Is science a religion?

[C C]

Science must be able to repeat and reproduce.

The social sciences and broader domain of human sciences certainly needs more replication in terms of experimental results reported by original studies. But justification for an approved _X_ in overall science isn't confined to literally repeating "on the table" its developmental stages if such are subsumed in an explanation of it.

Some disciplinary areas (like biological evolution) can't directly and immediately reproduce the asserted, lengthy origin process of a target of research; and thereby depend upon verifying the mechanisms and regularities that yielded it. Along with preserved evidence of the past affairs being intellectively coupled with the former.

Astronomical and cosmological endeavors depend heavily upon gathered data managed by tested and reliable principles -- and inferential and mathematical explorations -- because the objects/curiosities of interest are distant and not subject to "hands-on" examination. The successful predictive ability of outputted claims and abstract frameworks contributes to their revisable acceptance, and computer simulations may even offer a tentative semblance of replaying the past or modeling the future.

Supersensible intelligence, angels, etc are pre-conditionally ruled out of the explanatory arena by methodological naturalism; i.e., the latter is part of the constraints of how the "game" is played. It's the philosophical guideline orientation of science practice to proceed cataloging, describing, and explaining the Earth/universe with the latter's own interdependent content rather than via any traditional beliefs whose agencies are prior in rank to detectable entities. Science may project products of reason into its depiction of nature which do not correspond to concrete or observable residents. But those generalizations and technical description dependent concepts, while seemingly non-corporeal or noological furniture of a science field, validate themselves with their persistent usefulness and arguable indispensability.

 

[pluto2]

In my opinion religion is nonsense and those who believe in God or in Karma or in a spiritual world are simply very delusional people.

That's the problem with the Internet and religion nowadays. Religion promises people things that simply aren't true. It's the very essence of being delusional.

The fact is that science like physics and chemistry is based on facts while religion is based on nothing but lies, delusion and subterfuge.

 

[spidergoat]

Supersensible intelligence, angels, etc are pre-conditionally ruled out of the explanatory arena by methodological naturalism; i.e., the latter is part of the constraints of how the "game" is played.

It's not ruled out. It's just a working assumption pending verifiable data. And by the way, you have no way of verifying it either, so what's the reason to believe it?

 

[C C]

Supersensible intelligence, angels, etc are pre-conditionally ruled out of the explanatory arena by methodological naturalism; i.e., the latter is part of the constraints of how the "game" is played.

It's not ruled out. It's just a working assumption pending verifiable data.

What I meant (via "explanatory arena") is that the occult is pre-conditionally ruled out as a recruitment source for solutions.

It's philosophical naturalism which holds that otherworldly affairs do not exist. Methodological naturalism (while agnostic about metaphysical proposals) proceeds "as if" dogmatic naturalism is the case. If an occult realm is defined so that it can never be testable (which might underlie philosophical naturalism's confidence in its denial), then there is no waiting around for verifiable evidence.

At least some percentage of if not majority of scientists are personally dogmatic naturalists, but the practice of science can be slotted in the methodological stripe.

And by the way, you have no way of verifying it either, so what's the reason to believe it?

Here the provoking belief itself is what a contrary stance builds its identity around (i.e., the latter isn't dependent upon whether _X_ is the case or not).

For example, explicit atheism arises because of theism, not because of God being real, effective, testable, etc. Whereas implicit atheists or "non-woken" atheists have no need for an identity label that distinguishes them from theism or that challenges theism -- though others may attach the label "atheist" to them.

Similarly, naturalism (its current formulations) is at least partly or if not wholly generated in response to belief in otherworldly affairs (not the presence of them). Otherwise, there would be no need for a doctrine and operational guidelines which make themselves distinct from a contrary view (in terms of definitions or labels).

Any traditional tendency in populations to appeal to the extraordinary is reason enough to prescribe (via methodological naturalism) that scientists do not venture there for explanations (i.e., not how that knowledge acquisition game is played).

