UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 9 to Talk Back 86
Science still is not a religion - and no amount of specious logic will make it into a religion.

by: JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

You know Rob, if you bothered even to look into this site, you would have found out I already addressed this issue nearly four years ago. Nothing you have written changes that opinion. Science is in no way a religion.

If you want a more detailed argument for why science is not religion:

and a more contentious item from someone who calls himself an agnostic theist:

Even your fellow creationists at the Institute for Creation Research don't think science is a religion - on their site you will find:

Of course they are wrong that evolution is a religion, but by making this particular distinction, they are acknowledging unequivocally that SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.

I read Davies' New York Times article when it came out. I did not agree with the article when it came out, and I still don't. He personally may believe in an unexplained something outside the universe, but this belief of his is not necessary to science. (Of course, it is not necessary to religion either - depending on which religion, if any, a person follows). The concept of outside the universe may even be meaningless - a point which can be argued, though not currently provable, either from a scientific or religious perspective. If science ever establishes that there is an outside the universe, it will do that by finding scientific evidence of what exists out there, and thus begin to identify what specifically is out there and the laws that govern it.

In any event, Davies is not claiming that science is a religion; what he is claiming is that there are elements underpinning science that have to be taken on faith. I won't argue with that as a generalization (just with some of his specifics.) But faith does not constitute a religion. If faith makes a religion, then double-entry bookkeeping is a religion - it requires faith in the underpinning of mathematics. (Mathematics is a very deliberate choice here - and the reason should be obvious to anyone who understands science.)

The fact is that there are numerous believing and practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who follow their respective religion , and yet are scientists. They do not regard science as religion - they regard their religious beliefs as their religion; and they have the basic intelligence to understand the clear difference between their religion and science.

I will suggest two recent books to you:

Darwin and Intelligent Design; Francisco Ayala, Fortress Press

Living with Darwin: Evolution and the Future of Faith; Philip Kitcher, Oxford University Press

Ayala is a biologist and philosopher; Kitcher is a philosopher. Reading these two books will not turn you into an agnostic, it will just introduce you to the idea that the findings of science, and particularly the reality of evolution, can be reconciled and are compatible with Christian belief.

And Rob, saying that science is philosophy and religion is philosophy, thus concluding (after intervening misleading blather involving a redefinition of your god into meaninglessness) science is religion - is equivalent to saying a ribeye steak is food and an apple is food, thus concluding a ribeye steak is an apple.

Once again, science is not a religion.