Another argument for science as a "religion."

So this guy was commenting on my blog today, and I clicked over to his blog to see what he was all about. This is the first post I saw:

Wacky, eh? The whole blog is a detailed argument as to why science is a religion. I hadn't meant to comment on his blog, but come on--how could I not? Does it irritate the shit out of anybody else that people who have no clue about science or atheism feel the need to comment on both as though they are right?  I'm still a little enraged.

Views: 57

Comment by Tammy on June 16, 2011 at 8:04pm

All the time...                


I enjoyed reading your response.

Comment by UnTarded on June 16, 2011 at 10:58pm

Just because one is an atheist does not mean that they're not a crackpot. Unbelief doesn't = rationality. Einstein was wrong. The Big Bang Theory is bunk. The "conspiracy theorists are the worst.

If you live in city large enough to have groups like Atheist United, you will meet them.

Comment by Michael on June 17, 2011 at 2:13am

This is an old one that never seems to die. 


Religion is defined as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the ... Using the same dictionary definition for science, we find: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of factsor truths systematically arranged and showing the operationof general laws

See? That was easy. 

"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the workings of the universe. Including the cause, nature and purpose of the universe." Yes, and it has demonstrable, repeatable proofs, not just vaguely delineated "beliefs" like religion. 

"Science is typically not something that can be explained easily and much of it has to be taken on faith in the mathematics used to resolve the problem. (ie. the distance to the sun. Can you explain to the non-scientific folks how we are so sure we know that distance?)" Although I'm no math whiz, I'm sure it can be done. After all, we teach young children science, or at least I hope we do. 

"Superhuman agency or agencies could be construed as natural principles such as light speed or gravity. Both are beyond human control and real understanding at this point, yet define so much of what makes up the precepts of science. (we have faith in their existence and their workings)" We do not have "faith" in them-we know they exist. If you doubt me, just go try to thwart gravity. The fact that we do not fully understand them at this point does not matter. 

"How much different are experiments from devotional and ritual observances. The process of experimentation is a defined and measurable act involving specific utensils and language." *Groan*. Did he seriously make that comparison? *Checks* Yes...yes he did. Name me one religious ritual which has practical results like science experiments. 

"Science has a defined moral code that tends to be resolved into the “do no harm” mantra of the medical profession, the “research, research research” mantra of the laboratory, “can it be duplicated?”, and others." The first is not science, but the ethical credo of physicians, while the rest are simply logical if you want to actually find scientific truth. 


*Looks at the comments after his post, sighs* "I try not to come off too condescending when I tell all the pagans, catholics, and atheists they are wrong and going to hell." *Facepalm* Oh well, you're polite about it at least...I notice he had no problem with this comment. Good comment by you though :)

Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 17, 2011 at 2:45am

I checked out this blog myself.  It annoyed me as well so I have left my word droppings at various points, to add to yours and a few other like minded and annoyed scientists and/or atheists.  The guy writes like an elementary students.  I had trouble believing that he is as old as his avatar suggests. 

You are correct. He is most emphatically a science ignoramus.

Comment by Derek on June 17, 2011 at 7:05am
If science is a religion then I'll worship at its alter.
Comment by Jon van Rooyen on June 17, 2011 at 7:48am

I think you made a good argument in your comment. I understand the guy was probably just trying to give an alternative objective view on atheism but I think it doesn't make sense. You can't compare science to religion, the two are completely different creatures. One is based on evidence while the other is based on blind faith.

On the other hand, I'd rather deify knowledge and rationality (not that I do) than a tyrannical skygod, so in a sense, one could argue that I look at science in similar ways as one would look at a religion. But that is only because I lack a dogma or religion and prefer my facts based on cold hard evidence.

I'm sure a similar thing could be said for most atheists who share a passion for science.

Comment by Peter Clarke on June 17, 2011 at 8:28am
I guess those with closed minds as this individual is obviously cursed with should at least on a basic level that religion is faith based whereas science is an acceptance of observation and experience. So faith in religion or acceptance of science which is reality based. As a friend of mine always says religion is what you wish life to be, morals is what life ought to be and science is what life is....simples


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service