 

[spidergoat]

It's philosophical naturalism which holds that otherworldly affairs do not exist

Due to lack of necessarily naturalistic evidence. This isn't a flaw.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Science must be able to repeat and reproduce.

Yes, I agree.

That is Empirical Science.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

there is no evidence in lab to prove that single cell can mutate into multi cell and develop complicated functions.
no evidence at all.

I agree.

If science ever manages to create life, it will only be possible by using Intelligent Design techniques.

And that will be evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

 

[(Q)]

I agree.

If science ever manages to create life, it will only be possible by using Intelligent Design techniques.

And that will be evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

You mean, this Intelligent Design technique...

" the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature"

 

[James R]

I agree.

If science ever manages to create life, it will only be possible by using Intelligent Design techniques.

And that will be evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

It will also show that God is not needed in order to create life.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree.

If science ever manages to create life, it will only be possible by using Intelligent Design techniques.

And that will be evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

Sorry, that does not follow.

We invented the concepts behind ID. God did not pass along his instructions as to how we might build things with deliberate intention - we had to come up with all those concepts on our own - in a vacuum of direction.

So if we turned around and use our own ideas, it says nothing about anything but ourselves.



Let's say I come across a tree surrounded by a ring of mushrooms.
I find it hard to believe this happened by chance so I start deducing what forces might have brought it about.
I deduce a sprite flew in a circle and deposited mushroom spores.
I recreate that concept, by manually sprinkling spores around a tree.
Lo! - I get a ring of spores.
Can I now conclude that my manually-created mushroom ring is evidence for the existence of sprites?

No. I made up my own rules - in a vacuum of instruction - and then implemented my own rules.

 

[paddoboy]

I agree.

If science ever manages to create life, it will only be possible by using Intelligent Design techniques.

And that will be evidence for an Intelligent Designer.

Your're kidding yourself. It's actually evidence of the advances of science and technology....nothing more, nothing less.

 

[kx000]

Science determines religion, faith in fact, so no they must be separate entities.

 

[Yazata]

I wrote this in 'Can science replace religion' thread, but it seems to fit just as well in this one...

I'm wondering if what others are getting at is that the scientific process is necessary for the ''construction'' of a knowledge base? (of any subject mater, really)

I don't want to put words into their mouths. But yes, I sense that's exactly what some of them are saying. And I think that they are wrong.

For one thing, I don't believe that there even is a single "scientific process". (We've had several previous threads about that.) For another, I don't think that we learn most of what we know by practicing any sort of science.

Even most of the content of science isn't typically learned by "the scientific process". With the exception of the topic of their own research, most scientists learn whatever science they know through taking university classes, reading textbooks, reading papers and in conversation with other scientists.

With laypeople, that's pretty much all there is. No experiments, no laboratories, no hypothesis testing. Just authorities.

I'm sure that there will be a reasonable objection from some direction at this point that the scientific knowledge was originally obtained by use of some scientific process. Which might indeed be true (in some cases at least).

But not always and not entirely. Physics makes great use of mathematics, to the point where the mathematics and the physics become indistinguishable and inseparable. ('Manifolds', 'Hermitians', 'Eigenvalues'... how were these originally obtained? Not in laboratories.) Mathematics doesn't justify itself by employing experimental confirmation, it makes use of proofs and derivations. (Those pages full of incomprehensible hieroglyphs.) The strength of proofs is that they are a succession of simple logical steps. So how are the logical steps justified? They are just obvious! How could they not be correct? (Truth tables might be produced here to try to show that there's no logical possibility of them being wrong.) But ultimately, it's an appeal to intuition.

(Most of the explanations in a university classroom are the professor trying to lead students to a point where the students' own intuition kicks in: "Oh right, now I see it!" But those of a more philosophical bent aren't always going to be satisfied with that, so that we get epistemological problems.)

