Hey, is Science Religion?

Now, I don’t think anyone can say, and probably never will be able to say, how all this stuff happened. I’ve been an atheist most of my life, until I realized my views were a belief.

How is that possible? Science is rational, right? Sure, it’s rational, as a product of our senses. But, the Matrix showed us we cannot trust our senses. There are a whole bunch of folks who like the trendy “We are in a simulation” Gig. How is that rationale? Well, it’s not an irrational possibility, because all we really know for certain is, well nothing.

In order for us to know something for certain, we have to trust our senses. But can we? Well, the simulation concept, no different than the “God” concept (I mean they got through chapter one: God the engineer made everything, but I suppose God the engineer is somehow more rational), and so the answer is simply this.

Trusting you senses is a belief. You have no way of knowing whether you can trust them or not. It’s indistinguishable from something that could be “simulating us,” as the cool kids on the block tell us.

The end result is Science is a religion in that you have to believe your senses.

So, I have to wonder, given that Science is a religion, and the Bible is a religion, and MultiCulturalism and its evil twin sister Political correctness is a very broken religion, as it’s axiomatically inconsistent, why all the hatred?

Shouldn’t those who are tolerant think “Hey, whatever gets you through this unknowable life?”

I think it’s arrogant to think there is a God. As I can’t rule out “God” as in the God that created a simulation, vs. “God” the God in the Bible, in a rational evaluation, who am I to say “Hey, this is truth?”

And furthermore, it’s my view that truth in the evolutionary sense, which is a belief because we could have been turned on two seconds ago and can’t tell, is simply another religion.

Now, I happen to think it’s a good religion, for me, but at the same time, in looking at the destructiveness of evolutionary forces due to religious ideas today, such as “There is no difference between men and women,” demonstrably false if you believe in female selectivity, then isn’t the prescription for one size fits all wrong?

After all, if you look at lineages of males and females in Europe, for instance, there are far more lines of female lineages that have reproduced than have male lineages. And even here, in the United states TODAY, for every 4 men that reproduce, 5 women do, perhaps these concepts, even if they are in a simulation, or caused in fact by some origin we can’t understand, Science has failed us, at least to the extent that our progressive government in the US thinks that fairness means unfairness.

Yet, with the Grand Compromise in the Bible of one man, one woman, there is more fairness to MEN. It reduces the control of evolutionary forces due to female selectivity, I think, as you don’t obtain the VAST differentials in female reproduction vs. male reproduction as has been evidenced in the past, when up to 19 women reproduced at one time for every male.

So, I have to question whether the new “Scientific” approach to rules in the US are better than those in the Bible, or many other religions that have popped up all over the world.

In fact, some might even say the religious fervor which SOME attack those who believe differently than they do, though truth be told, at the bottom there is NO proof that any views are certain, that in fact these people, like Dawkins are simply mean spirited and wrong.

The Bible and our culture have spun around each other for thousands of years, interacting and changing each other.

It seems to me the innate differences in men and women are captured in the Bible as a way for the sexes to interact with each other in consonant ways given the evolutionary pressures on us. Is it wrong? Probably. But everything is probably wrong that almost anyone thinks, because at bottom it’s all belief, and no one can know.

I like a lot of the tenets in the Bible, and amazingly, it works as a template for human interaction. Ultimately it doesn’t matter much what your ultimate goal is, because I agree the most likely explanation is evolution, and that’s outside of the Bible. However, there is human wisdom of human nature learned over the millennia that is not captured by today’s “Scientific” approach to governmental organizations, or scientists like Dawkins who dogmatically harm those whose views seem to provide more consonant views on human nature than his do, as evidenced by our destructive Western Civilization new “Gods,” who tell us all kinds of falsehoods to establish their new religion, supplanting the old, only without the millennia of wisdom in the Bible.

OK, that’s the point. I would be a capital “A” Atheist, but I’m humble enough to know “No one can know.” Those who attack others because they think they know the “Truth,” when they cannot, as evidenced by their belief you can trust your senses (coming under increasing attack by Science, I might add), informs that those who take away happiness and consonance from people due to THEIR religious fervor, are in some ways worse than those who think this is God’s creation and it allows them to live in harmony in their male/female relationships, and view the world as a positive place, and not one to be feared.

Enough said. Every thought anyone in mankind has ever had is religious as it has it’s basis in one religion or another, including science. I simply don’t like those who try to take away happiness from others when, ultimately, which religion you BELIEVE, be it science, or anything else, is simply random nonsense in the idea ultimately we are rational. We aren’t, and it’s impossible to know any “truth.”

Under that umbrella, I state now and clearly, as a person who believes Science is the best bet, that the use of it to harm others like Dawkins and his minions do, is simply another arrogant religion, and it appears is the way Dawkins makes his living. Off of hate for his fellow man.

Execrable.

No, science is not a religion. Science is based on current knowledge, while religion is based on mythology with no scientific inquiry.

Under that umbrella, I state now and clearly, as a person who believes Science is the best bet, that the use of it to harm others like Dawkins and his minions do, is simply another arrogant religion, and it appears is the way Dawkins makes his living. Off of hate for his fellow man.
Show me where Dawkins has ever killed anyone because he doesn't believe in God? Now ask theists if they have ever killed anyone because they do believe in God?

