<font color=Orange>This is a discussion guys. No flaming or stuff like that.

I think it isn't a religion. A religion has a god or a creator of some sort. Science has nothing but facts or theories.</font>

Well, I don't think it is a religion, but there are religions without a God creator- Buddhism for example. [img]smile.gif[/img]

How can science be a religion? Unless you worship chemicals,ideas,and other sciency stuff like that it can't be a religion.Plainly,my science teacher ruined my science liking and I don't want to be a scientest anymore.It's was all my science teacher,my farting science teacher.Now I have no idea what I want to be.

heh! Well, Scientologists were something else. But no, I don't think they're the same. One relies on logic the other Faith

i thougt you wanted to be a penguin ? :D

<font color=Orange>Just for the sake of argument...

But you could say that someone has their beliefs about something such as the laws of gravity. Now how different is that from believing that there is a god that created the world and the universe?</font>

because Gravity is a proven fact. God isn't

NEXT!!!! :D

<font color=Orange>Then take a theory. Any theory. They aren't proven</font>

because Gravity is a proven fact. God isn't

NEXT!!!! :D </font>[/QUOTE]What proof do you have of Gravity? It might be something else that just fits with the observations we have made so far [img]tongue.gif[/img] We could suddenly see something that would NOT fit with Gravity, making it an unproven fact. But we have faith in and believe that there is no such thing.

Faith and belief are not things of science, but of religion [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=Orange>THANK YOU Neb!</font>

I dont understand why you would even think of make that connection.

Historically speaking Science and Religion have always been at the opposent end of the perimeter. Antonyms if you like.

The idea that God isnt the creator of all things, disturbed the religionist fanatics. The scientist on the other hand found it naive that they anyone thought that God was the creator of all things. Then they had proven with their theoris and test that they too could create some of the things God had created.

So in short, no, I dont think of Science as a religion.

Actually, what you just said is how Science has always been at the opposite end of the scale to Christianity, not religion. ;)

Science is science and religeon is religeon. The difference isnt in the proof but in the people. On the side of science you have people like Stephen Hawkings and Carl Sagan. They say the earth does this and numbers do that and and it is all based on probability and theory.If you can prove otherwise and break scientific rules then do it. On the other side is religeon, there you have Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden , and Aeriel Sharon who say the earth is this way because god made it that way. If you dont believe it then you will suffer and burn for eternity. Notice the difference?

[ 06-16-2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

<font color="#0099cc"> My religion and Science get along quite well thank you. God created the universe and implemented an order to things which gives rise to science [img]smile.gif[/img] They do not have to be mutually exclusive.....IMHO</font>

Or, on one hand you have C.S.Lewis, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa and Bono, and on the other hand you have Oppenheimer, Einstein and the gang who invented the nuclear bomb.

Way to go science. Blow the place up.

But nevermind. I'm sure all the billions of dollars spent on SETI programs to prove we are not alone (when all one has to do is pray.... ;) ) wouldn't have been needed for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor or healing the sick at all. Would it?

Also, a person is defined by more than just their religion. In bringing up Osama and Ariel, we have an example of a spoilt son of an Oil Tycoon, and a Politicial leader.

So we could say that spoilt children of oil tycoons and Politicial leaders cause wars couldn't we? Certainly Oil was the reason that Iraq invaded Kuwait. And politicial leaders?

Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Thatcher, Bush II, Breshnev, Julius Caeser, Alexander, Hussein, Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet.....

Need I go on?

The myth is that Science and Religion are polar opposites.

Religion uses science, and science could use more religion.

Religion uses science?

From Mirriam Webster:
Theology itself IS a science! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Science could use religion? Religions provide moral codes. Science without morals?
Unconsciousable Nazi experimentation
Cloning humans for body parts
Nuclear testing destroying the earth

Science without morals places the pursuit of knowledge itself as a religion rather than care for the race.

