Science as a religion...

People can certainly relate to science in the same manner they relate to religion, but science doesn't function or grow using blind faith. The processes are opposite at their core, but that isn't going to stop anyone from turning science into a faith religion. Someone who's way of relating to the world is shaped by faith could easily apply those assumptions to science. This does not say anything about science itself, but about the particular person.
 
dylan said:
Oh come on! Sure it can! Just look at the news article tovlo just posted, about the 13 year old kid who doesn't want chemo. Now he's got a bunch of zealots (doctors) who are so invested in and faithful to their own reality structure that they are bringing legal action against someone who doesn't agree with their point of view! How come his refusal doesn't bring them to question their own motives?

And besides, science is taken on faith by everyone who isn't a scientist and doesn't have the wherewithal to conduct experiments and delve into deeper questioning on their own. The general populace has faith in what scientists have to say, and if they don't, they're labeled blasphemers...
Click to expand...
That's people being stupid, not science.
 
TheLastMohican said:
That's more of a legal/political issue. There is no argument about the science: chemotherapy is nasty, but it often works, and the kid has little chance of survival without it. That case is just about whether it is the government's business, because it is thought that the 13-year-old is being coerced/indoctrinated by his ill-informed parents into refusing potentially life-saving treatment, and that the parents' actions are a form of child abuse/neglect/endangerment.
Click to expand...
agreed
 
Shai Gar said:
That's people being stupid
Click to expand...

And so is blind faith in religion, when religion can be seen as a guide, a suggestion, a way different from science to explain the workings of the world. Just 'cause a few people have convinced many people not to question beyond the literal interpretation of [insert book name here] is not the fault of "religion" itself...





(I don't really know where I'm going with this, I'm just having fun tossing ideas into the fray...)
 
Shai Gar said:
Truth is not subject to the beliefs of people. It is objective.
Click to expand...


Truth is a label for an idea created by people. Truth is the belief in something to be of a certain state (whether true or having truth). I'm not sure how it could be objective, although people could try to use an objective system to understand it. In any case, you still have evaluations being made by subjective creatures (humans).

Shai Gar said:
Religion asks for Blind Faith
Science demands Complete Questioning.
Click to expand...

An interesting arrangement you have chosen; you have personified both science and religion. Religion does require some amount of faith, but calling it blind is a subjective judgment on your part. While the process of science is about mistrust and questioning currently 'accepted' facts, theories, and laws, it is also as much persuasion of others to believe in ideas (which may have some or no current objective support for its basis).

Science has also come up with many amazing discoveries and technologies that are interesting 'miracles' (such as personalized medicine, gravity, biotechnologies, etc). However, not everything that has been found/discovered by science are 'good' miracles (such as nuclear weapons, eugenics (in humans, such as Hitler's germany in WWII), chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc). Although there are many peaceful approaches to use what science has given us, I would argue that science and technology have allowed people to commit war, murder, and destruction on a larger scale. I personally do not want to be a part of any of those 'miracles'.
 
Last edited:
Truth is a label for a concept unseen by people.

It's an objective fact that is searched for. People cannot "make up" their own truths.
 
Truth is subjective; ask witnesses what happened at a crime scene. You will get many different stories; they all may contain truth, but none of them are the 'whole' truth. The subjective way that people view the world corrupts the truth.

What are the qualities associated with an objective fact?
 
Last edited:
In your example, the truth is what actually occurred, not what the witnesses SAID occurred. They are not speaking truth, but relaying memory.

The qualities that are associated with objective fact are "actually happened in the physical testable universe".
 
Even if something actually occured, it still requires an observer to record it and to relay it in some fashion.

So an objective fact is something that must be physically testable in the universe in order for it to be the Truth?
 
Last edited:
It never requires someone to relay it for it to be truth. It is truth by nature of being a fact.

And no, I'm wrong. It doesn't need to be in the physically testable universe. It only needs to actually exist, regardless of how or whether people see and relay it.
 
You guys are talking about two different things. Objective truth is self-evident, something is because it is. Subjective truth requires a SUBJECT in order to interpret or record what he or she deems as truth. So therefore multiple witnesses of a crime may have seen different things which to them may be subjectively true, their accounts must line up in order to determine the probability of what is objectively true.
 
Now that I think about it, science can't really be called a religion. It doesn't really have all the elements as one. Then again, anyone can all nearly anything a religion so I would imagine people would and could call there religion science.


And Shai turned Red... Run for the hill everyone! :tongue1:
 
No such thing as Subjective Truth. What you're talking about is "Relayed information".
 
slant said:
Science= A bunch of guesses
Religion= One big lie
Click to expand...

See, I don't like it when people say religion is a lie. Now don't get me wrong, I largely disagree with religion. However, people hold personal truth for it. I think there is a difference (and as such maybe new words need to be created to differentiate the two) between everyday truths and internal-personal truth.
 
People can view religion any way they want. If they don't believe it's a lie, good for them.

But the idea is ridiculous to me. I wouldn't deny them their rights to have religion, just as I wouldn't deny my rights to say that Religion is a lie.
 
No such thing as personal truth.

There are three levels of in epistemology.

Thought,
Belief,
Knowledge.


Just because someone thinks it is true does not make it true. The depth with which they old their conviction transfers it from Thought to Belief. Knowledge cannot be attained by humans.
 
Science is near god-like in power, we should worship gods, man wields science, we should worship man.
 
Shai Gar said:
No such thing as personal truth.

There are three levels of in epistemology.

Thought,
Belief,
Knowledge.


Just because someone thinks it is true does not make it true. The depth with which they old their conviction transfers it from Thought to Belief. Knowledge cannot be attained by humans.
Click to expand...

That's why I said another word needs to be created for it. I have internal-personal truths for myself that no one else will really be able to understand. However, for me they are true and factual. I think the fact that it can't really be extended beyond that is what makes it appear as if it isn't true.
 
Science is greek for Knowledge.

Of course Applied Knowledge is omnipotent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top