### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###
science itself is also an religion, you have people that show proof but others dont believe it even if they see proof. so isnt science then also an religion?
Nothing is "proven" in science, just evidenced. The word "proof" is discouraged in science because scientists know it's impossible for us mere humans to have absolute knowledge of anything.
On the other hand, religious people pride themselves on being able to pretend to have absolute knowledge of things no one could possibly have ANY knowledge of.Scientists are skeptical of the humans, so, they must test it on their own to see if it isn't just one person or one occasion. In this sense, it isn't a religion, as religions need only one thing to prove themselves; the word of someone a thousand and a half years ago. A central tenant within religion is belief. In science belief exists only as the prelude to factual certainty. Factual certainty is something which religion will never achieve, let alone seek to achieve as religion would then fall into the category of science. Not believing everything you see is not religion, it is wisdom. Religion is believing in things which no one will ever see. science itself is also an religion, you have people that show proof but others dont believe it even if they see proof. so isnt science then also an religion?
I am extremely glad you posted that ^-^ But science does warship reason, as if it was almighty. Science does not accept the possibility that not everything can be explained, or is guided by laws of reason. Atheism means that you do not believe in any God! So how can science(which is a tool), be considered a GOD to atheism? That statement contradicts its self...Science is not a religion because they do not worship any type of spiritual belief or deity. Science is merely a tool to discovery and unlock the mysteries of the Universe. I don't think so. Science is merely a tool used to discover how things work in our Universe and the Advancement of Mankind. Science is not govern by faith; Religion is. u need to explore the concept of necessity .. science is just the unbiased observation of a repeated occurence and is based on common agreed (eg obvious) conventions .. for instance a theorem is the most plausible way to descibe or analyse something , it can never be wrong , only imprecise , although i totally agree that science in itself isn't proper metaphysics yea but we believe science it is a religion just like any other..it tries to explain how we became in its own way I think belief is the default state for humans due to our evolution. Superstition and by extension religion, are simply side effects of our evolved tendencies to anthropomorphise and search for meaning; even if it isn't there. Science is about observing nature and making predictive models of those observations. If the guys showing you the proof make accurate predictions and you still don't believe them, then you, sir, are an idiot.Wow. Absolute wow. Do not even begin to compare Science to religion. Religion is a part of the human condition. An evolutionary tool of the mind to keep us thinking there is a reason for existence. Our chances of survival increases the more we believe in a reason. Science has given us many answers. Religion has given us 1 answer, which is also blatantly false. paleese... Science and religion both require leaps of faith from time to time and both have the exact same problem. Traced far back enough they both defy belief and explenation. The difference is science makes a decent and respectable attempt to explain itself and develop its ideas own ideas based on evidence and testing. Most religions have been stuck in first gear for two thousand years becoming less beleavable and more outdated the longer people hold desperately to wild and unproveable claims. Well... Science is the god of atheism. Modern science is dogma. The foundations of science are seen as fact but they are assumptions. eg big bang inflation or that light is a wave with no medium. Legitimate proven ideas such as some ideas in Plasma Cosmology are harshly lumped in with gods UFOs etc. The peer review system is about politics and funding and new legitimate ideas may crush a theory and leave current scientists without funding. Real peer review happens after the publication of new scientific findings - with the acknowledgment from other scientists in form of citations. Scientists cite papers they find important. New scientific truth comes through the peer-review process. There are many journals for any given scientific area, and it is unlikely that all reviewers will be opponents. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Peer review has many problems, it is:
- slow - in the fast paced world we live in, it is unacceptable that it often takes more than a year for review / publication
- biased - reviewers and editors can suppress dissent, papers on topics they have conflict of interest with or opposing views, favor established scientists and institutions, etc
- inconsistent - same papers can get accepted and rejected, depending on reviewers and journals
Solution is to increase anonymity *and* transparency. [1][2]
[1][2]
Is peer review broken?
Word belief may not exist in science, but belief itself always exists in scientist. They may deny it, but it affects their assumptions on which they base their experiments and theories. Does not all the life around us and within us prove the existence of miraculous divine creation? science is definitely a religion. like anything else, you need to put your belief into it. funny thing is that: science becomes updated unlike other religions. but even the latest scientific laws, theories, etc. may be complete trash. we dont see the whole picture but we discover little bit more each time. will science eventually be able to tell us everything? Honestly, I have no idea. It might. We are bound by our own perception which is the basis of all our reasoning and experience The word belief does not exist in science. You show me ONE religious individual who provides sound and testable proof for their claims and I will give you my first born. This is a great Idea. I believe that the western idea of science as the scientific method is just as dogmatic as a traditional religion. Theories are just theories. They could be wrong or right. It doesn't matter what path you take, so long as you leave your mind open to all possibilities, and all beliefs. Say I was an atheist, presumably if there was any proof of a omniscient being then the concept of atheism would no longer be justifiable?In saying that my hair is blonde, and Mr X says that it is not blonde but can see that it is, then surely my hair is by your standards a religion. This seems implausible that all things people see but don't believe are religions. In science nothing is ever accepted as dogma. Science does not invoke supernatural beings. In science people do not have ritual observances. In what ways would science be a religion?saying that religions have proof for anything is laughable. Therefore your argument is invalidI don't think science itself is a like a religion, i think people take it to the point of religion. With science you will have theory which typically evolve over time as new data is obtained. Where religion is very black and white. With science the burden of proof is on the individual presenting the theory, and it is encouraged to disprove. This is done to improve the theory or force it to evolve. Religion is nothing like this. 
