Is Science A Religion?

[spnadmin]

akiva ji

Thanks for clearing up the religionist half of my question about reconciling religion with science, on religious forums. The other half of the question, implicit as well, is about why science even needs to be part of this conversation. Why would and why do rationalists and atheists bring such questions to religious forums? Why don't they bring these questions to science forums?

I just checked a physics forum. Went to the Astronomy/Cosmology subforum, from there to the modern cosmology section. Not a single thread was concerned with divine interactions with the cosmos. Here I am thinking of arguments about the "god particle" which initially was nothing more than a metaphor for Higgs Boson, and not intended to be taken literally. Not a single thread on the Big Bang being a way to conceptualize Divine Intention. Just a lot about different ways to interpret mathematical models that represent cosmic phenomena. A lot of talk about calculations. A lot of talk about interpreting data from high powered telescopes.

The science/religion debate, to me, seems limited to religious forums. Back to my question then. What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?

p/s "reconcile" might be a poor choice of words, but for now i will leave it alone.

 

[akiva]

One additional point:

The only religions that are stable/growing are those which are non-apologetic about their theistic/supernatural/spiritual components.

As soon as you remove those elements from the religion you remove any reason for the religion to exist -- and they start losing members -- because it no longer serves a function that can't just as easily be served outside the religion.

Akiva

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

Administrator ji, may I quote myself ?

RE: science and religion?

I accept that there is some sort of creative Force behind this (and every other) universe. That Force set up this universe to run by certain rules that we call Natural Law. The study and discovery of Natural Law is what we call Science. (Note: Natural Law might be able to exist without a creative Force, but I just don't see how, perhaps my brain is just too limited.)

Accepting certain attributes of this creative Force [hereafter called CF] is called Religion. Different ideas and opinions about this CF give rise to different Religions. Denying the existence of this CF is called Atheism. By these definitions, while Atheism is a belief system, it is not a religion.

Using these ideas as a basis, there can be no contradiction between Science and Religion, although obviously there must be disagreements amongst the various Religions.

And Mommy is still the Tooth Fairy.

 

[spnadmin]

Inderjeet Kaur ji

I am not sure, but it seems you are answering this question,
"What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?"

Based on your answer, the logical inference would be, Nothing is gained by asking scientists to conduct a science/religion debate on a science forum. If that is a reasonable inference, then the rationalist/atheist camp needs to reconsider its pattern of using science to falsify religion on religious forums. Science appears neutral to indifferent. if that were not the case, then science forums would be raging with debates for and against scientific tests of religious beliefs.

Which leads me to something else. You say

Denying the existence of this CF is called Atheism. By these definition, while Atheism is a belief system, it is not a religion.

If atheism is a belief system, as such it has little to do with science. Curious then that atheists use science to falsify religion (i.e., religious beliefs). How can any belief system falsify another belief system by using science, when science has nothing to do with belief? For example, how would belief system A (Atheism) falsify belief system B (your choice) by using arguments that are irrelevant and incompatible with atheism? If science is neutral as to belief, can it be used to falsify either A or B? (open question)

 

[akiva]

akiva ji
Thanks for clearing up the religionist half of my question about reconciling religion with science, on religious forums. The other half of the question, implicit as well, is about why science even needs to be part of this conversation. Why would and why do rationalists and atheists bring such questions to religious forums? Why don't they bring these questions to science forums?

The people you describe are "radical" atheists -- they feel a need to "spread the message"

Man is a "Believing" creature -- there is strong psychological evidence for that -- with strong indications that it's as deep as being at the genetic level.

IMO:

When someone rejects that element of their psyche, it creates a "tension" that needs to be dealt with.

One way to dealt with it is via overcompensating -- in other word, convincing themselves that they are "right" in their disbelief, and thereby remove that tension

Another way is to "minimize" or "invalidate" belief -- and thereby convince themselves, on some level(s) that there is no need to believe, and thereby "wish away" that tension by eliminating it's cause.

Akiva

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.

I am a bit confused by your proclamation above. I would appreciate if you would clarify it for me.

1. When did this so called "Age of Reason" start and what is NOT to be gained from it? How reasoning has become the attack to the religions and their beliefs?

2. Was Guru Nanak wrong in his reasoning when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu at the age of 7?

3. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he said pilgrimages, dips in holy waters, fasting, self immolation,animal sacrifices, Sati and many more are not the way to lead a truthful living?

4. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he started throwing water towards the West when he saw the Hindus throwing water towards the Sun?

5. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he says in Jap that there are limitless planets and galaxies? One can go on and on with his reasoning.

6.Who was he attacking with his reasoning?

7. What do have against reasoning?

8. Do you reason with yourself in order to make the right decisions?

Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:

a) those who feel "embarrassed" by the seeming conflict and are trying to reconcile the two;

b) those who attempt (poorly and invalidly) to use scientific discoveries to "prove" their religion

c) those who are not bothered by it -- because they consider the two complementary, not contradictory.

