Science Is Religion

[scienceisreligion]

http://scienceisreligion.wordpress.com/

[MikeH]

Point taken. Religion then looks silly most of the time.

Not really. Verses in the Bible that deal with "science" are few and far between. It's just the controversy that gets highlighted all of the time. The entire creation/evolution debacle is based on a mere few verses in Genesis.

DNA and other scientific evidence attempts to answer who.
They base their conclusions on evidence. They attempt to impartially compile the evidence and come to a conclusion as to who and even why based on that evidence, put together with reason and logic. Does not sound like religion at all to me.

I do agree that forensic sciences can draw some pretty sound conclusions, and the line gets a little blurred here, but when you come down to it it's not entirely scientific. Eyewitness accounts are huge even though scientifically it's worth nothing, and you can't exactly replicate Johnny walking into the bedroom and finding his wife with another man, to see if you'll get the same result of him shooting them both, can ya?

But then when you come down to it, isn't why the same as how?

How is a process, why is a motive. They are different.

What can you do with it?

People do whatever they want with it depending on how they answer. Some lead selfish lives, some do nothing, some move to Africa and feed people, some blow people to bits.

Without addressing those important science questions, your religion is a bit hollow and pointless.

I agree.

[McCulloch]

Verses in the Bible that deal with "science" are few and far between. It's just the controversy that gets highlighted all of the time. The entire creation/evolution debacle is based on a mere few verses in Genesis.

And the dogma of Trinity is based on even fewer verses. Are you trying to claim that because the Bible only has a few silly (your word) claims that it should be held up as a good thing.

But then when you come down to it, isn't why the same as how?

How is a process, why is a motive. They are different.

I'm not quite so sure. If we were to discover all of the neurological processes, we would discover much about our motives. Unless you hold to the unscientific idea of a soul or spirit or other such disembodied being dwelling in our bodies which contain our free-will.

What can you do with it?

People do whatever they want with it depending on how they answer. Some lead selfish lives, some do nothing, some move to Africa and feed people, some blow people to bits.

People do whatever they want, regardless of how they answer. People do not lead selfish lives because of what they believe about who and why the universe was created. People help the poor because they feel genuine compassion or because they believe in some kind of unproven afterlife reward. Neither of these is a result of religion's who or why questions.

[MikeH]

And the dogma of Trinity is based on even fewer verses. Are you trying to claim that because the Bible only has a few silly (your word) claims that it should be held up as a good thing.

The trinity has nothing to do with science, though, so it doesn't really have anything to do with the religion/science debate.

If we were to discover all of the neurological processes, we would discover much about our motives. Unless you hold to the unscientific idea of a soul or spirit or other such disembodied being dwelling in our bodies which contain our free-will.

Ah, see this is a great example of the point I am trying to make. You have answered "Who created the universe?" with "nobody," and "Why was it created" with "There is no reason or purpose." Therefore, your religion is deterministic naturalism, and you make your own choice on how to act based on this.

Please note - each person will do different things based on their conclusions. you could very well love to give to charity or whatever based on wanting to make a better future or whatever your reasoning is - I don't think that every person that holds a particular belief has to act the exact same way, even though there are obviously certain stereotypes. God knows, it's hard enough simply to find a Christian that acts like a Christian.

[biologist]

Science is not religion. Scientists do not ever rely on faith to answer a question. There are many questions science cannot answer, but instead of inserting a supernatural being as an answer, we simply say "I don't know, yet"

[QED]

If we were to discover all of the neurological processes, we would discover much about our motives. Unless you hold to the unscientific idea of a soul or spirit or other such disembodied being dwelling in our bodies which contain our free-will.

Ah, see this is a great example of the point I am trying to make. You have answered "Who created the universe?" with "nobody," and "Why was it created" with "There is no reason or purpose." Therefore, your religion is deterministic naturalism, and you make your own choice on how to act based on this.

And if we state that it may be impossible to tell if our universe was created by somebody or nobody -- and state the same for purpose, what then is our religion? By reducing things to vitalism or mechanism we may well be creating a false dichotomy for ourselves. While science rules out some ancient concepts, it introduces new ones that often show the reason for our past misconceptions.

The scientific study of Biology has led to no discovery of new laws of physics. Does this mean that we can declare the existence of supernatural law (vitalism) to be proven as a consequence? In order for this to be true we first need to demonstrate a genuine necessity for it. On the other hand, how do we know if we have arrived at a complete description of a thing when we have documented its mechanism? If we use the analogy of a working computer, we can see that a precise and exhaustive description of its hardware would not complete the picture without also including all the details of the software it was running.

Science is quite aware of these kinds of considerations and the uncertainties they generate mean that science is not at all like a religion in that it can remain (indefinitely) on the middle-ground when faced with complementary ideas.

[MikeH]

And if we state that it may be impossible to tell if our universe was created by somebody or nobody -- and state the same for purpose, what then is our religion?

I'm pretty sure that's agnosticism.

Science is quite aware of these kinds of considerations and the uncertainties they generate mean that science is not at all like a religion in that it can remain (indefinitely) on the middle-ground when faced with complementary ideas.

I agree but would also submit that you can be religious and still remain on the middle-ground scientifically, since these "unknowns" should not affect the study of the natural world anyways.

[Cathar1950]

And if we state that it may be impossible to tell if our universe was created by somebody or nobody -- and state the same for purpose, what then is our religion?

I'm pretty sure that's agnosticism.

Science is quite aware of these kinds of considerations and the uncertainties they generate mean that science is not at all like a religion in that it can remain (indefinitely) on the middle-ground when faced with complementary ideas.

I agree but would also submit that you can be religious and still remain on the middle-ground scientifically, since these "unknowns" should not affect the study of the natural world anyways.

I guess I look at it this way the universe is the same for the believer and the unbeliever alike. It rains and shines on the good and the evil.
My experience has shown that many a believer doesn't know either.
But I tend to see faith as faithfulness not belief in a proposition that may or may not be true so it is more of an atitude or way of life or even a way of looking at things like someone looks at a painting or hears a song.

[realthinker]

But I tend to see faith as faithfulness . . .

What the h#ll is that? It's like saying "I tend to see black as blackness." Entirely true but meaningless. More gibberish that sounds religiously profound and appropriate but gets us nowhere.

Yes, it's an attitude, one of wrapping one's self in the rhetoric of the indoctrinated that shields one from the need to be rational or make sense when it's a struggle to craft a thought.

[realthinker]

I guess that at least bordered on being uncivil. I should save that for work tomorrow when I've got to kick my boss into gear.

[Cathar1950]

But I tend to see faith as faithfulness . . .

What the h#ll is that? It's like saying "I tend to see black as blackness." Entirely true but meaningless. More gibberish that sounds religiously profound and appropriate but gets us nowhere.

Yes, it's an attitude, one of wrapping one's self in the rhetoric of the indoctrinated that shields one from the need to be rational or make sense when it's a struggle to craft a thought.

No it is like saying faith is often looked at as believing in certain propositions as being true while faithfulness and trust presume the proposition.
I have no problem believing in my dad I that he existed but trusting him might be a different matter. You neither sound profound appropriate and your gibberish comment makes me question your claim that you want to get anywhere.
I have no desire to wrap myself in rhetoric or indoctrination nor am I shielding
myself reason from reason. But it seems your blanket whining is your struggle to craft a thought shrouded in a sophomoric complaint about attitudes you seem to display.
I am not even going to both using spell check as your post is not worth the effort.