Oddly enough, pretty much the same memes are expressed right here in this group.

that science and religion both "make shit up", and are therefore not distinguishable in any meaningful way. Which is both a false premise and an illogical conclusion.

...from people who have come to the realization that religion does not and never can compete with the levels of legitimacy and utility science has achieved, and whose religious beliefs are in some manner threatened by that.

So, they try to drag science back down to religion's level to make it less threatening.

to promote and defend the legitimacy of religion, even some who claim not to believe in "gods" and who claim to be scientifically minded. It's actually rather ironic that in trying to drag science DOWN to the level of religion, they are implicitly (though unknowingly) acknowledging exactly what you point out.

constantly revising and improving its "stories" to bring them closer and closer to observed reality, or does it simply repeat them without concern for their actual accuracy?

that incorporate themes and references from the old stories to reflect changed circumstances.

Why do you ask?

The stories and rules from a supreme being? If you use your own reasoning, why would you need religion in the first place?

As for a need for religion, I suppose you could make an argument that we don't need community, reflection on ultimate questions, or ritual experiences, but unless you accompany it with an argument for why these things are intrinsically bad (either apart or together), lack of need would not be an argument for getting rid of them or refusing to put them together. We don't *need* to do a lot of things that we find value in nonetheless.

One important thing I think you left out is

Religions have a supernatural element to them. I cannot think of a single religion that does not make room for the supernatural.


Science does not.... in any way.


Also, people don't "believe" in science. It's more like they trust it.... why? Because, look around. Science WORKS and has been very successful. And science is "there" whether you know about it or not. (I mean, no one has religious reasons for applying the breaks BEFORE they get to the stop sign.)

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings".

-Victor J. Stenger

Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 02:48 PM - Edit history (1)

is a sterling example of highly ritualized behavior by a small cult here on DU, and that its purpose is to reinforce in-group identity while attempting to stigmatize those it regards as members of an out-group.

But "cult" is a word like "delusional": it has technical meanings, but it's colloquial meanings are needlessly inflammatory. And it's really easy to just trade those words back and forth to no good purpose.

These meta threads occur regularly both here and in their protected group, especially when they have failed to bully an out-group individual into silence. Perhaps "cult" isn't the best word to describe what's going on here, but it's probably the most polite of available terms.

That's yet another ritual of the cult of ecumenicalism here...the intonation that there is a persistent victimization of both religious believers and some (undefined) sort of "bad" atheists. But it is a notion that exists entirely in your own imaginations. A persecution complex does tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it?

As always your contributions to the ongoing discussions here are well thought out and very constructive. Keep up the good work.

the only response you can muster is calling out a typo.

who, out of all the replies to her post, chooses to answer ONLY the one calling out a typo, but is unable to engage on any more substantive point in the entire thread.

So the question is, so fucking what?

Her post smacks of a hit and run job, without any intention of fostering or contributing to discussion.

Whatever makes her happy, I guess.

Wouldn't you say?

Yes, there are certain streams of highly flawed and defective thinking which permeate thread after thread in this group, or the larger world, and which cannot be too highly stigmatized. Hence this thread and many others like it. And hence this site.

And if there is any "cult" among those who frequent Religion, it is the cult of ecumenicalism, to which you adhere so strongly, okasha. The cult which has as one of its most sacred rituals the labeling of certain religious believers as not "true" or "real" Christians/Muslims because they dare to honestly declare their hatred and bigotry to be motivated by their personal faith.

I think you're nailed it. I'm rather fascinated by the dynamic, quite predictable, and the patterns that emerge in the types of responses.

I'm not well versed in the various logical fallacies, but plenty of them are employed.

I make a simple observation that there are many many things that science has not explained and the next thing you know, I'm a RWNJ.

It's as reliable as the sunrise.

that "plenty" of logical fallacies have been employed here. But I won't be holding my breath.

is pretty blatant, and you get your talking points directly from right-wing anti-intellectual sites:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=190706

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=190713

As you say, with irony you don't even appreciate, very predictable.

I've had that same dead duck laid at my feet here, by a member of the same merry little band, despite the fact that I've been an "out" socialist since I was 18 and have been perfectly open about it on DU.

RWNJ is just the currently fashionable ad hom. Maybe they realized that the goat posts were counterproductive.

It's not a religion it's a method. So sad that religious people see everything through a religious lens

try to paint science as something it isn't, because they feel the desperate need to elevate religion into something it isn't.

However, out in lunatic republican idiocracy world, exactly the same attack on science is done on a daily basis. Too bad that cannot be categorized as a "small cult".