And as the history of science shows, the details of how scientific ideas were originally arrived at in the first place is often very complex, historically contingent and messy. Just look at all the fits, starts and controversies that went into arriving at the account of photosynthesis that we find in our textbooks today (it took 100 years):

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-P...t_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1579708850

Having said that, my point is the rather different one that the vast majority of people who claim to know the ostensible truths of science had nothing to do with initially producing that knowledge themselves and didn't learn it the stereotypical "scientific method" way. Yet they are still said to 'know' these things.

Seen from that perspective, religion and science aren't all that dissimilar.

Perhaps some monastics practiced very assiduous samatha meditation and achieved some of the higher jhanas. Regardless of what we think of the jhanas, we can still say that they learned that particular meditation techniques lead to particular subjective results and that this was indeed confirmed by successive generations of monastics. (Similar examples can probably be taken from contemplative Christianity, Muslim sufism and certainly from Hindu yoga.)

But today most Buddhists don't practice these disciplines (they were always kind of the province of monastics, though Zen tried to democratize them I guess) and they accept them on authority, believe in them and claim to know about them merely because their tradition speaks of them.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

What simple natural chemical processes remain to be investigated, that could account for the specifically organized, complex design found in the cell?

Thousands of experiments have been done using simple chemical compounds that exist in the natural world to try and create life. They have all failed.

Not one experiment has ever created life, as in, a fully functioning self sustaining cell. Why not, it is supposed to be easy?

So far, Abiogenesis is unproven.

I don’t know the answer to the question.

But haven’t we exhausted the basic natural world chemical and environmental combination options already?

I would think that we would have hit that wall years, if not decades ago.

Miller Urey certainly did not create life. Not even close. They never claimed that they created life.

No one can use Miller Urey to create life even now, decades later. That experiment was done way back in 1952.

Once you move out of natural processes and environments, and into sterile, man engineered and designed, multi-million dollar lab facilities and use purified, modified chemicals in human controlled environments, carefully directed by an intelligent team of scientists to deliberately try and create life, you have moved into the arena of Intelligent Design.

Where the scientific team become the Intelligent Designers and Engineers.

Just my opinion.

 

[(Q)]

I wrote this in 'Can science replace religion' thread, but it seems to fit just as well in this one...

I don't want to put words into their mouths. But yes, I sense that's exactly what some of them are saying. And I think that they are wrong.

For one thing, I don't believe that there even is a single "scientific process".

Is that comment based on your extensive research on the scientific process? You've found other processes? Can you list them here?

For another, I don't think that we learn most of what we know by practicing any sort of science.

You mean like tying our shoes, brushing our teeth, praying to God, those sort of things?

Even most of the content of science isn't typically learned by "the scientific process". With the exception of the topic of their own research, most scientists learn whatever science they know through taking university classes, reading textbooks, reading papers and in conversation with other scientists.

You appear to be conflating someone who is educating themselves with previous scientific information with those who are conducting science.

With laypeople, that's pretty much all there is. No experiments, no laboratories, no hypothesis testing. Just authorities.

Kind of like the authorities who design and build turbo fan jet engines? Most folks have no idea how they work yet they have no problem using commercial airliners and can could care less how they work.

I'm sure that there will be a reasonable objection from some direction at this point that the scientific knowledge was originally obtained by use of some scientific process. Which might indeed be true (in some cases at least).

Some cases? Not the vast majority of cases? How else did scientific information come about then?

But not always and not entirely. Physics makes great use of mathematics, to the point where the mathematics and the physics become indistinguishable and inseparable. ('Manifolds', 'Hermitians', 'Eigenvalues'... how were these originally obtained? Not in laboratories.) Mathematics doesn't justify itself by employing experimental confirmation, it makes use of proofs and derivations. (Those pages full of incomprehensible hieroglyphs.) The strength of proofs is that they are a succession of simple logical steps. So how are the logical steps justified? They are just obvious! How could they not be correct? (Truth tables might be produced here to try to show that there's no logical possibility of them being wrong.) But ultimately, it's an appeal to intuition.

