CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
61
Now I'm a believer. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:67
Arguments:63
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Now I'm a believer. (4)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (57)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40131) pic



Proof that science is a religion.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Science is an organized collection of theories, mathematical calculations, and world views that tries to relate everything to an order of existence.

Organized religion was created in order to explain the given religion to the people.

The physical sciences was created in order to explain the given science to the people.

"What happens to a society when the official cosmology, the official picture of the world, is literally incomprehensible to 99.9% of people?"

There are more Christians than Muslims.  Christians beive in one narative, and the Muslim s believe in another.  They each have their religious figure heads.

There are many people that belive in Global Warming and some that do not.  They each have scientists on their their side supporting their chosen narative.

If there is a God, where did God come from?

If there was a Big Bang, where did the stuff for the Big Bang come from?

The doors of knowledge are jealously guarded by a "priesthood/scientists."

Now I'm a believer.

Side Score: 6
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 61
2 points

In so far as we can say that the premises of the scientific method are based upon belief and that the reliability of induction is an assumption, science might be considered a religion.

Side: Now I'm a believer.
Tokamak(11) Disputed
1 point

in science Evidence is required, belief means nothing it's just a state of mind.

Religion has no evidence of any kind but they have magical rituals, song and mythology.

It is very easy to test which one actually works.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
2 points

Religion has no evidence of any kind but they have magical rituals, song and mythology.

Science has no evidence for its premises, but they have behavioral rituals which guide their scientific inquiry, there's popular science, and theses about their cosmological views.

Science has its rituals, songs and mythology, the only difference between religion and science is their epistemological bases. Scientists believe in reproducible evidence, religion believes in revelation. The fact that you think that science is better simply means that you favor reproducible evidence over revelation. It doesn't evolve into an argument that science is better... That is, unless you can argue that reproducible evidence is better than revelation.

Side: Now I'm a believer.

Evidence is open to interpretation. The Big Bang theory is one interpretation of the evidence. String theory is another. And there hasn't been a test to prove either one ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I think even Christopher Hitchens called religion our first (and he said therefore worst) attempt at the sciences. I tend to partially agree with him, although I see religion as something that is continuing to evolve, along with humanity. One's religion is like their core ideology. Their set of truths that are accepted as self-evident, their hierarchy of values, their "ruling logic" or (perhaps) their theology. There is a social element to religion, and group identities are formed through coercion and/or commonly accepted narratives.

Even though I tend to agree with the Einsteinian view that religion and science are "branches of the same tree", I don't think it's proper though to consider science as A religion. Science, in it's broadest sense, consists of the tests we devise to test the truth of propositions. Religion in it's broadest sense consists of the fundamental propositions we have accepted to be truthful.

My controversial view is that everyone practices their own somewhat unique variety of religion, and that everyone utilizes a scientific method more or less rigorously.

Side: Now I'm a believer.

I can't really countenance the idea of science as a religion given the motives of the scientific community.

However, I will acknowledged that to the layman, it may as well be another religion. Lacking the educational background and general faculties to properly reproduce experiments, review the methods used in others experiments, and analyze the conclusions drawn from the experimental data, the layman who believes in either science or any given religion is really just choosing which group of men they place faith in.

So generally speaking, science is not a religion- but to certain individuals, it is.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

Are you a troll? Seriously?.... .......

*this is here to fill in the maximum letters

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

A troll? ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

What max? ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Are you a troll? Seriously?.... .......

Yup he is and THAT IS WHY WE LOVE HIM

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Centifolia(1319) Clarified
1 point

To post less than 50 characters, use an asterisk followed by plenty of spaces and end it with another asterisk

Side: Now I'm a believer.

Religion is usually based off superstitious beliefs, where as science to the investigation of knowledge and fact. Though I don't really have a concrete religion, but even if you could call science a religion, it wouldn't be anything like any other religion in the world.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Maybe if you read about string theory and relativity and all the weirdness that it all entails, you would start to see that science expects us to accept much that is only theory (not proven fact). Religion also asks us to accept much that they can't provide proof for.

Granted that science is much more sophisticated, but there are enough similarities between science and religion to make me take note. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Maybe if you read about string theory and relativity and all the weirdness that it all entails, you would start to see that science expects us to accept much that is only theory (not proven fact).

Science doesn't expect us to accept anything, science expects you to accept the evidence it supplies or not, it expects you to accept valid theories, hypothesis's, facts etc, as what they are. I'm sure there are some scientists that don't accept string theory, there are some scientists that may not even accept the big bang, (there might be a new competing theory to compete with the big bang). These theories you are talking about, have reasoning as to why scientists came up with them, even if some aren't concrete, science doesn't expect you to accept it concretely. Scientists will look for alternatives and question the theories we have now, not accepting them blindly. Anyways my main point is this, religion is based upon superstitious beliefs and science is based investigation of knowledge and fact, even through a bit of speculation. There is a big difference to what science has to offer to our understanding of reality and what religion has.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

That's what you get when you try to mix politics with science- corruption. If they abandoned their political/religious motives and talked it through on a purely scientific level, they would reach the same conclusion.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Dammit Joe! =p

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!