Should science be considered a religion?
Yes
Side Score: 16
|
 |
No
Side Score: 25
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
But based upon science, you believe what the results tell you about the basis of your reality so in a sense science IS a set of beliefs, you believe the universe was created by the big bang, thats the cause, you are starting to believe quantum mechanics, string theory and/or m theory will explain HOW the universe works, and you believe the purpose of life is to grow and die, those are all beliefs about life Side: Yes
1
point
Science is a net of tested human knowledge and theories, each with their own pile of evidence to back it up. When something is proven incorrect in science, they erase everything about it and rewrite it anew. How the hell is it a religion? Of course science doesn't know everything, so that's why we have theories- including theories of how the world was placed into existence. How can you take "religion" out of theories that are consciously unconfirmed by scientists? Side: No
1
point
1
point
Religion is defined as such: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. You seem to have left a bit out re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. No two scientists must by any decree believe the same thing. No superhuman agency involved no devotional or ritual observances, no particular moral code that is any different from general morality. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. No fundamental practices, anything is open to change and scrutiny. So yes, scientists are looking for how the universe was created, what holds it together and why it is held together. Not under faith nor dogma. Science is a religion Absolute statement that is absolutely wrong. Side: No
1
point
The only reason i left a bit out is because it says "especially when" which means its not required, i could say i get home runs especially when its a fastball, doesnt mean you cant get a homerun off a curveball Its still a religion, whether you want to admit it or not Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
See, that's the trouble--you saidscience has faith in observable truths, which is not the case. A whole LOT of "science" that people teach and believe AS IF THEY WERE FACT are neither proven NOR OBSERVABLE. Do some internet research on how many scientists falsify research to get published, and you will see. At least religion is based upon something observable--that the universe does indeed exist (unless you're a philosopher, then maybe they don't exist). We know that all matter is made of energy, and the Bible states that this is how God created it, by his power or dynamic energy. That is cold hard fact. Side: No
1
point
While science is technically a methodology, it wouldn't be incorrect to call it a religion. Not that I believe it is, but religion and science can both be classed as a set of beliefs in order to pursue truth. Religion has its guiding principles (largely faith), science has its own (largely the scientific method). The two terms are two sides of the same coin, like mass and energy. Of course, this is only if one follows a very lenient definition of religion, one which does not really apply in the real world. In practicality, the two are not the same. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
Science is how we get to a belief, not the set of beliefs itself. There is no scientific doctrine of beliefs you must follow, it's just that if you deviate from the general consensus, you have to provide evidence and reason for your beliefs, otherwise don't expect reasonable people to believe them too. Side: No
1
point
Apparently religion is based on beliefs and faith in that which cannot be seen, whereas science is cold hard facts and evidence, so no. It would be funny if it were though, then we'd have Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Scientists (them that believe in their god Science). He he. Side: No
Religion isn't the easiest thing to define, because it comes in several incarnations and schisms and in any color you like... but let's bust out some observations. 1) Religion is a shared system of beliefs or practices tied to a spiritual or metaphysical code. 2) Religion will not change with out becoming schismatic. 3) Religion does not rely on validation, but perception and experience. 4) Religion is VERY regionally rooted, especially the farther back you go. 5) No separate religious groups confide and share beliefs openly, but rather may carry similarities that are in-specific, and the scrutiny between them may be VERY specific. Science is just about the opposite. 1) Science is uniformed by the scientific method. 2) Science changes as more data is accumulated and better laws or theorems gel. 3) Science relies solely on rigorous testing and retesting to the point of a bloody nuisance 4) Science is universal. 5) Separate Sciences practice under the same principles and formulas but each is exploratory in it's own pursuit. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Science is not a typical religion, but its' followers make science a cult by definition. Cult: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans 5a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad Side: No
1
point
|