[ 06-16-2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

just to point out something. there is NO WAY that the american and other govs (through nasa) have spent billions of dollars in SETI programs. as a matter of fact, it has had problems raising money to function properly (and it isnt so much in scale). potentially, what could be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race deserves much more than its being given, as the hole space program, that is severely underfunded (compare what nasa gets to what other govt institutions get and its sort of a joke).

just to point out something. there is NO WAY that the american and other govs (through nasa) have spent billions of dollars in SETI programs. as a matter of fact, it has had problems raising money to function properly (and it isnt so much in scale). potentially, what could be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race deserves much more than its being given, as the hole space program, that is severely underfunded (compare what nasa gets to what other govt institutions get and its sort of a joke).</font>[/QUOTE]No I'd say that the fact that SETI exists at all, while your health system is in chaos is a joke. ;) Where are the priorities? What do the children of scientists do if they are ill?

The biggest discovery for the human race would be eternal health would it not?. Immortality? Never dying?

Oh, but that's the domain of religions isn't it. ;)

I think you misunderstood my post a bit Yorick.I wasnt trying to say one was more valid or true than the other. Just that one is somewhat more pallitable than the other because of its representatives. I havent heard of anybody going to war or killing people because of gravity or the theory of relativity.

Now for the quoted stuff. I fully believe that religeous moral dogma has NO place in scientific discovery.Science should be the pursuit of knowledge for no other reason than simply to know and see if things can be done.It should be based on factual and rational obsevation , NOT subjective feelings and predjudices. History has shown that religeon stands in the way of science. In the dark ages when everyone thought that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth the scientists who claimed otherwise like copernicus and gallileo, were put to death for heresy by the church. Nazi experiments , while they were terrible had to have yielded some new discoverys. I dont have any numbers or names ,but thousands of human experiments couldnt have been a total waste. Cloneing will be the treatment of the future as long as the religeious fanatics keep out of it. If you can clone a sheep , why not a human?? Why are people diffrent from sheep?Personaly if I needed a heart transplant , I would preffer one that was cloned from my own cells instead of one out of a dead person.

I understood your post Hunter. Religion is never the cause of War. Human greed, fear, politics, racial hatred and conflicting needs are the cause of wars, not religions. All major world religions teach peace. There is one exception, but followers of this faith insist that those who goes to war in the name of Islam (meaning "way of peace") are misinterpreting the Qur'an.

Why do people misinterpret a Holy book? Well sometimes it's easier to bend what one perceives to be Gods will to justify a human agenda, instead of honestly asking God what his will is, or seeking wisdom from the said Holy book with an open mind, not looking for justifications.

I would argue that people HAVE gone to war over scientific discoveries, and that scientific discoveries have made war worse. Ala gunpowder, nuclear weapons, landmines, chemical weapons, etc etc.

Do we then say that Science causes war or that people MISUSE science? ;)

Geography and geology are sciences. Discoveries of oil and gold have spurred war. Similarly various nations discoveries of new continents have sparked war between peoples.

Is the knowledge to blame or are people misusing it? Are religions of peace to blame or are people misusing it?

Secondly, knowing God for me has meant discovery and pursuit of knowledge is a MEANS TO AN END, rather than being an end in itself. Thus it is not an obsession, but something that I pursue because of both the enjoyment of it, and that it brings me closer to my creator.

We can never know everything. ;)

[ 06-16-2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color="snow">You are saying that science is nothing but fact or theries, when religion itself is based upon theroies of existance of a God, or higher deity of some sort. </font>

All proofs ultimately rest on prepositions that have no proof. We know things because we want to believe in them.
What exactly IS science? What exactly IS religion. Take care to clearly define what your own thoughts and opinions are before indulging in heated argument. Be aware that all definitions ultimately rest upon the fickle technology of homo sapiens language. Are 'religion' and 'science' really separate? Do they really exist as enitites in and of themselves? Is it all simply personalized philosophical interpretation?

I have no idea whatsoever. But I am eager to hear more opinion.

just to point out something. there is NO WAY that the american and other govs (through nasa) have spent billions of dollars in SETI programs. as a matter of fact, it has had problems raising money to function properly (and it isnt so much in scale). potentially, what could be the biggest discovery in the history of the human race deserves much more than its being given, as the hole space program, that is severely underfunded (compare what nasa gets to what other govt institutions get and its sort of a joke).</font>[/QUOTE]No I'd say that the fact that SETI exists at all, while your health system is in chaos is a joke. ;) Where are the priorities? What do the children of scientists do if they are ill?

