How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[isaone]

Science while pure in theory has one main problem. The only entities available to do it are humans and humans are the problem. Because of this human problem Science is sloppy and moves forward (and backward) in fits and starts. Over time (sometimes lots of it) Science does reject things that do not 'work' .

Religion on the other had never get's it in fact the more absurd and impossible a belief is the more a religious person is admired.

 

[Kahalachan]

Should I start from how axioms in maths and science are self-evident truths and belief in them is not even remotely close to belief in a religion.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

That's sorta what I do.

But I also admit that science isn't an absolute. "Proof" is a word best used for math and alcohol.

It's best to point out how science uses logic and is self scrutinizing and can't be a religion.

Also, tell them that science is a method for understanding the universe and not a collection of facts that have been approved by higher up people. I think a lot of people have the misconception that science is what scientists say is true. Hence, people try to combat evolution by saying scientists are supplanting contrary theories.

 

[Cuddles]

The extensive derail on cosmology has been split to here. While threads can be expected to drift, deliberately derailing them with a pet subject is not allowed and is likely to face further action is it continues. This applies particularly to Michael Mozina.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[GeeMack]

The extensive derail on cosmology has been split to here. While threads can be expected to drift, deliberately derailing them with a pet subject is not allowed and is likely to face further action is it continues. This applies particularly to Michael Mozina.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

Indeed the derails with off topic rants and sermons, typical of the religious fervor often seen in the crackpots, belong elsewhere. There is, however, a direct connection to the topic of this thread. Michael's constant preaching and religious adherence to his faith, his reliance on unevidenced assertions and dismissal of (actually contempt for) legitimate science, his confirmation bias, his sense that he is persecuted and his misguided notion that the supposed persecution actually supports his faith, are all very good examples of what this thread is all about. (See the link in Cuddles's mod box above if you're not familiar with the discussion.)

The question is, how do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap? In some cases all you can do is to show that it is crap by explaining the scientific method and showing how evidence supports the legitimate scientific position. It can also be noted how the failed reasoning and logical fallacies of the crackpots, religious zealots, and others who don't understand science, don't actually help explain how reality works. Science does.

There seems little if any hope that the faithful like Michael will ever get it, but there are always lurkers and newcomers to these kinds of conversations. There is hope that those people will become better prepared to recognize it when they encounter nutcases who take the position that science is religion. It can help them sort the reality of science from the fantasy of the crackpots and religious whack jobs.

 

[pnerd]

I found something interesting: "Is Science a Religion?" by Richard Dawkins

 

[BadBoy]

And that is a statement from arrogance! Ignorance of what? You do not know what I know and don't know. You are demonstrating your own ignorance.



When we deal with a relatively educated creationist, who has studied evolution so extensively that he can debate (however futilely) the fossil record, genetics, etc. in detail -- and yet clings to his beliefs -- a mental disorder is a likely cause. TAKE A LOOK I am aware that this view is not "politically correct" for many social relativists. For lack of a more accepted psychobabble term, I have something like brainwashing in mind. The evidence that there exists some sort of mental disorder in such people is quite strong -- if not overwhelming.

I agree. Dawkins goes so far as to suggest that educating children with these ideas (ID) is a form of child abuse.

 

[Pythonic]

Well there is some evidence for some minor chanages at exteme distances but thats not my point.

Pure experimentalism is flawed because:

It doesn't provide you with any guide about what experiments to do (until you have a theory that the laws of physics are universal there is no point in looking at distant gas clouds to see if they have exactly the same set of constants as we do).

It doesn't describe the way scientists actualy work (scientists tend to form theories then test them).

It doesn't allow you challange experimental results. For example there was a test for benzene that was fully reproduceable. Problem was that it was actualy testing for a contaminat and every known sample of benzene was contaminated.

True, and an excellent point, I might add. But there still exists a wide gap in that science does everything possible to seek truth whereas religion merely *claims* truth with absolutely no effort to substantiate it. But I don't think the question here is so much which (religion or science) is correct, but rather which earnestly seeks out truth to the best of its ability.

So, you may be correct that science also shares the point of drawing a conclusion first then seeking out its answer, and the answer despite best efforts still could be wrong, but in the end if it does fail it fails with logic behind it--so it still is more likely to be closer to the truth than any myth religion has spun. Religion is a lazy man's way of seeking truth.