Types a and b are the ones usually discussing it.

Please define religion so I can understand what you mean by it.

I will take your points one by one but before I do that, please explain what do you mean by " Religious believers"?

Please name the embarrassed ones and in which religion and why do they feel embarrassed according to your opinion?

Please elaborate b) with concrete examples.

We will take c) after your response.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

Inderjeet Kaur ji

I am not sure, but it seems you are answering this question,
"What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?"

Based on your answer, the logical inference would be, Nothing is gained by asking scientists to conduct a science/religion debate on a science forum. If that is a reasonable inference, then the rationalist/atheist camp needs to reconsider its pattern of raising scientific arguments against religion on religious forums. Science appears neutral to indifferent. if that were not the case, then science forums would be raging with debates for and against scientific tests of beliefs that are religious, and not scientific.

Which leads me to something else. You say

If atheism is a belief system, as such it has little to do with science. Curious then that atheists use science to falsify religion (i.e., religious beliefs). How can any belief system falsify another belief system based on science, when science has nothing to do with belief? For example, how would belief system A (Atheism) falsify belief system B (your choice) by using arguments that are irrelevant and incompatible with atheism? If science is neutral as to belief, can it be used to falsify either A or B? (open question)

I see science and religion as two different subjects that have little to do with each other, rather like organic farming and kitten stroking.

However, I believe any intelligent discussion on this topic (or any other, for that matter), can be interesting and yield insights to the individual.

Every system must start with basic assumptions that are accepted as true. In Religion, these are called Dogma. In Science/Maths, they are called Axioms. One difference between Religion and Science is that in Religion, Dogma is true and unchanging; if Dogma is changed, it becomes a new Religion at odds with the old one, often violently. However, the basic assumptions of science can and do evolve and change, albeit not without a lot of controversy. As a child in science class I was taught that the most basic law of science is that of universality, that is that the laws of science are everywhere the same. Along came black holes and sucked that assumption right into their gravity wells, never to be seen again. Science has not split into two sects, at least not that I know of. Likewise quantum mechanics has challenged and, indeed forced drastic revision of erstwhile scientific Axiom. God or whatever, it seems, really does play dice, Einstein notwithstanding.


Science cannot falsify religion, although it may indicate that certain religious beliefs are in error, such as the belief among some fundamentalist groups that global climate change is a myth thought up by atheistic scientists, straight from the pit of Hades. And of course, Galileo's unforgettable, under the breath, "Nevertheless, it moves."

I'm not sure if this answers your questions or not, but, you know, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshi... :icecreammunda:

 

[spnadmin]

Inderjeet ji

The only place where I disagree is on the point of quantum theory.Quantum theory did not nullify classical physics, Newtonian mechanics or Einstein's various theories. It presents a model for describing a subset of phenomena that cannot be predicted by and do not fit in the older models.

So we are not looking at a better theory with quantum theory. Instead it is a theory that hopes to explain gaps - the behavior of subatomic particles - not explained by earlier models - using probabilities typical of closed systems. This

indeed forced drastic revision of erstwhile scientific Axiom. God or whatever, it seems, really does play dice, Einstein notwithstanding.

is not exactly what quantum theory demonstrates. And God is not necessary for the quantum models to work. Anyway it is a cool term of art.

Apples still fall to the ground because of gravity; and E still equals mc-squared.

Otherwise I agree.

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

Inderjeet ji

The only place where I disagree is on the point of quantum theory.Quantum theory did not nullify classical physics, Newtonian mechanics or Einstein's various theories. It presents a model for describing a subset of phenomena that cannot be predicted by and do not fit in the older models.

So we are not looking at a better theory with quantum theory. Instead it is a theory that hopes to explain gaps - the behavior of subatomic particles - not explained by earlier models. This is not exactly what quantum theory demonstrates. And God is not necessary for the quantum models to work. Anyway it is a cool term of art.

Apples still fall to the ground because of gravity; and E still equals mc-squared.

Otherwise I agree.

The bit about quantum theory was an afterthought, obviously not well thought out. Those two sentences should be cut out and tossed into the before mentioned gravity well. I will leave them because they they give rise to your interesting and instructive response. This is an example of how we grow and learn.

I'm glad we agree on the importance of the loss of universality in Science. That is huge. We have yet to realise how huge, I'll warrant.

 

[Luckysingh]

What I find amazing is the involvement of the 'Apple' in both science and religion since the beginning of time and even now !!

1st we have the apple in the garden of eden.
Then we have the apple falling on Newton who went on to define and confirm the gravitational laws.
But Today, we have at the fingertips, palms and pockets of people all around the world the very Apple of Steve Jobs !:interestedmunda:

 

[spnadmin]

Inderjeet Kaur ji

I think those sentences are fine because they sharpen the distinction between religion and science. Science builds on science, and throws out anything that can be falsified. The sun is stationary; the earth really does move. The laws of gravity and inertia keep them in orbit. So gravity and inertia have not been repealed.