The biggest discovery for the human race would be eternal health would it not?. Immortality? Never dying?

Oh, but that's the domain of religions isn't it. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Yorik a little off topic here: The USA health system is not in chaos, it's the finest in the world. Most of the medical advances in modern medicine have been made in the USA. It's paying to get health care that is the hard part, not the health care itself. But then nothing in life is free that comes from man.

Well paying for it is what I'm talking about. The finest in the world? Health coverage is ridiculously expensive in the USA. Far more than in any other nation. Families can either go practically broke with the premiums, or broke from uninsured medical expenses. It's frightening.

Doctors get paid more than in any other nation, but have their own insurance premiums that are through the roof.

Why? The culture of litigation prevalent in the United "it's always somebody elses fault" States. ;)

I've been told that less individuals are taking up medicine, and that if not addressed, a doctor shortage will exist in the near future.

As far as medical advances, Australia is also a leader John. ;) Yet we have universally subsidised health care.

It amazes me that there are people here who oppose the rich subsidising the poors health care at all, let alone an increase in line with other western nations.

Always a pleasure talking to you BTW John. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick, I think you are confusing science and technology here. The only goal that true scientists pursue is the understanding of the universe, for the sole sake of knowledge. Technologies based on new scientific knowledge come as a side effect. Scientists did NOT discover the nuclear bomb - scientists wanted to know what's inside atoms, and "applied researchers" used the scientist discoveries to suit their patron's agendas.

New scientific discoveries have brought new and deadlier ways to kill - they also provided new and awesome ways to heal ... ;)

Morals don't need to apply to the scientific quest of How ? and Why ? It would be very wrong, IMO, if scientists refrained to pursue a trail to knowledge because of whatever morals.
Morals must apply to the USE we intend to do of technologies issued from scientific discoveries. Is it wrong to learn how a cell works ? No ! Is it wrong to use that knowledge to create cloned human beings ? Morally, yes. See ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Seems that science and religion are two ways aiming at the same goal : answering the question "WHY ?" ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or, on one hand you have C.S.Lewis, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa and Bono, and on the other hand you have Oppenheimer, Einstein and the gang who invented the nuclear bomb.

Way to go science. Blow the place up.

But nevermind. I'm sure all the billions of dollars spent on SETI programs to prove we are not alone (when all one has to do is pray.... ;) ) wouldn't have been needed for feeding the hungry, clothing the poor or healing the sick at all. Would it?

Also, a person is defined by more than just their religion. In bringing up Osama and Ariel, we have an example of a spoilt son of an Oil Tycoon, and a Politicial leader.

So we could say that spoilt children of oil tycoons and Politicial leaders cause wars couldn't we? Certainly Oil was the reason that Iraq invaded Kuwait. And politicial leaders?

Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Thatcher, Bush II, Breshnev, Julius Caeser, Alexander, Hussein, Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet.....

Need I go on?

The myth is that Science and Religion are polar opposites.

Religion uses science, and science could use more religion.

Religion uses science?

Theology itself IS a science! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Science could use religion? Religions provide moral codes. Science without morals?
Unconsciousable Nazi experimentation
Cloning humans for body parts
Nuclear testing destroying the earth

Science without morals places the pursuit of knowledge itself as a religion rather than care for the race.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#6699cc">Come on Yorick, you know that religion has easily been the basis for as many wars and the killings of people as politics over the long history of man. You also have to say, if you begrudge SETI and Other scientific endevors the dollars spent, you would also have to include all the billions collected by televangelists and other organized religions, and lets include money spent on comic books, computers, sporting equipment and on and on. You could argue that any money spent on anything but feeding the hungry and clothing the poor was a colosal iresponsible waste of time and money.

