Science Is Religion

[scienceisreligion]

http://scienceisreligion.wordpress.com/

[Fisherking]

I think strong atheistic principles are the foundation for weaker forms of atheism.
One will either interpret creation assuming it was created or will interpret creation assuming it was not. After these assumptions are made, directly or indirectly, it will affect how the scientific data is interpreted.

If the conclusion is predetermined prior to the observation and accumulation of data, then it will affect how it's interpreted. However, if we want to do good science, we ought to let the conclusion follow from the observations, data, and testing.

I agree, and if we follow the observations and data we find they are pointing to creation.

[Fisherking]

I think strong atheistic principles are the foundation for weaker forms of atheism.
One will either interpret creation assuming it was created or will interpret creation assuming it was not. After these assumptions are made, directly or indirectly, it will affect how the scientific data is interpreted.

If the conclusion is predetermined prior to the observation and accumulation of data, then it will affect how it's interpreted. However, if we want to do good science, we ought to let the conclusion follow from the observations, data, and testing.

I agree, and if we follow the observations and data we find they are pointing to creation.

[Chad]

I think strong atheistic principles are the foundation for weaker forms of atheism.
One will either interpret creation assuming it was created or will interpret creation assuming it was not. After these assumptions are made, directly or indirectly, it will affect how the scientific data is interpreted.

If the conclusion is predetermined prior to the observation and accumulation of data, then it will affect how it's interpreted. However, if we want to do good science, we ought to let the conclusion follow from the observations, data, and testing.

I agree, and if we follow the observations and data we find they are pointing to creation.

That's a debate for another thread I think.

I was objecting to the statement that strong atheistic principles (In fact, there really only seems to be one principle), need not be the foundation for weak atheism. I would consider myself a weak atheist. I'm open to the idea that God may exist, but I have currently not seen any convincing data that shows that God does in fact exist. So I consider God's existence very improbable, but do not reject it outright.

[realthinker]

I agree, and if we follow the observations and data we find they are pointing to creation.

Being that there has never been an observation to suggest non-existence the data are probably suggesting continued and uninterrupted existence without a need for creation.

[Catharsis]

The "conflict" between Faith and Science is a problem in the Christian West, as it arose from confusion of knowledge -- there are two separate types of knowledge and of wisdom: Supernatural (Divine) and Natural (Secular). The two 'types' require two separate methods of 'learning'.

Nothing excludes the co-existence of faith and science when faith is not imaginary metaphysics and science does not falsify its positive character with the use of metaphysics.

[realthinker]

Science and religion are separated by their positions regarding evidence and authority. Science does not accept evidence that has validity based only on the proclamation of an arbitrary authority.

The evidence of science should be valid no matter who is evaluating it. Scientific claims are based on experimentation that is repeated. The results are published and peer reviewed. When the claims don't stand up to that they're dismissed.

The evidence of religion is valid only if you grant the authority of its source. Even when the source is similar -- such as the bible -- the interpretations may not be compatible. In such a case there is no single authority, such as objective measurement, so it is only the acceptance of an arbitrary authority that provides validity.

[QED]

I agree, and if we follow the observations and data we find they are pointing to creation.

So this would be a conclusion drawn from observational and experimental science? You could do us a great service then by explaining how this leads us to an intelligently designed universe -- perhaps in the topic I started for this very purpose:
Our Universe: one of many or specially designed?

Please use this as an opportunity to demonstrate your confidence in your claim. While you fail to explain your conclusions you leave me with the impression that they're based solely upon faith in a few words written at a time when people thought the Sun orbited the Earth.

[crystalmage]

First christianity is the largest religion. Stats would back that up. Second, in the countries that are #1, the most powerful, and #2, have the most advanced science and technology (Like the US, most of europe, etc. "first world countries"), popularity in christianity is decreasing, and popularity in being agnostic, atheistic, etc, is increasing. There's stats to back this fact up also. for the sake of simplicity, i'm going to call that group of people those that belong to "no religion"

So it only makes logical sense that at some point in time that there will be more people believing in "no religion" than in christianity, right?

But these people that are agnostic, atheistic, etc, they ALL believe in modern scientific laws/theories/principles. For example, they probably all believe in the fact that the earth orbits the sun. and of course, this discovery was made after the birth of jesus in 1AD.

Yet, if you ask these same people why the big bang started, or how it started, they couldn't tell you. they will all say that it's always been there. They don't have an answer. They just have a belief that it was always like that. You ask if there's life on other planets, and there's no definite answer. there's just a belief.

and THAT is when you know that these people that believe in "no religion" actually do... it's the religion of modern scientific laws/theories and what they "still cant explain" that they have faith in. and that is religion....

I just started thinking today that atheism is just a religion. That it's not based on science. If we had hard concrete undeniable scientific evidence of the non existance of god then atheism would be scientific. But in the absence of undeniable scientific evidence it's just a belief. It's just a religion just like christianity and any other religion. It's based on belief. Now that said that the fact that atheism is based on belief doesn't in itself prove the existance of god.

[Chad]

I just started thinking today that atheism is just a religion. That it's not based on science. If we had hard concrete undeniable scientific evidence of the non existance of god then atheism would be scientific. But in the absence of undeniable scientific evidence it's just a belief. It's just a religion just like christianity and any other religion. It's based on belief. Now that said that the fact that atheism is based on belief doesn't in itself prove the existance of god.

Under you definition, a lot of things turn into religions. The word religion refers to a set of beliefs or practices followed by a group/community/population (this is a rough definition). Religion also, generally, includes rituals, spiritual/supernatural beliefs, etc. Atheism is simply the disbelief in God(s) and branches into strong and weak atheism. There isn't even a belief involved; only a disbelief. It seems odd to classify it as a religion.

Here's an example that will help this thought...

There's a lot of people that believe in astrology. What about all the people that don't believe in astrology? Should they have a name to define themselves for their disbelief? Would this somehow classify it as a religion, by simply giving a name to their disbelief? I don't see any reason why it should, as their disbelief in one thing doesn't say really anything else about them or bind them to a broader set of beliefs.

[realthinker]

I just started thinking today that atheism is just a religion. That it's not based on science.

There is a facet of atheism that I think you've failed to acknowledge, as have most of the professed atheists here as well, I'd guess. There are some of us that no longer care if God exists or whether Christianity and its basis in the bible are genuine. Religion is part of a bigger idea that encompasses all of human behavior an social evolution. It has its place, it's a real phenomenon and a contributor to the social order. It cannot be denied any more than it can be proven. So it's got to be figured into the higher understanding just like economics, politics, gender, sexuality, culture.

Look at it this way. You may believe that the Yankees are the best team. Your buddy might think it's the Red Sox. You can argue that all day. In the mean time I'm going to go cut my grass. Your argument doesn't figure into what I have to get done.

Stereotypical atheists argue that God doesn't exist. Christians would argue differently. In the mean time I'm going to study ancient history and psychology and philosophy and learn about my fellow man to understand why you'd care. Your beliefs and your argumentation is a symptom of the real condition that I'm going to try to understand.

Still, since I'm not going to acknowledge a god, I guess you'd have to lump me in with the atheists.