Wrong. Science is based on the belief we can trust our senses. The trendy “We are in a simulation” folks could be right. My only argument with them is there isn’t a wit of difference between their God the Engineer, and the Bible’s God, the engineer. Only, they think they are uber smart and smugly look down on others.

Here is a reasonable definition of religion:

“Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life.”

Like, the Scientific method believes it can trust our senses. The Scientific method doesn’t “prove” the truth of anything, in any event. Science only takes human models and applies them to what we see in our senses.

Religion. Try to open your mind. Simply saying “It’s not so,” doesn’t make it not so. And meanwhile, there are some very interesting ideas, that have used simulation, to demonstrate that even our senses merely are a representation of the world, and do not in truth inform us of the world.

We probably agree Science is the best thing going right now. But, it’s still a religion.

I just love how anti-science people insist that science is a religion and call those who rely on science wrong, when they, the anti-science people, are wrong. Most have no clue what science is or even what the scientific method is.

Sorry, but this is humorous!

If I understand, you provide a nonsensical “rebuttal” to something I never said. And it’s completely laced with emotion, which proves my point.

Dawkins is a very interesting guy, and I read “The Selfish Gene” ever so long ago in college. I saw a woman reading it engrossed, looked at the odd cover, bought it, and felt I knew more. His writing is good, his thoughts regarding genes and memes are good.

But, I simply don’t understand given his views are only imperfect models for “reality,” which we can’t know, that he attacks those with a older, but in many ways wiser, model.

Things that help people get through life and live consonant lives shouldn’t be attacked. The degree of “reality” of any man made thought is ZERO. We only get closer to reality, but can never understand it.

What makes you think I’m anti-Science? Again, yours is an emotional, incorrect reading of what I said.

I said “Science is the best thing going.” I’m an Agnostic only because being an Atheist means certainty, and I don’t think we can be certain of anything.

That you are so certain, and that you think I’m attacking science, when I’m not doing that at all, simply proves my point. Emotional, irrational, off-base knee jerk reaction means you are a believer. Don’t worry about it! We all are. Some are more tolerant of others beliefs than others! I simply don’t like those religious folks who like to attack other religious folks, because they have a different religion with a different set of merits and demerits.

Your opening question was asking if science is a religion. It is not. It relies on the scientific method and religion doesn’t rely on reality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

1a: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Definition of science 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

None of those links, which are reliable sources, have your definition you gave above (not at all reasonable, I note), which was:

Here is a reasonable definition of religion:

“Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life.”

You be wrong.

BTW, there was nothing emotional about anything that I said. I was stating facts and what you stated was anti-science propaganda.

I be right buh =) Glad to see a bit of humor.

Buddhists do not believe in a God, for instance, yet it is described as a religion.

A religion is best characterized as a belief system. That’s it. Science believes the senses inform us of reality. However, it’s not possible to know if you are in a simulation made by a “God Engineer.” We could have been switched on a nanosecond ago, and you can’t tell the difference between that and the continuity you think you have.

As I said, Science is the best thing we have going. It’s incredibly predictive of natural phenomenon. But, I know a person who rejects “Evolution,” which is simply a man made concept for a phenomenon we think happens (and with excellent reasons!) When I started to question “Why does it matter?” I realized evolution almost never affects people in a lifetime. Maybe some viruses, but they aren’t even considered alive.

So what does it matter whether she believes in evolution or not? Zero effect on her, and she gets a richness of a story filled with real wisdom that spun around Western Culture, and both interacted with each other. I’ll tell you what. I wish I could believe in God! I wouldn’t have to worry about figuring out what is “Moral,” when it’s so hard to see it in physics, for instance. Yet, somehow it’s quite important to us folk.

And if you DO believe morality is somewhere hidden in the universal constants, then you have to start wondering how we obtained that universal constant.

I suspect there is something in our universal constants that allows life, and that also allows for morality to exist in a species. Naturally, it could be for some of Dawkin’s ideas about the fitness of those sharing the same genes, but even still, we have morality, and the universal constants allowed it. Different universal constants? Maybe those would NOT allow for a species with a morality. Who is to say? Still doesn’t mean there is a God, BTW, only that “We don’t know.”

You did say this, didn’t you?

I just love how anti-science people insist that science is a religion and call those who rely on science wrong, when they, the anti-science people, are wrong
 

It looks emotional to me. Snarky, SMUG (religious =), and wrong in it’s basic tenant that somehow I’m anti-science. Well, I don’t like what’s happening to science, because it’s being taken over by some very dangerous ideas, such as the “Precautionary principle,” and “Computer simulations,” when even James Hanson. You know, the Global Warming guy who went to congress to preach the truth, and made his point by picking the hottest day in DC and turning off the air-conditioner. Now, THAT’S the scientific method!

Dangling thought:

when even James Hanson said that it would take so much compute power, it isn’t possible for the foreseeable future. Fluid dynamics computations are super compute intensive, such that you can’t even determine the stall speed of a commercial airplane, for instance, with simulation.

