

 

[River Jordan]

No it is not

But the theory of evolution has all the attributes of a religion ... it is a "belief system"

How so?

 

[Harry3142]

Idolatry does not need to have a statue which certain people claim to be the representation of a deity. Any belief which replaces trusting in God with trusting in it can be seen as an idol. So science can be seen as an idol in the same manner as Baal and Molech were.

 

[snr5557]

[ quote name="Harry3142" post="218859" timestamp="1391201354"]
Idolatry does not need to have a statue which certain people claim to be the representation of a deity. Any belief which replaces trusting in God with trusting in it can be seen as an idol. So science can be seen as an idol in the same manner as Baal and Molech were.[/quote]

I don't see it that way. I don't distrust God because of science, it makes me love Him more that He would have the Earth make sense.

 

[aspen]

No. Claiming that science is a religion is an attempt by religious people to dismiss it as an authority. No one questions Christians who dismiss competing religions because we are simply declaring our commitment to Christ. Because science is an intellectual discipline, it is not as easily dismissed, unless it is reframed as a competing religious system. It also fits with the dualistic idea of many Christians who want to demonize everything not covered by the Bible.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

In the purest sense , science is an attempt to figure out created things and how the creator makes everything work.

Whether a scientist believes in a creator or not , is beside the point.

DNA existed before mankind discovered it.

However , mankind pats the DNA scientist on the back as though "science" or "scientists" created or invented DNA.

In the past 100 years our brightest physicists and scientists discovered the immense energy with the tiny atom , and learned how to release that energy.

Mankind hold them up as being ... "the smartest guys in the world" ... and that is fair

But not one of them can even comprehend how all that energy got into the atom in the first place. That takes some real power.

All of a sudden we should realize there is something a lot smarter and more powerful than anything mankind has to offer.

God Himself claims to be that entity . He invented DNA. He invented the atom. He invented mankind.

However mankind prefers to be their own little gods and often set the Big God aside

Thus scientists are playing the role of "little gods" .... whether they realize it or not .... and whether they believe in God or not.

 

[snr5557]

In the purest sense , science is an attempt to figure out created things and how the creator makes everything work.

I'm with you here


Whether a scientist believes in a creator or not , is beside the point.

True, it's the actual science that's really important


DNA existed before mankind discovered it.

Well yeah

However , mankind pats the DNA scientist on the back as though "science" or "scientists" created or invented DNA.


I've never heard that. The only thing I've heard scientists doing is taking credit for having discovered this.

In the past 100 years our brightest physicists and scientists discovered the immense energy with the tiny atom , and learned how to release that energy.

Mankind hold them up as being ... "the smartest guys in the world" ... and that is fair

But not one of them can even comprehend how all that energy got into the atom in the first place. That takes some real power.

Science takes time, be patient. We may in ten, fifteen, one hundred years later from today know, or we may never know, but hopefully you don't write science or scientists off yet. I'm not saying you are, it just reads that way on my end.


All of a sudden we should realize there is something a lot smarter and more powerful than anything mankind has to offer.

God Himself claims to be that entity . He invented DNA. He invented the atom. He invented mankind.

However mankind prefers to be their own little gods and often set the Big God aside

Thus scientists are playing the role of "little gods" .... whether they realize it or not .... and whether they believe in God or not.


I completely disagree. No real scientist is saying that he or she created DNA or humanity. They would more than likely be cast out by other scientists if they claimed credit for creating creating humanity.

 

[River Jordan]

So anyone who dares to discover something is "playing the role of a little god"? :blink:

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

snr5557

I agree with most of what you said .... I should also have stated that I have no problems with scientists or science , and I am sure God approves of science as well

But it is when science , and scientists try to explain the origins of everything (evolution) .... they have stepped out of the bounds of proper science .... they present a theory .... which amounts to a "belief system" .... which belongs in the religious realm .... not the scientific realm

To me that is the issue .... the mixing of science with theory (and then label it all as factual science).