(Most of the explanations in a university classroom are the professor trying to lead students to a point where the students' own intuition kicks in: "Oh right, now I see it!" But those of a more philosophical bent aren't always going to be satisfied with that, so that we get epistemological problems.)

So, you've never taken a course in university?

And as the history of science shows, the details of how scientific ideas were originally arrived at in the first place is often very complex, historically contingent and messy. Just look at all the fits, starts and controversies that went into arriving at the account of photosynthesis that we find in our textbooks today (it took 100 years):

In other words, doing science is hard and takes time.

Having said that, my point is the rather different one that the vast majority of people who claim to know the ostensible truths of science had nothing to do with initially producing that knowledge themselves and didn't learn it the stereotypical "scientific method" way. Yet they are still said to 'know' these things.

Probably because those folks read the peer reviewed papers, understand them and then attempt to falsify them.

Seen from that perspective, religion and science aren't all that dissimilar.

Correction, from that fallacious perspective.

 

[(Q)]

What simple natural chemical processes remain to be investigated, that could account for the specifically organized, complex design found in the cell?

Thousands of experiments have been done using simple chemical compounds that exist in the natural world to try and create life. They have all failed.

Not one experiment has ever created life, as in, a fully functioning self sustaining cell. Why not, it is supposed to be easy?

No, it wouldn't be easy and based on how life came about on Earth, it takes millions of years. How do you propose scientists speed up that process in a lab?

So far, Abiogenesis is unproven.

I don’t know the answer to the question.

But haven’t we exhausted the basic natural world chemical and environmental combination options already?

I would think that we would have hit that wall years, if not decades ago.

Miller Urey certainly did not create life. Not even close. They never claimed that they created life.

No one can use Miller Urey to create life even now, decades later. That experiment was done way back in 1952.

Once you move out of natural processes and environments, and into sterile, man engineered and designed, multi-million dollar lab facilities and use purified, modified chemicals in human controlled environments, carefully directed by an intelligent team of scientists to deliberately try and create life, you have moved into the arena of Intelligent Design.

Where the scientific team become the Intelligent Designers and Engineers.

Just my opinion.

But, you'r quite sure God just waved his hand at a pile of dirt and life came about?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

No, it wouldn't be easy and based on how life came about on Earth, it takes millions of years. How do you propose scientists speed up that process in a lab?



But, you'r quite sure God just waved his hand at a pile of dirt and life came about?

Natural processes have never been proven to be capable of creating life.

All of the evidence already points to the need for an Intelligent Designer of some kind, right now.

If we are not intelligent enough to pull it off, why would we assume that natural processes alone can?

Please prove that it takes millions of years to create life. This is also only an unfounded, unproven assumption. This assumes the conclusion.

It is only the belief or faith of the religions of Naturalism and Materialism. Both of which are based on assumptions and are unprovable.

This is certainly not empirical science.

In my opinion.

 

[sideshowbob]

This is certainly not empirical science.

The topic is "Is science a religion?" Not "Is abiogenesis empirical science?"

 

[SetiAlpha6]

The topic is "Is science a religion?" Not "Is abiogenesis empirical science?"

Yes, thank you for the correction.

 

[(Q)]

Natural processes have never been proven to be capable of creating life.

All of the evidence already points to the need for an Intelligent Designer of some kind, right now.

Lol, you have a really hilarious notion of what evidence is all about. No, it's not the Bible.

If we are not intelligent enough to pull it off, why would we assume that natural processes alone can?

Because that's exactly what the evidence suggests.

Please prove that it takes millions of years to create life. This is also only an unfounded, unproven assumption. This assumes the conclusion.

There are countless sources for that information, have you ever bothered to look it up?

It is only the belief or faith of the religions of Naturalism and Materialism. Both of which are based on assumptions and are unprovable.

Does not appear you have any idea what you're talking about. Naturalism and Materialism are not terms used in science, those are for philosophy.

This is certainly not empirical science.

In my opinion.

Does not appear to be an opinion based on intelligence.