If you look at things in a certain way, all life is a waste of time and we should all just die so we can be with the creator now, rather than waste all this energy and time. I just don't understand the point of view you have on this subject....ahh well it isnt the first time [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh and an incredibly bad move and mean too to put those other leaders in the same catagory as Stalin and Hitler. If you really see no difference there there is a large discussion in and of itself.</font>

[ 06-17-2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#6699cc">
We are in agreement possibly for the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The space program has been one of the more rewarding government endeavors. I think the tech funding for NASA is way too low. I suppose if man actually ever manages to transplant a population off the earth that would cause some problems for those who follow the Apocrypha and the book of revelations.</font>

<font color="plum">Is Science a religion?

Well, I've certainly seen enough members here argue against Religion because there is NO PROOF that God, Jesus, Noah, or the Garden of Eden ever existed. I've seen several members state that they only beleive in those things that CAN be proven by physical evidence and empirical data.

Therefore, it is reasonable to state that their beleif system is intrinsically connected to Science. So - science COULD be considered as their "religion".

<font color="red">Hunter of Jahanna</font> stated that he does not care for the representatives or message of religion. This is a common argument. Non-beleivers often criticise the message of Hell's existence and use it as a reason to reject the Christianity.

Fair enough. Let's look at it from a scientific view. The laws of science have proven that you will recieve a painful burn if you stick your hand into an open flame. Is this the fault of Science? Does anybody "reject" Science because of this unpleasant result? No. But they do it all the time when discussing religion. Christians didn't "invent" Hell, and we also have NO control of who goes and who doesn't. But it is considered "our fault" when we tell people about this belief. And is used as the most common reason to reject Christianity out-of-hand.

<font color="lime">Magik</font>, I don't know what the SETI program is, but I'm sure that it is "funded" by our tax dollars. I believe this is <font color="yellow">Yorick's</font> primary contention with it. ALL of the other examples you listed are voluntary expenditures. The individual chooses to spend his/her money on that particular cause. But we have NO control over how the gov't spends our tax dollars. That's an important difference.

Finally, <font color="red">Hunter</font> gave examples of "unsavory" representatives of Christianity. True enough. As <font color="yellow">Yorick</font> pointed out, you can find good and bad examples of leaders in BOTH religion and science. But if you're looking for a better Christian role model, I have one to offer.

He was born over 2000 years ago. During his short time on Earth (33 years), NOT ONCE did he ever harm another human being. He criticized the religious leaders of His time, even though He was considered the greatest religious figure of His time (and still is considered the greatest figure of ALL time by many people).

He went through the land preaching a message to love your neighbor and your enemy as you love yourself. Because of his criticism of the established religous leaders, he was persecuted and wrongfully sentenced to die. On the day of his death, he was beaten unmercifully. He was scourged with a whip, his beard was ripped out of his face by the roots, and his face was so brutalized that he was barely recognizable. A circlet of thorns was shoved down onto his head so forcibly that they dug into the flesh of his scalp, causing blood to run unchecked down his face.

He was then forced to carry the instrument of his death, a rough-hewn wooden cross, up the hill to the site of his execution. Once they arrived at the top of the hill, he was laid onto this cross and nine-inch nails were pounded through his wrists and feet, pinning him to the cross.

As he hung on the cross, dying from pain and thirst, the soldiers there mocked him. They spat upon him and gambled for his belongings. In the midst of this incredible torture, did Jesus lash out at his tormentors? Did he call on God to rain fire and brimstone on thier heads? No. Instead, He pleaded with God to <font color="yellow">FORGIVE</font> them for thier actions.

You want a more "palatable" representative of Christianity? Look to the source - <font color="yellow">Jesus Christ</font>.