Wrong. Science is based on the belief we can trust our senses.
That's not even true.

You obvious don’t know much about science.

Science is all about a set of rules to filter out human bias as much as possible.

 

@dante.castagnoli Dangling thought:

when even James Hanson said that it would take so much compute power, it isn’t possible for the foreseeable future. Fluid dynamics computations are super compute intensive, such that you can’t even determine the stall speed of a commercial airplane, for instance, with simulation.


WTF are you talking about? Fly by wire, computer designed aircraft?? What world do you live in?

 

“when even James Hanson said”. Cute trope, here’s an even James Hanson said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVz67cwmxTM

It looks emotional to me. Snarky, SMUG (religious =), and wrong in it’s basic tenant that somehow I’m anti-science. Well, I don’t like what’s happening to science, because it’s being taken over by some very dangerous ideas, such as the “Precautionary principle,” and “Computer simulations,” when even James Hanson. You know, the Global Warming guy who went to congress to preach the truth, and made his point by picking the hottest day in DC and turning off the air-conditioner. Now, THAT’S the scientific method!
  1. that was sarcasm, not snarkiness or smugness.

  2. that is not the scientific method.

dante.ca said; Wrong. Science is based on the belief we can trust our senses. The trendy “We are in a simulation” folks could be right. My only argument with them is there isn’t a wit of difference between their God the Engineer, and the Bible’s God, the engineer.

Only, they think they are uber smart and smugly look down on others.


That is a false equivalence.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Oxford dictionary)
Science does not ascribe motive to "universal physical mechanics" except that they are an expression of its inherent dynamical creative potential. The scientific equivalent of a god is an implacable mathematical force without emotion or intent.

OTOH, the biblical God created the universe and man intentionally for his own emotional gratification (and later became disappointed with his own work).

Genesis 1.31; God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good and He validated it completely. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
This single sentence alone has 5 inaccuracies.
  1. god does not have eyes to see with.

  2. god doesn’t care if something is good or bad

  3. God did not validate it completely because He regrets the results of His creation later

Genesis 6.6; The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
4. there is no evening in the universe
  1. there are no days in the universe.

It is true that, finally, two popes have conceded that (universal) evolution is a scientific fact, but until the bible is edited to correct the numerous proven factual inaccuracies, the bible and concept of god can hardly be equated with science.

You may want to consult the Skeptic’s Annotated bible/Quran/Book of Mormons, before making claims of equivalence.

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

And in response to your gratuitous ad hominem, no one has ever been murdered by the scientific community for becoming religious.

OTOH , many scientists have been murdered for “apostasy” (the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief). So who is the victim here?

dante.ca said: As I said, Science is the best thing we have going. It’s incredibly predictive of natural phenomenon. But, I know a person who rejects “Evolution,” which is simply a man made concept for a phenomenon we think happens (and with excellent reasons!) When I started to question “Why does it matter?” I realized evolution almost never affects people in a lifetime. Maybe some viruses, but they aren’t even considered alive.
You better consult the definition and role of evolution before you commit to such argument from ignorance.

Since the BB, the entire universe has evolved from a state of complete chaos to what you see today.

As to Darwinian evolution, you may want to study the evolution by means of natural selection of the human microbiome.

The human microbiome in evolution

Abstract

The trillions of microbes living in the gut-the gut microbiota-play an important role in human biology and disease. While much has been done to explore its diversity, a full understanding of our microbiomes demands an evolutionary perspective. In this review, we compare microbiomes from human populations, placing them in the context of microbes from humanity's near and distant animal relatives. We discuss potential mechanisms to generate host-specific microbiome configurations and the consequences of disrupting those configurations. Finally, we propose that this broader pogenetic perspective is useful for understanding the mechanisms underlying human-microbiome interactions.
The human microbiota consists of the 10-100 trillion symbiotic microbial cells harbored by each person, primarily bacteria in the gut; the human microbiome consists of the genes these cells harbor[1]. Microbiome projects worldwide have been launched with the goal of understanding the roles that these symbionts play and their impacts on human health[2, 3]. Just as the question, “what is it to be human?”, has troubled humans from the beginning of recorded history, the question, “what is the human microbiome?” has troubled researchers since the term was coined by Joshua Lederberg in 2001
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426293/

 

p.s. evolution by natural selection means that unless you are sufficiently adapted you don’t survive to procreate during your lifetime.

When I started to question “Why does it matter?” I realized evolution almost never affects people in a lifetime.
Well if knowing anything about life on Earth matters to you, then Evolution really does matter, even if one has been brainwashed into not wanting to learn about it.

Nothing about our biosphere can be comprehended without also appreciating how it came about! It’s no wonder that collectively we are so stupid that we’re destroying our biosphere as fast as possible, thanks to precisely that sort of willful embrace of ignorance. Yeah, yeah, my harsh words won’t inspire him to want to start learning about Evolution, but neither has anything else, so at least I can enjoy the satisfaction of calling a spade a spade.

 

These people do a much nicer way of handling that queer question.

Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?

Stated Clearly and Emory University’s Center

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqepQGOYKZ0