Some people seem to think that science is akin to a religion. Can someone explain how this is so? [Spirituality & Religion]

@blackwhitejester

And that is a logical supposition that we have no observable reason to question.
And if there were concrete evidence that the laws of physics had changed then science would be forced to accept it.

I also find equating observable, testable laws of reality with the largely subjective rules of morality to be somewhat questionable

So how is science a religion? How is believing the laws of physics have always been the same as believing one deity or another created everything?

You're right, the current scientific establishment is infallible. Everyone who identifies as scientific has their beliefs exactly worded to prevent any mistaking with their thoughts as religious.

@blackwhitejester:

The scientific method is not infallible. It's just the best, most consistently accurate way of determining truth that we have yet devised.

Not sure how making sure it is understood that views based in science are not religious indicates that they are religious...

Science should mean a quest for knowledge, not a confirmation of facts. Supposing eternal fixed laws is dogmatic at best, which would stifle free thought within scientific grounds, hence no new ground breaking theories. They could be out there, the theories, but it's pretty hard to have them if there are prevailingly dogmatic views about reality. For example, I consider my brain, that everything I experience is taking place in my brain, that my brain is really the controlling factor in my quest for understanding, not mathematical physical constraints, or rather, it is my brain creating these constraints, since all I can know is what my brain allows me. Most people don't think this way even though it is true. It is because of views about reality in the establishment which stifle creative thought. What I said is 100% true.

@blackwhitejester:

...science IS a quest for knowledge. And even when scientific knowledge gets mired in dogma we can see from history that eventually evidence prevails.

Supposing fixed laws is not dogmatic, unless you suggest that there is evidence that suggests otherwise that is being ignored.

Basically you seem to be saying that because scientists generally work within the framework of known laws that these laws are dogma and that science is therefor a religion.

I'm afraid that doesn't even come close to the definition of a religion.

Certain theories prevail over the consideration of any other theory as fact. Theories in a sense have become like god in this scenario. In our current age there is a theory called the standard model. It presupposes that all our knowledge of physics is based on unchanging physical laws which have only been measured for less than 10,000 years. I don't know the specifics, but one could say it is an unduly dogmatic hypothesis.

@blackwhitejester:

One could say that if there was a compelling reason to believe otherwise.
So.
Is there?

@blackwhitejester: "No specifics?"... so you don't really KNOW any scientist whose professional writings you would call "dogmatic." Were you just inpsired from above to make that judgement? Can't you be content with loving your god with all your heart?

People often use the word "theory" to mean a guess.
But scientific theory means something quite different:
It means hard work, making reasoned deductions from careful observations, refining it to more accurately describe reality. The fact that our understanding changes as it improves is a feature, not a bug.
The difference between reason and belief, and the vaule of both, is a fact of life the intelligent grownups in every religion accept.

Reason is a tool, one of humanity's great inventions. It imposes clear-cut rules on thinking, developed to bring us out of fear and conflict into understanding. Please compare how religion has dealt with fear and conflict. That may not be what religion "really" is about, but the murdered and oppressed are real.

Calling religion better than the Humanities is like comparing a Christmas card to a blueprint.
They each have their appropriate uses.
Ignoring the Humanities and devoting your life to a traditional belief system does not necessarily make you good.
Ignoring traditional belief systems and devoting your life to the Humanities does not necessarily make you evil.

I hope you, unlike too many internetters, are intelligent and mature enough to see that I'm not attacking your religion... and that you know nearly nothing about me from what I've written. Good for you if your god gives purpose and heart to your life. Not everyone is exactly like you.

Science is just a bunch of definitions and words using language. To me it is meaningless to the facts I derive from my experience. I am trapped in a body, and everything about reality ultimately boils down to processes in my brain wherein the gravity of physics effects in those processes is indefinite at best. The human brain is the most complex and vast thing in existence in terms of its profundity. In terms of a formalized argument with words, I'll lose everytime. It was nice to think though.

Science brought you your car, the warm safe shelter of your home, and... that list is nearly endless, so how can you call it "meaningless" to you?
And the science of history teaches us about the Crusades, and about the golden age of Islam, and why we are forever indebted to Islam for preserving science and learning while Christianity was keeping Europe mired in the Dark Ages.
(Well, I put that in your pipe... smoke it or not, as you wish...)

Interesting about Islam, that may be true. But even if you're goofing me, I don't believe in the past. I think I die every time I sleep and everything reorganizes everytime I wake up. Whatever kind of religion that is, it's what I believe. From my perspective at least, I die, even if it's for a split second, from an outsiders? Probably just looks like I'm sleeping as usual.

Ah... I detect a surrealist. Praise "Bob"! Praise the pipe of "Bob"!

Don't feel like it's up to you to change the idiots, you just gotta do you. If you focus on other people too much you begin to lose any sort of individuality, and by that I mean separateness from other people's existences not uniqueness.

Dialogue is... oh Phuket, I'm talking to a... not a brick wall, more like a swamp...

I became a swamp? Oh well. At least it was diverting. Yes I disagree with some things about science which other people would know more about than me, so the conversation was doomed from the start but it would've been pointless not to let myself be free. Diversions are essential to sanity.

You missed my point entirely. Your phrase "Disagreeing with science" is a swamp of ignorance because no scientist claims some Truth the way religion does. Science is a process, a method of discovery, and when its experiments give real results, they're real, end of story, no argument. Water boils at 212 F. And you are free to be ignorant, but why expect anyone to value your opinions then?

Anything I say now is doomed to disapproval with utmost certainty. Science is a word to me, not the idea of the most sure method by which to derive truth from reality. I want to make up my own word for that.

You kids today, grumble mutter...

Back when our society was still civilised, before the Falwell-et-al campaign began using Jesus and fear to brainwash people into hating and distrusting Democracy, other cultures, and the human brain, most people, even those unable or too lazy to think clearly, at least respected the humanities.

Public schools were more than bully-pens and holding tanks; children were there to have their curiosity about the world awakened, and to learn there's more to life than money and more to religion than "Our god's bigger than their god." Crackpots were a minority, correctly regarded as crackpots. Now they've just elected King Asshole.

@blackwhitejester:

[quote][quote]not the idea of the most sure method by which to derive truth from reality. I want to make up my own word for that.[/quote][/quote]

Then you'd better come up with a system for that word that works better than science.