Science as a religion...

I think religion and science are the same thing tbh... they are both methods of trying to explain/understand and make sense of the world around us and reality we exist in using the mental skills available to us at the given time in human evolution. I don't think any truths are changing, just our ability to comprehend and interpret them and I think we still have a long, long way to go. Modern science makes sense right now based on what we can know at this stage.

 

Yeah! Like nuclear weapons!

 

Science is my pet and plaything :whoo:

 

The way I see it, science is the only thing on the planet that can drastically improve every single person's life, or can wipe them all out in an instant. Ergo, science is god.

Which reminds me the words of Voltaire: If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

 

Hm. Is the answer there science rather than man?

 

Yes. But I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

He's asking is it science alone that has that power, or what man does with science, hence man holding that power.

 

Religion asks for Blind Faith
Science demands Complete Questioning.

Science can never be a faith.

 

This is why I like science. Continually questioning to get at the real truth. I LOVE science actually.

 

Me too.

 

If you look at definitions of several different words, you can eventually show that science is a faith.

I do enjoy science, but it is a process (with self corrections). However, I don't think absolute truth (as an ideal) can be found in science (or religion for that matter). It depends a great deal on proof and beliefs of people.

 

Truth is not subject to the beliefs of people. It is objective.

 

So says the ENTP!

 

To me science shows how things work as they are. Religion shows their meaning and why they are here.

 

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...

 

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, and 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.