Is science a religion?

[SetiAlpha6]

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, Donald [former editor of New Scientist], "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

Sometimes scientists seem to behave like the Catholic Church behaved in the past.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Yes your opinion which is obviously faulty.
Let me recap.....The BB theory according to overwhlming evidence evolved the observable universe/space/time that we inhabit, from 10-43 seconds...There was no matter, let alone life. Then there was life, at least on this fart arse little blue orb we call Earth. The many millions of years that it took to evolve that first life is so far unknown to us at this time...but the fact that at one time the universe was devoid of life, then it wasn't, certainly supports Abiogenesis. The theory of evolution of course is now fact based on the overwhelming observational evidence supporting that. At least one well known prominent religious group has been forced to recognise that along with the BB evolution of the observable universe to avoid looking like fools and science deniers.

 

[paddoboy]

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, Donald [former editor of New Scientist], "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

Sometimes scientists seem to behave like the Catholic Church behaved in the past.

You actually now appear to be desperate in spreading your mythical take on science. This is a science forum overall, and while there is a religious section, that section along with all the others, still needs to run the gauntlet of scientific scrutiny. If you are afraid of that scrutiny, or cannot logically and reasonably refute it, perhaps you need to do your preaching in a primarily religious forum.

 

[(Q)]

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, Donald [former editor of New Scientist], "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

Sometimes scientists seem to behave like the Catholic Church behaved in the past.

Gould sounds like a fired postal worker. Did he have any proof to back up his rant?

Are you anti-science?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

The scientific method is based on assumption.

Science has to assume that Materialism is absolute, a priori, before it can perform a single experiment.

It assumes as faith, that which is unproven.

In my opinion it is a "belief system".

 

[spidergoat]

Science has to assume that Materialism is absolute, a priori, before it can perform a single experiment.

What's non-material evidence? And if there can be none, why believe in something without evidence?

 

[spidergoat]

Sometimes scientists seem to behave like the Catholic Church behaved in the past.

This says nothing about science, just about scientists who are human beings with human flaws.

 

[(Q)]

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (Lewontin, Richard, "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28)

The scientific method is based on assumption.

Science has to assume that Materialism is absolute, a priori, before it can perform a single experiment.

It assumes as faith, that which is unproven.

In my opinion it is a "belief system".

Your opinion is based on quote mining and then painting with a broad brush across the scientific community. How sad for you that this is your way of thinking.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

"There is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition. No grotesque repulsiveness of medieval superstition, even as it survived into nineteenth-century Spain and Naples, could be much more intolerant, much more destructive of all that is fine in morality, in the spiritual sense, and indeed in civilization itself, than that hard dogmatic materialism of to-day which often not merely calls itself scientific but arrogates to itself the sole right to use the term. If these pretensions affected only scientific men themselves, it would be a matter of small moment, but unfortunately, they tend gradually to affect the whole people, and to establish a very dangerous standard of private and public conduct in the public mind." (Theodore Roosevelt, History As Literature, 1913)

Some people on this forum seem to behave this way, at least at times.
At other times, these same people can be as sweet as Honey.

 

[paddoboy]

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis
The scientific method is based on assumption.

Because as has already been explained to you more then once, the need for any IDer and/or magical spaghetti monster, is non existent, at least back to t+10-43 seconds. Why then indulge Grimm Brothers like fantasies when we don't need to?

Science has to assume that Materialism is absolute, a priori, before it can perform a single experiment. It assumes an unproven conclusion by faith.

That's called an hypothesis. The "God/ID" hypothesis remains an hypothesis. Scientific hypothesis advance with empirical observational evidence...eg: the BB, SR, GR, the theory of evolution.

In my opinion it is a "belief system".

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...aith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/
Scientific Faith Is Different From Religious Faith:
extracts:
It is true that scientists take certain things on faith. It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

The physicist Richard Feynman once wrote that the essence of science was “bending over backwards to prove ourselves wrong.” But he was talking about the collective cultural activity of science, not scientists as individuals, most of whom prefer to be proven right, and who are highly biased to see the evidence in whatever light most favors their preferred theory.