Science and religion share certain characteristics, but then so do cacti and porcupines.

"Science is a religion for some people"?

And yes, science and religion are both practiced by human beings. They both involve the use of language and books. So what? To what degree is that meaningful? Many pairs of things share characteristics with each other and with many other things as well, but that doesn't necessarily make them similar or related in any but a superficial way.

Despite the presentation of valid counter explanations and even solid evidence.

This stubborn insistence is certainly found among members of various religions and is not unknown among some scientists and laypeople with regards to certain questions.

It's just a human characteristic, I think, and pops up in many different fields and situations.

Or is it incorrect, in your opinion?

Or will this be another dodgy "I don't know and have no opinion at all" answer?

Your OP question is a bit complex: to the question in the subject line, I would say "No, science is not a religion", and I pretty much said that in my reply.

Do some people treat is almost as a religion? I'd say yes, sometimes they do.

I don't see the dodginess you refer to...

And you tried to dodge it by deflecting back to the OP, when you knew perfectly well what I was referring to, and all the while you were protesting that your responses are NEVER dodgy. Too funny.

So I'll ask again: Do you agree with the statement "Science is a religion for some people"?

Yes or no? Saying that they "almost" "sometimes" do is more dodging. But you knew that.

for lack of a better term. They seem to not only not know what science is, but what it isn't, and more than that, they don't seem to care. They are incurious, something I can never understand.

I wonder what it is that rattles the cages of people when it is suggested that science ain't perfect and can't explain all things and alright with that fact.

"Incurious" is quite the opposite of people who are open-minded and who challenge conventional scientific wisdom.

Did you know that good scientists do that all the time? They challenge conventional wisdom, that's what advances the science.

Incurious are those who are unwilling and/or incapable of grasping alternate theories of a thing.

And that is very sad.

that science isn't perfect and that it can't explain everything, over and over and over, when NO ONE has ever claimed or argued otherwise?

Religion/belief is based on the premise that the conclusion is upheld, even if evidence shows that the conclusion is impossible.

Science is based on the premise that the conclusion is thrown out as soon as there is one piece of evidence contradicting it.

Science can be proven wrong and adapt.

Religion is proven wrong constantly and refuses to adapt.

The mathematics of Quantum Physics and String Theory, just to name two, can not be understood by a simple majority. If we understand them at all, it is through books written for laymen. These books do not teach any of us to do the math. They give a good layman's explanation. And some things in quantum physics are so strange that they can not be understood through observation or intuition.

Some aspects of science, like evolution, are easier for an individual to understand because a simple experiment with microorganisms can show that life at that sale does evolve. It is trickier to understand evolution on the macro scale without a degree in biology and a lot of study.

Many of us just accept that the theory of evolution is correct because it makes more sense than a puppet master god. We come to trust scientists who have worked to understand how the functions. When things like global warming are covered by a vast majority of scientists, we find it easy to trust the experts.

Because many of us believe the science without being able to run the experiments to provide the proof does not mean that Science is a religion.

There is no accepted text that provides the infallible word of science. The religious attack Darwin because he is easy for them to put in the place of the bible of the Koran. Darwin, though he was a remarkable man, does not have final say on a matter through chapter and verse in "On the Origin of the Species." Biological evolution is an active science that changes in the details.

So, though science is often accepted as a belief, it is not a religion.

Do people "believe" that when they take an antibiotic it will clear up their ear infection? Even though they are completely unable to enunciate or understand the fundamental details of how it happens, they are aware, at some level, that the process that goes into developing and testing drugs works, and that doctors and pharmacists, for the most part, know what they're doing in prescribing and dispensing drugs. That is "belief" or "faith" (if you want to call it that) in the sense of confidence based on experience or proven past performance, which is, again, quite a difference sense than religious "belief" or "faith".

A religous person accepts the word of a religous leader or holy book that the world is a certain way. Most people who think science is correct can neither run an experiment to prove some aspect of science nor understand the mathamatics that form the foundaitons of most science.

My point is that just because we accept on faith that evolution is real, global warming is happening, or that black holes suck, doesn't mean we are following the dictates of a religion.

If a deists asks you to prove that it is a force called gravity and not the will of god that holds you to the planet, how would you do that? You could pull out Einstein's theory of general relativity, but how many people really understand the theory.

We all work with a system of belief. Not all of us work with a system of religon.

There are those think science has all the answers, or potentially has all the answers. I would agree that science can potentially answer every "how" question, but I doubt it can answer any "why" question. That would be up to the imagination, the realm of "why" and "reason". Science is the realm of "how" and "purpose".
Religion can be explained in scientific terms. Science cannot be explained in religious terms.