Nothing wrong with theory .... but if we open the door to teaching theory in the classroom , then creationism has just as much right in the classroom as any other theory


Hope that makes sense.

 

[snr5557]

snr5557

I agree with most of what you said .... I should also have stated that I have no problems with scientists or science , and I am sure God approves of science as well

But it is when science , and scientists try to explain the origins of everything (evolution) .... they have stepped out of the bounds of proper science .... they present a theory .... which amounts to a "belief system" .... which belongs in the religious realm .... not the scientific realm

To me that is the issue .... the mixing of science with theory (and then label it all as factual science).

Nothing wrong with theory .... but if we open the door to teaching theory in the classroom , then creationism has just as much right in the classroom as any other theory


Hope that makes sense.

In some ways I do, in others I don't agree. Evolution isn't a faith, people have observed and tested evolution and have found the results consistent enough to be taught in a classroom.

Creationism cannot be tested in any way, so it should not be in classrooms (unless it's a religion class) at all, regardless of whether evolution is being taught or not.

 

[River Jordan]

Arnie,

You need to look up the definition of "theory" as used in science. It's not at all what you're portraying it to be.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Arnie,

You need to look up the definition of "theory" as used in science. It's not at all what you're portraying it to be.

It was not me who calls it the theory of evolution.

That term comes from your camp.

Nice try.

 

[River Jordan]

You remind me of the Asimov quote...."Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

Now, science OTOH defines a theory as....

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

If you disagree, please show me a scientific source that defines a scientific theory closer to what you're claiming.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

You remind me of the Asimov quote...."Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

Now, science OTOH defines a theory as....

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

If you disagree, please show me a scientific source that defines a scientific theory closer to what you're claiming.

I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.

My theory has been 100% proven 100% of the time.

 

[snr5557]

I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.

My theory has been 100% proven 100% of the time.

He was responding to the fact that you don't quite understand what a theory is. He was giving you the definition, and a quote for fun.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

He was responding to the fact that you don't quite understand what a theory is. He was giving you the definition, and a quote for fun.

I understand what a theory is , always have

I also understand that a theory is not a fact.

The theory of evolution is often presented as a scientific fact.

 

[River Jordan]

I have a theory that every time the evolutionist gets pressed into a corner he changes the subject and tries to shift the argument over to the goatsbeard plants or Asimov quotes.

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense. You brought up the issue of the word "theory". I merely showed that you were using the term incorrectly. If you disagree with the scientific usage of the word theory that I posted, then please provide an alternative definition from a scientific source. If you are unable to do so, then my point stands.

I understand what a theory is , always have

Your previous posts show that you don't. Hopefully you'll understand better now.

I also understand that a theory is not a fact.

The theory of evolution is often presented as a scientific fact.

Scientific theories don't become facts, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense. You brought up the issue of the word "theory". I merely showed that you were using the term incorrectly. If you disagree with the scientific usage of the word theory that I posted, then please provide an alternative definition from a scientific source. If you are unable to do so, then my point stands.


Your previous posts show that you don't. Hopefully you'll understand better now.

Scientific theories don't become facts, scientific theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.

It is fair to say that the word theory can be used in many contexts .... some correct and some not correct.

But my issue has nothing to do with the word theory .... the problem is the mis-use of the word evolution by folks like you Jordan River

let me give you an example ....

You have observed the goatsbeard plant produce a unique new plant within the goatsbeard family .... no problem with that ..... then you call it proof of evolution .... I prefer to call it proof that the goatsbeard plant has the inherent genetics to reproduce a new strain previously unseen.

That would not really be a problem except you also use the same word (evolution) to say it gives you proof that in 3.8 billion years that goatsbeard plant could potentially become your little sister.

It is not me who intentionally mis-uses words ... it is the evolutionist who does .

And the evolutionist uses thousands of side arguments about words (etc) as a distraction when he is flat out asked if he believes his little sister originated from a vegetable or ape in Africa .