Quantum theory, in its infancy right now, contradicts the theory of relativity but it doesn't really falsify it. Quantum theory suggests that there are some universes - subatomic universes - where the calculations are different, where E equals mc- squared doesn't apply, and Newton's laws of momentum don't work.

I found a bunch of diagrams that even I can understand. Hope uploading one of them does not re-arrange the Spotlight.

 

[spnadmin]

Whew! Spotlight is fine. Otherwise I would have thread editing to do way back at the beginning.

Luckysingh ji Someone took a bite!

 

[Brother Onam]

What I find amazing is the involvement of the 'Apple' in both science and religion since the beginning of time and even now !!

1st we have the apple in the garden of eden.
Then we have the apple falling on Newton who went on to define and confirm the gravitational laws.
But Today, we have at the fingertips, palms and pockets of people all around the world the very Apple of Steve Jobs !:interestedmunda:

A bit of familiar myth: the Bible never, in fact, speaks of an apple; this is just something handed down. I guess because the religion and its art were produced and promulgated by Europeans, they presented a common fruit, which would not occur in the actual Garden of Eden region.

 

[Harvir007]

OK. So what? What is your point, once again.

I have already clarified that my original point was that science is not a religion. You asked me a question in what I think religion is, then you ask 'so what?' I don't understand what you're trying to do.

Please quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru about your above claim. You seem to jump to too many conclusions without studying the subject. Is that the reason you like science?

I don't think this story is in the Guru Granth Sahib but it is well known amongst Sikhs. This BBC video has a good overview of the story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-guru-vanishes/3778.html

This website goes into more detail. http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/register.nsf/p/story1

Here you can see it said that 'God gave him (Guru Nanak) a cup of nectar and said, "I am with you."'

Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about. Please elaborate and state your sources as they do in science.

Here's a source. http://www.sikhs.org/guru1.htm

You can see that it is said that 'Guru Nanak was in holy communion with God' and that Nanak himself proclaimed that there is but one god. 'Holy communion' to me seems like Nanak had a 'spiritual experience' in which he had been paid a visit by something divine which is what leads me to think that Sikhism is a belief system based on revealed truth.

 

[akiva]

Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about.

Tejwant Ji

In your opinion - and I accept that others hold that way as well.

However, I have met many GurSikhs -- had conversations with many more -- and read many books by GurSikhs -- all of whom hold that Sikhi has a belief in a creator/God.

So to be accurate you should have written "Some Sikhs hold that Sikhi has no God"

Akiva

 

[spnadmin]

The question of whether there is a "God" in Sikhism has been discussed on other threads. Although quick and brief replies to the question of whether there is a God in Sikhism are in order, let's not take this thread in the direction of continual Q&A on that topic. It will derail the thread, duplicate other discussions, and be off-topic.

Answers boil down to definitions of "God" and that is not what this thread is about. The topic is Is Science a Religion. Thanks/spnadmin

p/s the first 2 links given by Harvir007 ji refer us to the story of Guru Nanak disappearing for 3 days in a river. This story is part of the janamsakhi series which are the subject of intense debate among scholars. Many of the janamsakhis are controversial because their accuracy is suspect or cannot be validated by independent sources like the varan of Bhai Gurdas. If we proceed to debate that particular story, then again we go seriously off topic. Let's not do that.

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

I suggest, as I often do, to start with definitions, so we all know what we are talking about?

What is "science"?

What is "religion"?

I have already given my definitions. What are yours?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Science= An observational tool to find out why and learn about because.

Religion= A pre-mapped destiny of life with dire repercussions if the map is not followed.

Sikhi= A tool box to learn about the self in order to know why and because.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Ji

In your opinion - and I accept that others hold that way as well.

However, I have met many GurSikhs -- had conversations with many more -- and read many books by GurSikhs -- all of whom hold that Sikhi has a belief in a creator/God.

So to be accurate you should have written "Some Sikhs hold that Sikhi has no God"

Akiva

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

I would like you to respond to my whole post rather than picking and choosing in a cop out manner, so that we can have some conversation. You claimed something about Sikhi which is false and I challenged you for that. Please respond about your false claim.

Hope to hear from you. Let's be truthseekers in all aspects and never be afraid when confronted with it.

As far as you above post is concerned, read what Spnadmin ji has said and abide by it. We have several threads where I have given the reasons why Sikhi has no god. You can go through them and start another thread if you wish.

This time, just respond to me about your false claims regarding Sikhi and the questions asked in my post to you.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[akiva]

Tejwant Ji

What "false claim" about Sikhi did I make?

Akiva