I agree…technology is often a good, in-your-face, example of how science has worked for us.
But if you did do the experiment, the results would be as expected.
Is it really faith? Or is it an acceptance of tried-and-true methods of describing nature? Faith is belief without evidence. In science, the evidence is laid out for you to examine.
I may not have proved the existence of quarks myself, but I accept the methods used to prove their existence. Even more important, if the existence of quarks is disproved, then I will accept the more correct explanation. In religion, contradictory evidence is generally ignored. Take for example, all the people who still take Genesis literally.
nit pic…that’s one of the foundations of math, not science. the only thing that could collapse science is if the universe did not have natural processes that were understandable. since science is a method for understanding, not an automatic list of beliefs, any new contradictory evidence is examined and either debunked or incorporated into our overall understanding.
Hence, the qualifying sentence that followed:
[/quote]
One example is Lobachevsky’s discovery of the fatal imperfection in Euclidean geometry, “namely, the failure to realize that the fundamental axioms in any mathematical science are assumptions.” — The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics, Edna E. Kramer, 1982, Princeton Press.
[/quote]
I believe the separation of math and science is arbitrary.
Yeah, it’s inductive. But not all science is cosmology.
Addressing the OP… I humbly submit that science is not, strictly speaking, a religion, but that on an individual basis it can become something very close to one. Here’s what I mean:
Let’s say scientist does an experiment, and the results of his experiment differ completely from three previously accepted experiments. When he writes his findings, he concludes that there must have been indeterminate experimental error. Yet, in reality he was correct and the previous experiments were in error. Maybe out of curiosity he seeks to find where he went wrong but can’t, yet he is unable to find errors in the other experiments. Out of fear of public embarrassment if proved wrong, the fact that he can’t afford to lose his grant money, and his own doubts, he decides to dismiss his results.
In this example, the scientist by blind faith accepts the dogma preached by his peers, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Of course not all scientists would act in the same manner; not all Catholics would blindly accept a Papal declaration that murder of Jews is OK.
But where science seems to extend closest to becoming religion is when the general public blindly accepts (and/or misinterprets) scientific findings as fact without caring about the evidence. I guarantee there are people who believe there is definitive scientific proof of life on Mars simply because of that one inconclusive rock.
No, faith (in that sense) is belief without proof. Big difference.
From Merriam-Webster: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.
And as I explained in some detail above, whatever you might think you have proven, either by reason or experience, is not proven at all without begging the question or waiting eternally for a counter-example.
This thread sent me off on a long daydream about how, as an atheist, I die and go to hell to find that the scientists in hell have discovered how to use all that energy from the hellfires to power everything from airconditioners to manufacturing plants. Fuel is unnecessary. There’s energy everywhere. Death is good. There is a ongoing debate about trying to inform the living and whether that would be immoral or not. Others debate whether we should invite god to visit and whether that would shut down our energy source. The biggest problem is overcrowding in the jails since we’ve got all the real evil people from over the centuries. At least, we don’t have to worry about rehabilitation. There is no rehabilitation after death. Once again, science triumphs over evil.
Why would an atheist necessarily die and “go to hell”? Gaudere is an atheist, and she is “in heaven”.
Lib – you are an atheist now?
Yes, jb_farley I realize what is and isn’t divine revelation is ultimately circular reasoning (or at least axiomatic). But you can’t use more circular reasoning to debunk circular reasoning and that was where I took issue with that argument.
Science itself is not a religion. It can be taken as a religion, however.
We cannot yet derive with certainty conclusions about the natural world from a process of reasoning because we do not have all the facts. An observable fact could be just around the corner that would contradict the most obvious and certain thing that we “know” about science now.
If you had asked a scientist ten years ago whether vacuum has mass, the question would have been absurd. Obviously not; that’s one of the simplest and most basic facts about physics. Well, here’s an observed fact just around the corner to tell us that vacuum can have mass.
Well, good. Now we can incorporate that fact into our theories, improve them and make them a better part of our understanding of the natural world. That’s science.
On the other hand, the attitude that the conclusions of science are in any way undoubtable - like our scientist declaiming on the mass of vacuum ten years ago - is a dogma (which is, incidentally, the opposite of faith). That’s what people mean when they describe science as a religion. It’s not. But it can be and often is abused by being made into such.
I would like to again clarify that I do not think faith is sufficient to qualify any belief as religion. Nor is a passionate devotion to an idea. Let’s look at this more closely.
-
I believe with no evidence at all that there is a piece of brie in my refrigerator. Is this a religion or a religions belief? (No, so faith without evidence is not sufficient for religion.)
-
I believe very firmly that the current Cubs are the best baseball team ever, despite the lack of objective evidence for this belief. I am very passionate about this belief and talk about it whenever possible. Is this a religion? (No, although many like to say “it’s his religion” in such a circumstance–but they are generally speaking metaphorically, and do not think Cub fans should be able to get religious exemptions for their organizations.)