Science does not criticize, it examines, observes and arrives at conclusions. It deals in facts.

Now you've back pedaled to "a few". And still, as usual with those peddling the bogus "scientism" meme, you are unable to provide even a few examples of who these people might be, and quotes of them expressing the opinion that "science has all the answers". I'll wager that even backing up your claim of "a few" is going to be more than you can manage.

And can you even provide a meaningful, non-mushy distinction between a "how" question and a "why" question? Do you claim that science cannot provide a useful answer to the question "why is the sky blue"?

If you cannot see that "some" and "a few" are interchangeable, I cannot help you.
If you cannot distinguish between "how" and "why", I cannot help you.

There is nothing "mushy" about the difference.
"Why" is a question about motive, reason.
"How" is a question about cause and effect, purpose.
There is no reason why the sky is blue. It is the effect of light passing through water molecules in the atmosphere.

Your OP is so ironic.

Or is this just the phony meme of "scientism", propagated by people who think that if they can put science and religion under the same roof, they can deflect criticism from religion?

are by citing their lack of scientific proof".

Well no I really don't think anyone has made that claim with respect to the delusional nature of religiosity. Instead the claim that has been made is quite different: that religious beliefs are frequently indistinguishable from delusional beliefs, and that further the psychiatric literature, for example the DSM, wrestles with this exact same problem and does not produce convincing distinctions other than the "critical mass of believers" distinction.

The debate here over religion and science is generally about claims that the two are not in conflict, which claim is demonstrably false, or the claim that science is a belief system just like religion, specifically that science, like religion, "just makes shit up". For example, just recently it was asserted that:

Since "why is the sky blue" and "why do stars shine" are perfectly legitimate questions. If you're going to claim that those questions asking "why?" are not "why" questions, I can't help you.

And when religionistas try to make truth claims about the physical world, it's they who are trying to put science and religion under the same roof, not me, dude. Do you seriously not even grasp that? When believers try to invoke science, when they think it supports their claims (which they do, despite your rather silly claim to the contrary), but reject the need for science or "proof" in matters of faith when it demolishes their claims, that's the irony. My motive is to expose that hypocrisy and double standard. I'm peddling the truth, and intellectual honesty. What you're peddling is obviously something else.

Time to go out and enjoy the natural wonders of this beautiful world.
Anyway, I've made my points. Take them or reject them, that's up to you.

Have a wonderful Easter! A fine time to refresh our minds and souls

And not surprised that you feel no need to back them up. It seems to be your way to say "It's true because I say so, I don't need to prove it."

Yes, a fine way for you to celebrate your Easter...

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Celebrating a vicious human sacrifice and pushing a belief that people come back to life after dying?? Please stop

To me it celebrates spring, fertility and new life. So, Happy Easter to you too

The day of the week is hardly relevant.

you excommunicated heretic!



I had another phrase in mind when I chose the word "cult" to refer to the Kool Kids, but you're right that it's exactly correct.

except jump in and try to do a victory dance when you think that someone you like has scored a point against someone you don't like. Not only sad because you're pretty much always wrong, but because you don't seem to have anything of any substance to contribute on your own.

Science is about how the universe operates, not why. The laws of physics are nothing like the laws of men.
We mistakenly ask "why" questions of science, but our answers come from study, research and experimentation, as we figure out how objects relate to each other. In the physical world, all can be explained, at least in theory.
Religion belongs in the metaphysical world, where explanations are as varied as Italian ice cream flavors.

Science has one explanation, the bible another.

That's just one 'why' question that science answers and religion lies about.

Science has an explanation based on facts. Facts that take into account human anatomy, neural networks, and how pain works. It does not pretend to come up with a reason for that pain.
You are asking what causes the pain, or how come childbirth is painful, not why.

Religion may give an explanation based on some imaginary reason, decided by an imaginary entity. Religion gives an explanation based on reason, not cause and effect.

I hope you don't think I support or condone religious belief, because I don't. But I do support the right of anyone to believe whatever they choose. I respect that right to believe, regardless of the belief. How they behave is something else entirely.

Science "has" an explanation, but religion "gives" one (or many), and even though it is not required to have any connection to reality, he pretends that the "explanation" of religion should have equal standing with one based on facts.

Yes, it's perfectly reasonable for a "loving god" to condemn all women to suffer because one disobeyed him.

