TED Conversations

Nicole Small

This conversation is closed.

Should Science be Considered a Religion?

This "conversation" has been voluntarily removed from the site. I apologize for any inconveniences. Feel free to add more comments or continue existing conversations here.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 27 2012: I agree with a lot of what you're saying, though I'm too polite to use words like "stupid." I don't really see these views as stupid at all; just lesser-evolved. If you were to graph out the evolution of thought, it's essentially a straight line, starting with self-awareness and ending with fact as the ultimate goal. It looks like this:
      Self-awareness, theology, philosophy, theory (introduces experimentation to philosophy,) and ultimately, fact. Many see Science as diverging from the path, but I see that emotions and opinions still drive people to want to separate the two, when you pretty much can't have one without the other.
    • Aug 30 2012: You can't blame science for the pathetic representation some/many/few/whatever people might have about it. Holding to equivocation fallacies first, then to numerous straw-men, will not change this very fact. Science is a way, a method or series of methods, for acquiring knowledge, for getting answers, and often new questions, about reality. Ignoring how science works and how it is correctly identified, while holding to your own pathetic cartoons, misconceptions, and equivocations, won't turn science into a religion. The same goes about religions, they have their ways and purposes, quite distinct from those of science. So, no, science is no religion no matter how you slice it. Live with it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.