 

[(Q)]

"There is superstition in science quite as much as there is superstition in theology, and it is all the more dangerous because those suffering from it are profoundly convinced that they are freeing themselves from all superstition. No grotesque repulsiveness of medieval superstition, even as it survived into nineteenth-century Spain and Naples, could be much more intolerant, much more destructive of all that is fine in morality, in the spiritual sense, and indeed in civilization itself, than that hard dogmatic materialism of to-day which often not merely calls itself scientific but arrogates to itself the sole right to use the term. If these pretensions affected only scientific men themselves, it would be a matter of small moment, but unfortunately, they tend gradually to affect the whole people, and to establish a very dangerous standard of private and public conduct in the public mind." (Theodore Roosevelt, History As Literature, 1913)

Some people on this forum seem to behave this way, at least at times.
At other times, these same people can be as sweet as Honey.

You know that you're oblivious to the way you're behaving by quote mining, right?

I'm curious, if you hate science so much, why are you on a science forum?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

"When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation's practitioners the older schools gradually disappear. In part their disappearance is caused by their members conversion to the new paradigm … But there are always some men who cling to one or another of the older views, and they are simply read out of the profession, which thereafter ignores their work. The new paradigm implies a new and more rigid definition of the field. Those unwilling or unable to accommodate their work to it must proceed in isolation or attach themselves to some other group" (Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")

Wow, Science and Religion both really share this behavior on steroids.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

You know that you're oblivious to the way you're behaving by quote mining, right?

I'm curious, if you hate science so much, why are you on a science forum?

I love Science, I just think it suffers from some of the same challenges that organized Religion does.

These quotes are written by people who probably know more than I do about the topics they are presenting.

You used to be able to freely discuss quotes here.

What happened?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

“Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion." (Peck, M. Scott* [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth", [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238)

OK, one more quote for your review, presenting the similarities between Science and Religion.

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, and usually is very gracious to people of faith. But there are occasions, when he seems to fall into this kind of religious dogmatic behavior.

Kind of similar to a religious zealot.

You know, just like me.

I do love the guy!

 

[(Q)]

I love Science,

Yet, your posts here suggest otherwise.

I just think it suffers from some of the same challenges that organized Religion does.

And yet, no such thing has ever been shown with evidence or proof, instead mostly just rhetoric from a few disgruntled individuals.

These quotes are written by people who probably know more than I do about the topics they are presenting.

You used to be able to freely discuss quotes here.

What happened?

Throwing up a mined quote and then painting an entire body or class with it is dishonest and doesn't deserve honest discussion.

 

[(Q)]

“Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion." (Peck, M. Scott* [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth", [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238)

OK, one more quote for your review, presenting the similarities between Science and Religion.

Yet, another anti-science quote from a hypocritical Christian who didn't practice what he preached. He believes in the existence of Satan simply because he was involved in a couple of exorcisms. I would tend to take anything he said as credible as that of Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort.

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, and usually is very gracious to people of faith. But there are occasions, when he seems to fall into this kind of religious dogmatic behavior.

Kind of similar to religious zealots.

I've read Dawkins books, attended one of his seminars and talked privately with him for about half and hour and he is nothing like a religious zealot, not even remotely.

 

[davewhite04]

I've read Dawkins books, attended one of his seminars and talked privately with him for about half and hour and he is nothing like a religious zealot, not even remotely.

He does get very animated and angry in his debates with theists.

It's what I like about him, his passion! I follow him on twitter.

 

[(Q)]

He does get very animated and angry in his debates with theists.

Not really, on occasion, when confronted by an exceptionally stupid theist, he might ignore their question or discount it because it's so incredibly stupid. Other than that, if the questions he receives are somewhat intelligent, he'll answer them calmly and respectfully. I've certainly seen him completely disgusted by some folks who confront him with really idiotic questions or stories from scriptures, but then, we all get angry or annoyed at those kind of uber idiots. Who wouldn't.

 

[(Q)]

Here's one video where he gets pretty angry, but then, listen to the religious idiot he's talking with, the guy is literally insane and folks in the crowd are applauding him. I don't think I could keep my cool any better than he did when confronted by such massive stupidity and ignorance.

 

[davewhite04]

Here's one video where he gets pretty angry, but then, listen to the religious idiot he's talking with, the guy is literally insane and folks in the crowd are applauding him. I don't think I could keep my cool any better than he did when confronted by such massive stupidity and ignorance.

Yep good debate, watched it years ago an my whole perception of it has changed.

He loves it obviously because he's done a few.

Certainly knows what he's talking about.

EDIT: Still watching it! Brilliant, laughing my head off! How silly they are, the theists.