But the notion comes from a reasoning mind, distorted as that reasoning may be. I could not agree more with the GR quote.
I personally find most of what I have read in the bible to be pretty silly at best and noxious at worst, but if others want to take it as true, well that is on them. I wish them well, as long as they keep it to themselves and do not try to impose their beliefs or values on others.

Because something is done for a reason does not make it reasonable

discovering how physics works. It in no way could be considered a religion.

Once a person starts claiming things in the name of science at a level of certainty that actual science doesn't have, it transforms from evidence-based methodology into a on-faith belief system, which I call at that point "Science", capitalized and ritualized.

The difference between science and Science is the admission of uncertainty, even if said uncertainty is tiny. Anything that deals in absolutes is a religion and is not science.

And are they scientists or just people who don't understand it?

nutrition fads are a common example - X is good for you, says one study, people rush to add it to their diets, then the next study comes out and it's bad for you now, so they shun it, at least until the next study that says its good for you.

personally I think that GMOs and a lot of pharma fads (especially psych related) also fall into this category

I asked for examples of people "claiming things in the name of science at a level of certainty that actual science doesn't have" YOUR words..YOUR claim. What you provided was some vague handwaving that didn't even come close to meeting that description.

Try again.

it appears I've run into a true believer

I have long since learned that it is pointless to engage, let alone argue with one. So I'm afraid you'll have to be disappointed that I didn't meet whatever standard you feel is necessary to impose.

They believe they have the "truth" and the rest of us are just sheep. Such irony when those who claim to be bearers of the truth also claim to be atheists. Makes one wonder.

And all from the religionists in the crowd. This thread seems to be breeding those groundless claims.

Again…I am shocked…shocked..

Funny how asking people to back up their own claims with actual evidence gets them all knotted up. I can see how you'd be reluctant to engage with someone who doesn't give your nonsense a free pass, though. That evidence stuff is such a pain, ain't it?

But I'm not disappointed at all. Your failure was expected, and the demonstration of the bankrupcy of your claim is a fitting end to our discussion.

I mean seriously, claiming Carl Sagan saying “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” is equivalent to saying that any inquiry outside of science has "no value"?

Or claiming that E. O. Wilson saying “All tangible phenomena, from the birth of the stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and torturous the sequences, to the laws of physics.” is exactly the same as him saying that science is the "singular arbiter of value"?

And apparently he had to re-animate Bertrand Russell to get him to qualify as a "live person".

Not to mention providing his quotes without links or context. Very convenient.

Try again.

You say in this thread (and you've said in as many words elsewhere) that you are "peddling the truth." What is your methodology for determining the "truth"?

Second, is there some part of the "Scientism" entry at RationalWiki that you disagree with?

to throw in my face, thinking that you could score some points, and when your schtick was blasted full of holes, you decided to waste my time grasping at some other straws.

Not playing. Go waste someone else's time.

where you were on the same "name them" kick. Took about 5 seconds to find it. Don't take umbrage.

And given your emphatic claims to be both a seeker and peddler of "truth," as well as the bearer of a singular "truth" that scientism is a myth, I thought it might be enlightening (in a thread you commenced) for you to actually contribute some substantive commentary on those core issues. Hence my questions.

But, consistent with your modus operandi, you prefer bilious snark over substance. Unfortunate.

Pseudoscience thrives because there's a lack of education and critical thinking.

And littering the place with the strawmen they've constructed to defend their claims.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Science has no mystically or supernaturally revealed truth. It does not advocate any way of life or way of experience life. It is in no way shape or form a religion.

What it is, is a philosophical approach to how we accumulate knowledge about nature in the most unbiased and accurate way that we can think of, and the body of knowledge gained by this approach.

Calling it a religion is like saying an Elephant is the same thing as a rock. [/font]

more relevant

Creationists and climate change deniers (among others) claim science is a religion because it too is a matter of "faith".

Some religionists falsely define scientism as a religion in order to level the playing field.

But not the one I'm asking. And it isn't even meaningful unless your answer to my question is no. It also requires a non-mushy definition of "compatible" as a prerequisite.

There are some who "preach" science as if it were a religion with little or no understanding of the scientific method. That's not what science should be.