All others (myself included) are just pale imitations by comparison.</font>

<font color="#6699cc">
We are in agreement possibly for the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The space program has been one of the more rewarding government endeavors. I think the tech funding for NASA is way too low. I suppose if man actually ever manages to transplant a population off the earth that would cause some problems for those who follow the Apocrypha and the book of revelations.</font></font>[/QUOTE]yes indeed. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

and yes, when and if men ever manage to conquer space, and travel and live in other planets lots of religions will have a hard time adapting their faith (lets not even mention it if life outside earth is discovered... we are the chosen ones!). i guess version 2.0 of lots of holy books will start cropping up all over the place. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It seems that this discussion is slowly leaning towards "which is better-- science or religion". Silly. We need both. As for the original question, I believe that science is religion. Belief makes reality, after all. Science is simply a religion that is so widely accepted, that is is viewed as fact by (almost) all. Think back several centuries and imagine someone who is dying of a certain disease. Perhaps a shaman or witch-doctor, or mage, or whatever, tells the man that he must drink a tea made from the bark of a certain tree. He explains that the spirit of the tree will go into the man and destroy the evil spirit making him ill. A more scientifically minded person would say that a chemical in the tree bark fights the infection, or disease. Your point of view determines which is "true". Regardless, the man is cured. The scientist and mage will disagree on why, but the end result is the same. A person today might be given a placebo and recover from his illness. His belief is what helps his immune system recover. Again, there are different points of view on why this is. Science, to me, is another way-- a more widely accepted way-- of explaining magic. People traditionally fear what they don't understand and science gave the masses a way to quantify and understand the unknown.
I'm probably going to get grief for my statements... I use a silly argument, I know, but I firmly accept that reality is based on our perception. We have a consensual reality based upon a scientific paradigm, but that does not erase the truth behind magic, religion, etc. Science is simply another way of explaining the same things, and as such is a religion.

Well paying for it is what I'm talking about. The finest in the world? Health coverage is ridiculously expensive in the USA. Far more than in any other nation. Families can either go practically broke with the premiums, or broke from uninsured medical expenses. It's frightening.

Doctors get paid more than in any other nation, but have their own insurance premiums that are through the roof.

Why? The culture of litigation prevalent in the United "it's always somebody elses fault" States. ;)

I've been told that less individuals are taking up medicine, and that if not addressed, a doctor shortage will exist in the near future.

As far as medical advances, Australia is also a leader John. ;) Yet we have universally subsidised health care.

It amazes me that there are people here who oppose the rich subsidising the poors health care at all, let alone an increase in line with other western nations.</font>[/QUOTE]I fully agree with the litigation problem. I've seen more stupid things come from fear of litigation than I care to. Removing "dangerous" things from playgrounds. Dropping speed limits on county roads because they might get sued if someone is in an accident. Litigation for medical problems caused by accidents is quite lucrative. I myself was sued for an accident almost seven years after it happened for an elusive back problem. The only reason I was sued was because I had insurance and they found a litigation lawyer. It was settled out of court for a large sum ($50,000) by my insurance company.

Whether science is or is not a religion is based on the structure of it in itself.
Religions, namely christianity during the enlightenment, told you to believe it, even if you couldn't explain the nature of it. This was during a time when old teachings were being torn asunder, like the notion that Earth was the Center of the universe.

Science told you to believe only what made sense, if it didn't make sense, pick it apart until it did. Morality shouldn't interfere in science, before, when scientists cared about religious beliefs, they didn't disect humans, which after doing so proved numerous ancient Greek medicinal practices false. If science can't explain something, it calls what it does know theory.

Science has already confirmed some ideas rooted in Mystic religions. An excellent book that links these ideas is "The Tao of Physics".

For Ages mystics have espouted the idea that matter isnt really a bunch of seperate things, but is fundmentally energy vibrating at different frequencies giving rise to various forms and elements. Also, all matter and energy is interconnected on an unseen level.

The science of quantum physics has theories that confirm these age-old ideas and more.

Im of the thinking that science and religion coexist and intermingle. Both have their place in human affairs. Science is not religion though, Science has practices and ideology unique to science (ever see a scientist/tel-evanglist?) just as religion has its own uniquness. They are connected though...

This is a great post.

I was trying to say in my post that Religion uses science, and some parts of some religions ARE science. "Science" being the pursuit of knowledge.

Fair call about the technology issue Claude, but that's the line I was taking. I don't blame science for the bomb, but then I don't blame Christ for the crusades.

It seems some here have double statndards though, applying one rule to science and another to religion.

Simply the employing the concept say, "Theology is not science" is itself applying a subjectivity as to the nature of knowledge. If the pursuit of knowledge is ammoral and valueless, then there is no way to measure the relative impotance of the various fields.

