Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
My Journal
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

1,008 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 14 years ago by lapislazuli

Is science the new religion?

Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 26-43 of 43)

Bottom Last Post

14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 8:22:53 AM EST (GMT-5)
Dont get me wrong Unc. You're right faith is unprovable but faith is not the same as religion. The two are different. I have faith (not maybe in the way that you do) but am not religious. History is similar to science as it is based as far as possible on fact. (Although interpretation and subjectivity are present) Thus to say 'its history accurate and true' and not be able to prove it is a contradiction.
14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 8:29:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
Religions are based on faith. What happens to them after that is another topic for another thread. I'm assuming consistency between them for the sake of this discussion. If you read a school textbook from the 1930s, you will find no mention of the contribution to society of oppressed minorities. If you read one from 2003, you will. To say that history is a science is an oversimplification. To say I am being contradictory is an overcomplication. If you have a term you'd prefer I use, feel free to suggest it. Until then, I think you can figure out what I mean by "history."
14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 8:39:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
I didnt say history is a science Unc. As i said interpretaion and subjectivity are present in history in ways they are not in science. Aah, semantics my dear chap.....i think i get your drift. How about folklore?
14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 8:44:42 AM EST (GMT-5)
By definition, there is a dismissiveness to folklore. It is generally juxtaposed with history. The dodo bird is history; the abominable snowman is folklore.
14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 9:03:04 AM EST (GMT-5)
ok if you're not happy with folklore i cant help you...maybe you'll just have to make up a new word to pinpoint what you mean.
14 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 8/10/03 - 9:03:53 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm content using "history."
14 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Saturday 8/30/03 - 10:12:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
It always was the alternative to religion
14 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Sunday 8/31/03 - 4:28:29 AM EST (GMT-5)
No, but I bet Tom Cruise thinks so.
14 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Sunday 8/31/03 - 4:29:58 AM EST (GMT-5)
Um, what are you talking about? Science isn't a religion. I am with UncleLaughie.
14 yrs ago, 8 mos ago - Tuesday 9/23/03 - 7:23:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 2/1/04 - 8:06:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
Science is NOT a religion.
14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 2/1/04 - 8:13:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
Science is just using rational thought to solve problems.

Religion is tradition.

14 yrs ago, 3 mos ago - Sunday 2/1/04 - 8:23:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
Not all science is based on fact. Evolution cannot and has not been proven. Creation cannot and has not been proven, from a non-religious view-point. The evolution theory requires a force that is currently dormant, antichaos, or some such, that is entirely untracable and unrecordable. The creation theory requires a god. Science, studying life, proving assumptions based on researched patterns in life, has nothing against religion, and in itself is not a religion. The 'new' science, very interested in proving evolution, is, in my uneducated and dubious opinion, very much anti-religious. Eventually, or currently among the more extreme, I suppose could be considered a religion. Sort of.
13 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 11/9/04 - 6:36:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, it is true that you can only believe in one thing at a time since those two conflicts. but science is not a religion
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Saturday 4/22/06 - 2:31:50 AM EST (GMT-5)
Science is simply a method to obtain verifiably reproducable results whereas Religion is a philosophy based upon spiritual belief.
11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/18/07 - 7:57:26 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 8/5/2003 11:08:50 PM Dracino wrote:
Uh, no, Science isn't a religion, and it isn't new. There's no god, and anyone who studies a lot of science shouldn't follow it blindly or stupidly.

A religion does not need a 'god'.

11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/18/07 - 10:21:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
No, they are not the same.
11 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Thursday 1/18/07 - 10:30:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
Science is the antithesis of religion.

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 26-43 of 43)

You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In


10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons