Is Science The New Religion? Is it Making us Paranoid?

[canuck]

Is science the new religion?

"No."

The Rev. Dr. Canuck

[Saveman]

Is science the new religion?

Some treat it like a religion and put as much faith in it as any other belief system.

Saveman BTEC National In Wholesale and Warehousing

[Rheghead]

Some treat it like a religion and put as much faith in it as any other belief system.

The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.

[Saveman]

The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.

So that which can't be proved or disproved by testing is fantasy?

[canuck]

The essential difference between belief in Scientific findings and Religious teachings is that scientific statements are ultimately disprovable. Hence, science is set in reality rather than fantasy.

I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....

[Rheghead]

So that which can't be proved or disproved by testing is fantasy?

I would never answer a question like that without being very careful with my wording.

Other than to say that scientific thinking goes along the lines of forming a 'scientific model' on which to work with (eg Global Warming) until it is disproved to the point that it is dropped as the model to work with. The religious model is different, it has a 'model' of the existence of God which is can't be scientifically disproved by observation, measurement etc.

[Gleber2]

God, in his omnipotence, created everything, including science and scientists, didn't he? Therefore you cannot separate them as they are both part of the same miraculous universe which doesn't really exist because it's all an illusion any way and I believe in none of it. So there!!!!!

[Rheghead]

I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it.

If there is a God then prove it.

[DrSzin]

I think this news story has a lot of truth to it and answers the question: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4771154.stm

That article is spot on knightofeth. As I wrote on another thread earlier:

Scientists and (in particular) the scientific media often don't do a very good job of distinguishing between well-established science, half-established science, and way-out hypothesis.

The MMR fiasco (link included unwisely?) is an example I have quoted on here in the past. An essentially-unsubstantiated hunch (or perhaps much worse) by one researcher led to a paper that was published by The Lancet and the conclusions promulgated to the populace at large by the Daily Mail. In my opinion, all three got it wrong: the scientist, whoever accepted the paper for publication in The Lancet, and the Daily Mail. I say this with some confidence because I did some "research" into the subject a couple of years ago.

From the BBC article:

The experts made several recommendations for improving scientific understanding among the public:

• Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
• Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
• Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
• Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of risk

I haven't thought about science degrees which include issues of ethics (perhaps they already exist in some form?), but the others are spot on. I've considered going on a media-training course, but I'd probably be useless at it. I especially welcome the last suggestion. I've been rabbiting on for years about "public perceptions of risk" being all important.

[knightofeth]

I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....

As far as I understand the scientific method involves coming up with an hypothesis then challenging it to either prove or disprove it. Not one or the other. Just finding out the truth.

[Saveman]

If there is a God then prove it.

The charge of the electron.

[rockchick]

I always understood the purpose of scientific study was to "prove" something, not disprove it. You start with a theory and work to prove it. If along the way it shows to not be provable, then that is your conclusion. I suppose that you could start with a negative hypothesis, but that gets really confusing and I suspect fairly rare in the accepted scientific world. Now those negative proof statistics that DrSzin was on about a few weeks ago might be the exception. But they were developed by a Presbyterian minister and ....

My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.

[knightofeth]

My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.

Thats exactly what I was trying to say! Good post. I agree with all of that.

[rockchick]

If there is a God then prove it.

Prove to a blind man that light exists.

[DrSzin]

My understanding of science is that nothing can ever be proven. You take a theory and form a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. You can test it a million times and have it come out right, but if you get even a single result that disproves the hypothesis, then it is wrong, and you have to go back and either scrap your hypothesis, or modify it to fit the facts. But you can never, ever prove something right.

Eek, I could have written that! (Well, your English is better than mine, but you know what I mean.)

But you missed out one step - the result that "disproved" the hypothesis has to be tested a million times in order to check that it was obtained correctly.

[Rheghead]

Prove to a blind man that light exists.

Yes you can, by treating his blindness. And for those that are 'permanently' blind, then a cure is just around the corner.

[rockchick]

Yes you can, by treating his blindness. And for those that are 'permanently' blind, then a cure is just around the corner.

But...to someone who can not see, nor ever will, how do you prove the nature of light?

[rockchick]

Eek, I could have written that! (Well, your English is better than mine, but you know what I mean.)

But you missed out one step - the result that "disproved" the hypothesis has to be tested a million times in order to check that it was obtained correctly.

Um...I was trying to be concise? laff

[DrSzin]

But...to someone who can not see, nor ever will, how do you prove the nature of light?

Very easily - plug in a big laser and burn him!

You might have a tougher job convincing him that some of us can actually use this dangerous stuff called light in order to navigate our way around the world.

[canuck]

If there is a God then prove it.

When scientific method becomes the religion (the supreme being and way of life) then there is no proof for the existence of God as that god is defined by the sacred text and the faith community. My sense in reading these threads is that in the discussion the sacred text is understood to be the Bible and that the faith community is the Christian church.

The great theologians of the church continue to debate the issue of the proof of God's existence. I wouldn't even pretend to be able to speak with the wisdom and clarity with which they speak. So I am not even going to try to articulate the traditional proofs.

I do know that the scientific method is a human developed method. I believe that there is a creator who gave us the minds to come up with such a plan. The scientific method measures "stuff" and that includes energy. God, as I know God, is more than the realm of "stuff." In other words, the stuff of creation is of God, but God is not limited to creation.

For me, this very conversation is proof to me of God's existence. Not the hardware of computers or the technical wizzardry that gets messages through 6000 miles of space in a matter of micro-seconds. God is in the relationships of people, not limited to those relationships, but definately in them. Relationships aren't something you can measure. There is not "stuff" to them, yet we acknowledge their existence. That to me is God, those relationships of trust which can be a means of support, teaching/learning and encouagement for the people in them. Again, not all of God is relationship, but maybe a third. But, I'm not getting into the Trinity on this thread.

I am going to have to leave it here now. In short, no, Rheghead I cannot prove God's existence with the scientific method, but I am sure glad that I don't have to face the possibility of God's non-existence.