Science is just another religion...
Discussion
I got onto the topic of dinosaurs, evolution, ancients and apes etc with a friend of mine.
They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
I said:
"religion is no different to many beliefs humans used to have. The earth was flat, the sun spun around the earth, the sun and rain was controlled by other beings, witches making a pact with the devil to be able to cast spells. A lack of knowledge and understanding means people have artistic license to fill in the gaps and can make up whatever they want."
Their reply: "yes, just like science. We're making up answers and linking things together with made up beliefs, looking for random things to tie them together and then calling it "proof". Science is just another religion..."
This took me back... i mean, how do you argue against that? At that point I changed topic as I'm not sure there's any point continuing the conversation after that...
(No shame BTW, people can choose to believe what they want, but i can't see that particular logic)
They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
I said:
"religion is no different to many beliefs humans used to have. The earth was flat, the sun spun around the earth, the sun and rain was controlled by other beings, witches making a pact with the devil to be able to cast spells. A lack of knowledge and understanding means people have artistic license to fill in the gaps and can make up whatever they want."
Their reply: "yes, just like science. We're making up answers and linking things together with made up beliefs, looking for random things to tie them together and then calling it "proof". Science is just another religion..."
This took me back... i mean, how do you argue against that? At that point I changed topic as I'm not sure there's any point continuing the conversation after that...
(No shame BTW, people can choose to believe what they want, but i can't see that particular logic)
Ambleton said:
I got onto the topic of dinosaurs, evolution, ancients and apes etc with a friend of mine.
They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
I said:
"religion is no different to many beliefs humans used to have. The earth was flat, the sun spun around the earth, the sun and rain was controlled by other beings, witches making a pact with the devil to be able to cast spells. A lack of knowledge and understanding means people have artistic license to fill in the gaps and can make up whatever they want."
Their reply: "yes, just like science. We're making up answers and linking things together with made up beliefs, looking for random things to tie them together and then calling it "proof". Science is just another religion..."
This took me back... i mean, how do you argue against that? At that point I changed topic as I'm not sure there's any point continuing the conversation after that...
(No shame BTW, people can choose to believe what they want, but i can't see that particular logic)
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory of how it happens. The difference between gravity being a fact and Newton’s/Einstein’s theories explaining it. They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
I said:
"religion is no different to many beliefs humans used to have. The earth was flat, the sun spun around the earth, the sun and rain was controlled by other beings, witches making a pact with the devil to be able to cast spells. A lack of knowledge and understanding means people have artistic license to fill in the gaps and can make up whatever they want."
Their reply: "yes, just like science. We're making up answers and linking things together with made up beliefs, looking for random things to tie them together and then calling it "proof". Science is just another religion..."
This took me back... i mean, how do you argue against that? At that point I changed topic as I'm not sure there's any point continuing the conversation after that...
(No shame BTW, people can choose to believe what they want, but i can't see that particular logic)
Pedantry aside…science can’t be a religion as it doesn’t have any gods and is fallible ie all scientific theorems and hypotheses are open to testing and refuting. In fact we only make progress in science when we show our existing understanding is wrong or incomplete.
Religions change over time but that is only a reaction to changes in society and not because of some objective testing of the rightness or wrongness of the religion. That is not possible as religions make no testable predictions.
A lot of people do treat science as if it was a religion. If someone is hellbent on thinking that religion and science are in conflict with each other and they want their "side" to "win", what they usually do is describe the "opposition" in very naive terms and then point out the naivety. Pretty obviously that style of argument is completely vacuous. The religious nut says "science is naive" and the pro-science nut says "religion is naive", yet both proponents have no real understanding of what their opponents actually think. They just draw a caricature of it, then point at the caricature and say, "that's silly."