Theology is no more or less important than Psychology, Geology, Biology, or the study of ant mating rituals.

Do we cordon off the field of archeology and say "Well because it's not dealing with human life it's not a science".

No, knowledge is knowledge, and there are myriad ways to gather information.

It'll make no difference to mine.

<font color="#6699cc">
We are in agreement possibly for the first time. [img]smile.gif[/img] The space program has been one of the more rewarding government endeavors. I think the tech funding for NASA is way too low. I suppose if man actually ever manages to transplant a population off the earth that would cause some problems for those who follow the Apocrypha and the book of revelations.</font></font>[/QUOTE]I criticised SETI funding amounts, not NASA MagiK.

I certainly don't see religion as a cause for conflict MagiK. I've already stated why and what are the counter causes. You will not convince me otherwise.

As far as putting the leaders in together, these are leaders viewed as initiators of war for various reasons. I'm not commenting on the justification of the said wars, but on the wars themselves. One could actually argue Hussein had a case against Kuwait, who were strangling Iraq on the oil market (an economic war).

One has to wonder why Britain created Kuwait at all, instead of merging it with the newly created Iraq. Oh yes, it was because huge amounts of oil existed there right?

Churches as opposed to SETI, give back to the community. They provide various free services such as counselling, motivational lectures, marriage guidance, career guidance for kids, musical education, literary dissection training, clothing and food for the homeless, and a sense of community to the kinless, that are reliant on DONATIONS to be perpetuated.

If someone gives to a tele-eveangelist, they do so out of their own free will, not legal taxation, or imposed and perpetuated addiction as in the case of tobbacco.

Yorick, I wish we lived in the same city-- I'd love to spend an afternoon somewhere chatting and sharing ideas. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well back to the original topic, i.e, Science and/or Religion:

Well the subject of science and religion kinda go hand in hand to me. of course it always depends on each individual person, some believe one thing, others believe something else. But for me, I feel that science in many way shows that there are things out there than cannot be seen, but exist. I mean, who discovered the existence of air? oxygen? I can't see it, but obviously it is there, I breath it in constantly, it keeps me alive, yet I do not see it. When a person catches a cold or a flu, and sneezes or coughs, I cannot see the billions of germs floating about, I cannot see them land on a doorknob, when another person touches that doorknob, I don't see how the germ sticks to that person's hands, and I cannot see when they rub their nose or eye and how it enters into their body, ultimately making them sick as well. But it happens. Lots of things happen that we cannot see. There is a whole different world out there, a microscopic world, that we cannot even see. So for me personally, I am never one to scoff at what I cannot see, and say if it is not visually in front of my face and obvious, it therefore cannot exist. No way, I'd be an ignorant fool to do so.

So I believe in God. I believe in a creator that I cannot see. And not just because of what I typed above, but also because if you look at this planet with a keen eye, you realize the synchronicity (word?) of things. Not only were us humans created, but look at how this planet was created for us. Water we need and water we are given, not only by lakes and oceans, but by rain as well. Trees and plantlife breath in carbon dioxide, and breath out oxygen, we humans breath in oxygen, and breath out carbon dioxide, perfection. Trees also give us shade in the summer, and homes for the birds, who eat bugs and mosquitoes. Worms live underground to aireate the soil, which helps plants live. This entire planet has given us so much to live on, to use and grow on. What keeps your automobile driving eh? Comes from the earth. Aspirin, got a headache? Comes from a tree. Many diseases and ailments have been cured from ingredients found on mother earth. All the answers are given to us, all the essentials, it is just up to us to realize and find them. Is this a coincidence? I say this to those that may think that humans were made in some cosmic burb random thing. If that were so, then how come we got so lucky with Earth, which supplies so much for us to live and prosper.

So in summary, Science? Yes! Religion? Yes! :D

And for those of you who don't believe in God, this is just my personal feelings, and I respect everyone's stance, whether it be athiest or another belief system or some other religion or no religion at all. This is simply my personal thoughts on the subject. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe we will at some point. You're in Montreal right?