Science, as defined, as it should be, is the antithesis of a religion. Nothing is taken on faith, and everything must be questioned and tested. There are, however, those few who take everything they ever read in a science book as unquestionable gospel truth. Those are the people who give science a bad name because they take science on faith, and really question nothing. If you are going to question the Bible, then you better be willing to question James Randi too. Take neither on faith. THAT is science. (Granted, Randi is more likely to be right than the Bible, but that's no excuse for not questioning both, since neither source should be considered infallible.)

a definition of religion:
"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. "

a definition of science:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: "

Obviously different? Both science and religion deal with the nature of the universe. But according to the definitions religion is also concerned with belief and morality. Science deals with facts and truth. How can we define truth?
One definition from the Oxford Dictionary:

1.2A fact or belief that is accepted as true:
‘the emergence of scientific truths’

Now we are back to beliefs. So is the debate here between belief in science or belief in religion? Cannot we have both?

is that they both deal with the nature of the universe, that's not much to support a contention that science IS a religion. More of the qualities of religion you cite are not shared by science, including the invocation of a superhuman agency, devotional observances or a moral code.

And if you consider it possible to have "belief in science" AND "belief in religion" at the same time, you've acknowledged that science is not a religion.

Absolutely necessary to define terms.

YOU introduced the term "belief" into the discussion, not me. If you're now saying you don't have any idea what you meant by that term, I can't help you.

YOU introduced the term "belief" into the discussion.

Then insisted that you couldn't proceed with the discussion unless the term were defined.

Then when challenged to define it, showed that you knew perfectly well what was meant by "belief" all along.

There's a word for that kind of tactic in discussion. But I'm too polite to use it.

1) scientists believe that science will continue to provide more knowledge about the origins of existence. But science cannot prove what caused existence.

2) people of faith believe that there is a creative force. But they cannot prove what that force truly is.



As to definitions, I know what I mean when I use a word, but that does not mean that others define the term the same way. I will assume from your response that you agree with the definition I provided.

Curiosity, a quest for knowledge and order, and, for many, a compulsion with spreading the "knowledge" with others and, sometimes, insisting that theirs is the only truth.

I find it fascinating, this parallelism between the two.

about: "a compulsion with spreading the "knowledge" with others and, sometimes, insisting that theirs is the only truth.

I find it fascinating, this parallelism between the two."

I see just as many fundamentalist atheists here as fundamentalist Christians. And some on both sides cannot accept that others feel differently.

I was in a discussion here with a disciple of Richard Dawkins. My take is that when Dawkins talks about his specialty he speaks with knowledge, but when he talks about faith his opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else. He has no particular expertise in matters of theology but some of his followers treat his every pronouncement as gospel. As long as his opinion validates what they already believe, of course.

I catch a lot of hell for saying it, but it's true.

Religion and Science both depend a great deal on faith.

Some folks just can't seem to accept that truth.

with anything but flailing opinion. Just like your claim that science "makes shit up".

We ask, "what if" all the time, and then we test it and test it again.

Ya know, skepticscott, it's a real shame you resist the beauty of the truth here, of the LTR between science and religion. It's a love affair, not a contest.

Science and religion are practically inseparable, both having been with humankind throughout history, and with no indication that this will ever change, both are in our DNA.

How you've been convinced to believe that they are somehow incompatible in every case is beyond me, the evidence of their similarities and symbiosis is overwhelming.

Both are products of our innate curiosity, both require faith at different stages, both seek to find order in things and to explain things.

Science involves more testing and research and constant refinement, but other than these the two domains are more alike than they are different.

I don't need to back it up, it's all self evident.

What's your point? I'm sure Galileo and a few others could attest to how lovely the "symbiosis" of science and religion has been.

An experiment is not "making shit up". It's testing a hypothesis derived from observation (not made up out of thin air) to see how close it is to the true state of things.

And "love affair"? "Self Evident"?

Do frame that…it's priceless.

...I've offered my response and observations that both are purely human machinations.

Not surprisingly, you reject and then mock a reasonable and thoughtful reply and expose yourself and your bias.

Like I said, it's not a contest, it's a love affair.



Yin and yang, each meaningless without the other and both ambivalent to ignorance; they carry on.

...

Elements common to both include:

Curiousity
Faith
Order
Explanation

Elements unique to science (generally):

Testing
Research
Modeling
Dynamic

Elements unique to religion (generally):

Mythology
Reverence
Idiocentricity
Statis

The DNA parts, curiosity and the pursuit of order and explanation, are powerful and are the genesis of both domains, religion and science, I would argue.

Is there a scientific basis for your claim about DNA?

Use of language is. So is greed. So is organization into communities. Which does not make any of those things religions, any more than it makes science one.

Your "reasonable and thoughtful reply" may have seemed so to you, but it just wasn't. Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but someone has to. I'll leave you with your misapprehensions, since they seem to please you.

You might as well admit it, you've made up your mind about a thing and will reject any proposition that doesn't match your personal world view.

I'm glad that scientists and philosophers are more open-minded than that because if they weren't we'd make no progress whatsoever.