-
I believe homeopathy actually works despite poor evidence. I talk to people about this constantly. Is this a religion? (No; see above)
-
I believe mankind is the manifestation of souls who have become bored with eternal happiness, so they take physical form. When they tire of physicality, they allow “accidents” or disease or aging to return themselves to eternal happiness. Our purpose is to have as many experiences as possible so that we will be less bored when we die; whatever you want to do is OK, as long as it’s novel and interesting. Is this a religion? (I’d say yes–complete worldview and metaphysical beliefs, establishes purpose and morality, has a concept of metaphysical beings)
-
I believe that examining the world can tell us true things about it. I believe that certain propositions with a great deal of empirical evidence behind them are true. This belief has no bearing on my beliefs about man’s or the universe’s purpose, nor does it give a moral code. Is this religion? (I’d say no; it has certain metaphysical assumptions (like that the world is real and comprehensible by our minds, our perceptions are valid), but no establishment of a purpose for the universe or mankind, and no moral code.)
I am strongly tempted to say that, in addition to a complete metaphysical worldview, faith in certain propositions, a purpose for man/the universe and probably a moral code, a religion requires a belief in the metaphysical existence of a being or beings. I think that would be a good litmus test for telling the difference between philosophy and religion. I cannot think of anything I feel must neccessarily be classed as a “religion” that does not have metaphysically existing beings (or at least a being).
Science=Religion?
Not quite, but close. I think that a lot of science is based on assumptions, and the faith in said assumptions.
For instance, we assume that we’re genetically related to apes. All the evidence would say we are. There’s no evidence to say we aren’t. Does that make it likely? Yes. Does that makes it true? No.
When you get right down to it, our lives are based upon assumptions. They have to be, it’s the only way to operate. We assume when we go to work in the morning that it’ll still be there. We assume when we go to catch the bus, that the bus didn’t explode somewhere along the line. But your workplace is probably still there, and the bus will probably show up, though not necessarily on time. We assume these things are true, so that we can go through life.
Science works in much the same way. We haven’t seen anything go faster than light, therefore it’s impossible to go faster than light. Planets and stars that have more mass seem to have more gravity, therefore gravity is based on mass.
All of science is based on these assumptions, which are probably true, but not necessarily. And when somebody believes these assumptions without a doubt, I call that faith.
Also remember that while you say that science is evidence, many christians would call the bible evidence. Science has a lot more credibility than the bible, but many people approach them both the same way. “This is the way. Any other way is ignorant.”
Oh yeah, in conclusion to the above: Science isn’t religion, but they do have a lot in common.
re: proof – agreed, good point.
re: waiting eternally for a counter example – again, I agree, but I’d say that this is why science does not claim to offer absolute truth. The goal is to develop the best theories (explanations) possible.
Well, not quite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science will take facts like “planets have mass” & “planets have gravity”, then correlate the two (an equation relating gravity to mass), then develop a theory to explain why it is so. It’s not merely based on what can be directly observed. Relativity describes spacetime very well. FTL travel is thought to be impossible because it contradicts the conclusions of a well proven theory. If FTL travel were observed to happen, then as you imply, scientists would have to re-evaluate the Theory of Relativity.
Phobos
We seem to have reached a general agreement.
jmullaney
No, at least not the way I understand the various definitions of atheism.
But I do say that I am not religious because religion is one of those disciplines (along with business, government, science, and the arts) that has become infested with politics. There is always either a High Holy Headknocker, or a majority mob assembly, or a council of mysterious wise men and elders, or some other mechanism in place that imposes its will on its members.
What I call myself is a Christian, as I understand the term to mean follower of Christ. Unfortunately, that often associates me with people who follow a “Christ” whom I do not recognize.
It has been an interesting life for me in terms of world-view changes. I have been a Melancholy for as long as I can remember, and as such could never rest until all these philosophical loose ends were tied up. The odd result is that I have gone from Marxist Existentialist Atheist to Libertarian Objectivist Christian. And there I will stay until I am presented compelling arguments that (1) peaceful honest people ought not to be allowed to pursue their own happiness in their own way, (2) that A is not A, and (3) that God does not love me.
And when somebody doubts those assumptions for no other reason than to be oh-so-Foucault or some other deconstructionist claptrap, I call that silly.
Ah, Libertarian, that is what I thought you meant.
Lib–you would stop loving God if He did not love you? Why?
Some people here are missing the point, I think. The argument they are using is, “Well, since you are not a biochemical engineer yourself, you are taking the words of biochemical engineers on faith, which ergo makes it like a religion.”
When we listen to the biochemical engineer, even if you were going to extrapolate it into religion, it is not biochemical engineer = God.
If anything was to be used here, it would be:
Biochemical Engineer = Preacher
Evidence = God
The scientist and the preacher both take things - the scientist takes data and evidence, the preacher takes religious texts and (ideally, though probably not as often) his own inspiration and passes that along to us as truth.
As such, the only loigical way you can call science a religion is if you are prepared to say that you worship a pastor or rabbai instead of God.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, five days, 15 hours, 22 minutes and 29 seconds.
4145 cigarettes not smoked, saving $518.20.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 9 hours, 25 minutes.