Science is a deductive thought process based on observation of the external world and a number of assumptions about how we as thinking and observing entities relate to that external world we experience. Religious thinking starts with a different set of assumptions and typically treats aspects of us and our direct experience as being fundamental. So where science might say mass is an example of a fundamental thing, a religion might think of purpose or love as being fundamental. A scientist might say that purpose and love are emergent characteristics of an assembly of particles. A naive religionist might say that was obviously nonsense. A more sophisticated religionist might say they agree that humans' direct experience of purpose and love is exactly that, a product of particles interacting, but they have faith that the rules of the game (e.g. the relative values of the fundamental physical constants like planck length, charge on an electron, etc) are calibrated to bring this about. If they ask a scientist what they think about that proposition, the correct answer is "nothing". It is not a scientific proposition, so a scientist has nothing to say about it.
Science is a deductive thought process based on observation of the external world and a number of assumptions about how we as thinking and observing entities relate to that external world we experience. Religious thinking starts with a different set of assumptions and typically treats aspects of us and our direct experience as being fundamental. So where science might say mass is an example of a fundamental thing, a religion might think of purpose or love as being fundamental. A scientist might say that purpose and love are emergent characteristics of an assembly of particles. A naive religionist might say that was obviously nonsense. A more sophisticated religionist might say they agree that humans' direct experience of purpose and love is exactly that, a product of particles interacting, but they have faith that the rules of the game (e.g. the relative values of the fundamental physical constants like planck length, charge on an electron, etc) are calibrated to bring this about. If they ask a scientist what they think about that proposition, the correct answer is "nothing". It is not a scientific proposition, so a scientist has nothing to say about it.
Ambleton said:
I got onto the topic of dinosaurs, evolution, ancients and apes etc with a friend of mine.
They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
Are they American?They believe in genesis, don't believe in evolution and don't believe that humans came from apes.
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
Zero Fuchs said:
Isn't science based on theory as opposed to being a fixed, unquestionable concept.
Theories are just that and science has evolved.
Some religions still can't accept people being gay.
Your mate sounds like a right one.
A lot of science is based on observation. You start with a theory, observe, and deduce the results. Theories are just that and science has evolved.
Some religions still can't accept people being gay.
Your mate sounds like a right one.
Does something burn better then something else?? Now start to ask why...
Remember to list the Apparatus and label your drawing. Repeat the experiment to help make it statistically valid.
williamp said:
Zero Fuchs said:
Isn't science based on theory as opposed to being a fixed, unquestionable concept.
Theories are just that and science has evolved.
Some religions still can't accept people being gay.
Your mate sounds like a right one.
A lot of science is based on observation. You start with a theory, observe, and deduce the results. Theories are just that and science has evolved.
Some religions still can't accept people being gay.
Your mate sounds like a right one.
Does something burn better then something else?? Now start to ask why...
Remember to list the Apparatus and label your drawing. Repeat the experiment to help make it statistically valid.
Knowledge advances. Unless you're a "the science is settled" type of person.
Ambleton said:
Their argument, and I'm struggling to really find an answer for this... is "science is just another religion".
I imagine that this argument is based on one of two starting points. First: ignorance of scientific method.
Secondly: an understanding of scientific method, allied to a realisation that faith-based hypotheses and deduction cannot compete with it. Therefore attempt, disingenuously, to equate the two. Then attempts to dismantle faith-based belief can be rebutted with the mantra: “science is the same”.
Science is a method for discovering the truth.
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices where the truth is proclaimed first and the rest derives from it.
Science throws out a beliefs if/where they can no longer be supported, or modifies it to better match the evidence.
Religion can't do that on many subjects and so gets increasingly wrong whilst having a moral insistence that it should be adhered to.
The best thing I ever read on this as a young Christian was actually nineteen eighty-four whose concept of doublethink totally nailed the mindset of functioning in a world using concepts you don't believe exist.
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices where the truth is proclaimed first and the rest derives from it.
Science throws out a beliefs if/where they can no longer be supported, or modifies it to better match the evidence.
Religion can't do that on many subjects and so gets increasingly wrong whilst having a moral insistence that it should be adhered to.
The best thing I ever read on this as a young Christian was actually nineteen eighty-four whose concept of doublethink totally nailed the mindset of functioning in a world using concepts you don't believe exist.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff