jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (93 posts)

Is Science truly A Religious Cult?

  1. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    ...hear me out, before you throw out those snarky comments.

    A Cult is generally (mostly subjectively) defined as a minority or inept social group who gain excessive notoriety and power, through several methods of mind control, education, ritual practices leading to indoctrination.

    We often note these traits in theological circles, hyped up by mainstream media. However, going through it step by step, I find science the same.


    For example, its apostates are not post-hippie gurus in togas, pushing Cool Aid or quoting from theological texts over and over, but rather dressed quite dapper in white coats and silk ties, performing ritual practices called hypothesis, experiments, laboratory tests, etc based on a core fundamental: the scientific method (often quoted over and over), using very peculiar tools from scalpels to particle accelerators and little blue pill accelerants, to control the minds of many and promote their cause.

    One of the modern day leaders, is of course technology -which in and of itself is hugely mind controlling (just look at the blackberry addicts anonymous).

    Now, if found to be a cult -at least here in HP- how can we put a stop to such social cruelty it is causing, as equally as we would stop the abuse of children of compounds or folks drinking the juice and facing a massive literal or figurative suicide?

    your thoughts awaited...

    James.

    1. Evolution Guy profile image59
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It really bothers you that people will not believe the garbage you believe.

      I feel for ya.

      But not much.

      Therefore any one who believes facts is a Kult.

      Innit.


      Like wot yachoo sed innit.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol what is that? So fretted you can't type? It's a valid question. I think he stated his point quite nicely.

        James, I agree. But, it may be that the science groupies can't think rationally long enough to think this through.

        We should stage an intervention. Here on Hub Pages.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No intervention needed. wink

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, come on. You have to admit we are all too willing to accept some things on faith, when it comes to science. I do it, because the choice between waiting for the blanks to be filled in makes more sense than believing in something that has been proven wrong.

            BUT, there are still blanks.  Anyone who touts science to the same degree people tout religion has, to me, elevated science to a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Which is a definition for religion.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The only faith one has to have is in oneself. All else is to be believed or not. I have faith in people, because people are wired to understand, even if they refuse to understand via their own perception.
              If you have blank spots, then I would suggest you dedicate a little bit more time to learning more. Not much else to say about that.
              Ironic, but I find this statement funny. Science puts for theories and those theories are to be disputed/refuted or not. If not, then those will remain in place for continued learning. Those who refuse to accept them, do so through egotistical ignorance. Or in something I call "chosen ignorance".

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, if you choose to remain ignorant, that is your choice. But, as I said. We have blanks that need to be filled. A good scientific theory is in place because there is ample evidence to back the theory up. But, ample evidence of the Big Bang; did not a Big Bang make. Thus, theory.

                This holds true with many things. Only a religious fool would ignore the evidence, or put more emphasis on the evidence than it deserves.

                If we had nothing but facts at our disposal, and no more questions; I would think we'd move our resources to other questions.

                Do some research.

                1. Cagsil profile image59
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It wasn't a matter of my ignorance. Duh!
                  YOU have blanks. Please do not speak for everyone.
                  Then, I think you don't understand it. I have no need to understand it, which is something you don't understand.
                  Evidence is evidence. If the evidence isn't disputed/refuted, then it remains.
                  Actually, this statement shows you lack way too much knowledge of what is actually happening in the world today. lol
                  I already told you to do that. Or did you miss that part? hmm

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I see you don't understand what constitutes scientific theory. That's OK. A lot of people don't.



                    Au contraire. I understand this quite well. That is the difference. I am very interested in understanding this world I live in.

                    But, since you have expressed no interest in understanding; research would, of course, be a total waste of time for you.

        2. jacharless profile image82
          jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol love the science groupies point. And, yes, I would say they are quite jaundiced in their reasoning.

          Hmm, a Hub-In, I like the sound of it. big_smile
          James.

        3. Evolution Guy profile image59
          Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course you think that. lol "nicely" huh? He did not really make a point - other than to state a baseless opinion. I say "bhaseless," because James believes all sorts of nonsense about humans living to be 800 and Adam and Eve being actual people. Not that he is religious or anything. None of them are - they have "a personal relationship," with CreaTor or Jesus, or whatever.

          Certainly he is more eloquent than most religious people who need to attack anything that does not align with their beliefs as "just a belief in gravity (add any other scientific theory here) with no actual proof, so no more valid than my belief that humans used to live to 800 years old. There is no actual certain proof, therefore both are equally valid and should be taught in schools."

          This is why religion causes so many conflicts, I think. You have to blindly believe nonsense and attack any other thought train to defend it and at the same time convince yourself you are not religious.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm going to apologize to you on this one. That whodoo innit yoohoo statement was so funny to me, I felt the need to pick.

            I don't see the study of science itself as a cult.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image24
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution Guy

            I like the one about the 969 year old man in the Bible,

            This is before pain killers were invented

          3. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Marcus, we have had that dialogue before.
            The written chronology of those people cannot just be dismissed to your preference, just because they are included in a now religious context.

            As we both agree, an olive tree can live upwards of 1,000 years, a sea turtle 700 years, so it is not inconceivable to believe humans can live the longest. I bet if someone put the chronology in a science book, everyone on the planet would say it was fact!

            Still, you blah blah-ing without really responding is disappointing, even for a determinist such as yourself.

            roll

            James.

            1. Evolution Guy profile image59
              Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Of course it can be dismissed. It is mythical nonsense. And using that sort of reasoning I may as well say that as dogs only live to be 15 years old, humans should die at 15 as well and we should accept Native American Oral History as factual.

              All you are doing is defending your religious beliefs. lol

              Yet still you spout nonsense and claim to have facts. You are teh blah blah King. lol

              1. jacharless profile image82
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is 100% ignorance on your part. Same ignorance you judge religious folks as, Marcus.
                How is chronology mythical?
                You're still missing the point, as usual.
                What religion is that?

                Marcus, you have more excuses and persona's than the Greeks and Romans had gods, so who is the real blah blah king? jeje.
                And what's your point? a) if you don't want others to play with your toys, don't make them and sell them; b) if you can use theistic texts to satisfy your claim of nonsensical reason, by all means, I will use your machines to prove your nonsensical irrational beliefs.
                Long time ago.
                big_smile
                James.

                1. Evolution Guy profile image59
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really James. Completely different actually. Ignorance is not what it is. Refusing to believe religionists such as yourself? Yes - absolutely.

                  See the difference between accepting scientific theories with millions of facts to prove them and believing that humans can live to 800 years old with no evidence other than a religious book?

                  Prolly the same huh? lol

                  1. jacharless profile image82
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, this is the precise example of indoctrination, from the cult of science. You just admitted it:

                    Blindly accepting scientific theories !!! backed by millions of 'factoids'. Now, apply that statement to Evolution and the 'belief' that humans came into existence 250k years ago or when dinosaurs walked the earth, how old a star is or what this thing called relativity is, gravity, and on and on. None of it is fact.

                    Do you know why? Simply this: no source outside of the human collective has provided validity to those premises. Not by the working of science nor theology Yet, without that validity look how easily you and millions of other humanoids are ensnared into drinking the scientific Cool Aid. lol

                    Everything you are claiming is exactly the same constructs and applications of a traditional religious (habitual; ritualistic) practices. Now instead of cutting up animals to sacrifice to invisible deities, science is cutting up animals to their god (themselves mostly) and have gone one step further than religions by displaying these relics in their temples (museums).

                    The difference between religious express and scientific expression is one presumes based on feelings/emote while the other relies of reason. Both are excessively sadistic in their approach and need for controlling the masses.

                    What you have failed to see is what theism really is as opposed to your ignorant Templar mentality of conflicts caused by organizations under the umbrella of sensitive belief systems.

                    Your refusal (denial; delusion) to see that IS the evidence of your complete indoctrination. lol

                    James.

      2. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And still another Mark Knowles Borg Member. Good to know.

    2. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The scientific method is responsible for the computer you posted this thread on. It's also responsible for the fact we live to be 80 instead of 40. Point is that if this is a cult it's one which gets fantastic results. Science is just a method for figuring things out, for discovering and testing and we know from experience that it, unlike the superstitions of actual cults and religions, works.

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Untrue. The implied superstitions did and do the precise thing science does: try to explain and figure something out. Their technique is certainly not the same as science.

        Still it does not negate science as a cult, it merely amplifies how much it is. As for this machine, owning a copy of Torah, KJV, The Tao of Physics or Alice in Chains live acoustic does not mean the individual is a cultist or throughly indoctrinated.

        On a side bar note, if science is not a cult, then why the voracious necessity to encapsulate every area of a humans life, imposing the use it or else propaganda card, like a typical cult does. As of today, nearly 70% of the planet is indoctrinated into science. The irony, nearly 98.6% of all collective religions use and support the sciences. So if a planetary collective deemed cultists (theists) use science equally science would also be a cult, else they would not use the devices of it with such lustful rigor.

        James.

        1. secularist10 profile image90
          secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "The implied superstitions did and do the precise thing science does: try to explain and figure something out. Their technique is certainly not the same as science."

          Precisely. They are all ways of figuring things out. As Titen said, science is the only one that works, consistently, over many decades and centuries.

          Hence your computer. For thousands of years the computer was not invented. Yet in the 1950s, after a few hundred years of scientific advancement, there it was. Were there new natural resources in the earth? No. Was the human brain bigger and more complex in the 1950s than it was 500 years earlier? No.

          The difference was that science and the mentality that supports it was instilled in society, enabling humanity to grow and prosper in radical new ways.

        2. Titen-Sxull profile image94
          Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not all superstitions attempt to explain. Attempting to summon demons by animal sacrifice or praying to the spirits of the dead don't explain or figure anything out. Science attempts to find rational explanations based on objective evidence and thus will always be superior to faith-based superstitions and beliefs.

          "As of today, nearly 70% of the planet is indoctrinated into science"

          The prevalence of something doesn't make it a cult. Science is "indoctrinated" into people because we know it works from past experience. Being taught about the nature of reality, based on objectively verified evidence, is not indoctrination.

          "else they would not use the devices of it with such lustful rigor."

          Science is universal, it works across religious boundaries, that's why so many rely on it. There's no way to escape relying on science in the modern world, it's impossible. Even the Amish rely on technology, they simply shun more MODERN advances in technology.

          The fact of the matter is science works, that's why people are educated about it and that's why it crosses so many boundaries. It is a method of discovery rivaled by no other ever devised by man. There is nothing cult like about being taught the the Earth revolves around the sun or being taught about the inner workings of the human body. These are things based on fact, not superstition or religious ritual.

          "then why the voracious necessity to encapsulate every area of a humans life"

          Does the word curiosity mean anything to you? Of course people would want to apply a method of discovery to EVERYTHING about human existence.

        3. Mikeydoes profile image79
          Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Also the first rule of science.. at least in my books is.. 100% of statistics is bull%!#$. Seems you are using statistics as actual science to make a point. Statistics will hold up the least in court. Looks to me like you are heavily embedded in the "cult" yourself, haha.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            haha! touche, Mike.

            1. Mikeydoes profile image79
              Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you. Makes me feel good that I can bring some good points.

        4. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "On a side bar note, if science is not a cult, then why the voracious necessity to encapsulate every area of a humans life, imposing the use it or else propaganda card, like a typical cult does."
          Wait, what? There's nothing cultish about, "This works. Here's how it works. Try it yourself, and see whether it works. Keep good records of your experiment, and if it works, great, more evidence in support. If it doesn't work, also great! You may have found a flaw that we'll have to account for!"

          Cults don't do that. Cults insist that they're right, even in the face of contrary evidence (like the recent Rapture cult). People who value science change their mind when their hypotheses are proven wrong.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Jeff, tell me these Rapture cultists are not hypothesizing and testing their documents to find out if it is true, with no real proof or valid conclusion, except that it didn't happen.
            While Jim Jones of church whatever rakes in the money, Apple "i  whatever" is doing the same. no?

            Religion is dong exactly that: if this theory works about Rapture great! if it doesn't work, also Great! Cuz they can modify the theory at will, reset the parameters and give it another go, until they find the solution they want or that satisfies for now (until they come up with a better one or need funding for Rapture transporters...

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "While Jim Jones of church whatever rakes in the money, Apple "i  whatever" is doing the same. no?"

              Well, the difference there is this: Apple sells iPads. Here's this device, they say, and it does this and this and this. And guess what? The iPad does those things.

              Rapture cult guy says, "The world will end on such and such a date," and then when the world doesn't end, he's like "Whoops, forgot to carry the one! It's actually on this other date!" and then when the world doesn't end, again, whoops. Again.

              The difference is that the iPad works, and the apocalyptic predictions have never worked. Well, they have worked, if by 'worked' you mean, "were effective at separating the credulous from their money for absolutely nothing in return." iPads work that way, too, only they also work as advertised. Because of science.

              1. secularist10 profile image90
                secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting that religious individuals are quite confident in science and secular political regulatory authorities as soon as they enter the marketplace, isn't it?

    3. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Science is not ritual Practice..?

    4. lizzieBoo profile image78
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A well put argument James, as ever.
      It is funny how people get like a deer in the head-lights when a scientist puts forward their theory. The news gives us daily doses of scientific 'wisdom' such as " according to scientists, we will now all live to roughly 85", or "we will all be poisoned by noxious emissions by 2013" or "breast implants can prevent cancer" ...etc. People shelve their rational opinion when a scientist presents his own. Very like a cult yes, ha ha ha.

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wink

    5. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It's always entertaining to read believers dissing science without knowing a thing about it.

      It's kinda like them dissing the air they breathe and the water they drink, they do so even though they can't live without it. smile

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And still you do not answer the OP, only apply your 'wisdom' as opinion. Give it a go, Beelz. Shew us common folk wat u knos is da troof.

        big_smile

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I did answer it, right here:

          "It's always entertaining to read believers dissing science without knowing a thing about it."

          smile

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is not an answer. That is a snarky comment.
            Which leads us to believe you really could care less about true enlightenment of others, true humanism but prefer to sit on high in judgment without credence. Care to indulge or educate us by your vast understanding of the sciences or are you sequenture?

            James.

            1. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And, this is what you call enlightenment and true humanism when referring to science?

              "...a minority or inept social group who gain excessive notoriety and power, through several methods of mind control, education, ritual practices leading to indoctrination."

              lol

              1. secularist10 profile image90
                secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is a highly "enlightened" statement, young man. Now take your vitamin and go to bed. Clearly this is all WAY above your head.

                smile

    6. kowalskil profile image61
      kowalskilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Religion = Theology + many other things.

      Science, in my opinion, should be compared with theology, not with religion.

      The initial question would become:

      Is science truly a kind of theology?

      No, it is not. Science is preoccupied with our material world; theology is preoccupied with our spiritual world. Methods of validation of claims in these two areas are very different. Science relies on experiment, theology, like mathematics, relies on logic.

      Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).

      http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

      1. jacharless profile image82
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree. Science is preoccupied with the natural observed world, true. But also, so is religion. Both are products of Theos -which is the construct of supremacy -be it supremacy by the individual over this world (man v nature) or supremacy via an entity titled a god. Both share the common origin.

        Science is also preoccupied with the superior natural world, which is why they have designed all kinds of mechanics to view that 'unobservable/intangible' universe.

        That same intangible/invisible universe is also the preoccupation of religion. Both are steadfast in their preferred rituals/experiments.

        Modern science is remarkable, yes, but no different from their origin of making gun powder, spices to make fire brighter, magicians tricks used to awe people, glass lens to view the stars. To a even larger extent, science uses psychosis and a form a mass hypnosis/hysteria to captivate the masses. Today, that indoctrination and hypnosis continues with the belief of the prophecies of science daily, medicinal formulas and certainly technology.

        So, by all accounts science being a theology is spot on. it is based on theos (theory), as is religion. Textbook religion was historically much more colorful in its expressions than science at the time. Today, that role has been reversed by the Illuminati of Mechanics.

        James.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm assuming then, in order for you not to look like a complete hypocrite, you live in a cave far away from society with all the modern conveniences of stalagmites, dirt and dripping water?

          Hold the phone a moment! How could you possibly be writing this on a public forum without the use of a computer and internet connection?

          Since when did caves have those amenities? Hilarious.

          lol

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you understand what a theory is?  What is required for an idea or thought to become considered as a theory? 

          Yes, science deals in theories.  Religion does not.  At its best religion deals in conjecture, in speculation.  More commonly religion deals in fantasy - speculation that would, if true, violate the natural laws of the universe.

          1. jacharless profile image82
            jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            do you? Obviously not. you are assuming the use of a theory, not the actual origin. Neither do you really understand any theology -religious or scientific.

            boldly claiming religion is not based on theory is like saying water is not based on a combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen with a Neutral Dominant property.

            Science deals with theories based on what? A consideration of an probable else observable instance, which leads to a hypothesis (note hypo and note thesis). That hypothesis then postulates a set of parameters by which theory is tested. That testing is conducted under specific ritual practices -using mechanics, or other dissimilar objects, until a conclusion results.

            Show me how religion is any different.
            It to considers, builds a hypothesis and postulates certain parameters by which their theory is also tested. The difference is the mechanic used. Religion tends to use internal constructs of thought, feeling/emote and energy in the raw, which most of science uses external mechanisms.

            Both have the social, economical and irrational result -a hypnosis of the masses, in order to sustain support and existence of the entity itself -being titled science or religion.

            The common sense and common reason are equal to both, as they both come from the same source -the human mind, executed as theories of supremacy, validity, fact and truth.

            Both of void of critical logic (understanding) after 249,800 years/6,000 years of said theories.

            Science is just as speculative as religion. Fantasy is equal to science by its own admission of 'not everything is true' and 'not everything is provable' and 'more than 95% of this universe is unobservable'.

            Science deals greatly in conjecture, by its parameters of reason as equally religion.

            Your argument, wilderness, is bogus. You are making the exact same squealing noise as theists do when challenged. The verbiage is the same from two perspectives of the same idea.

            Even still, giving science the credence it doesn't deserve, does not dispute it is a cult.

            James.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "It to considers, builds a hypothesis and postulates certain parameters by which their theory is also tested."

              Wait, what? In what way is a religious "hypothesis" tested? Or even testable? Serious question, 'cos I've never heard this argument or anything like it before.

              1. jacharless profile image82
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A theological test is done using texts and primarily reason, based on internal sensation. A prayer is actually a test, although the parameters of the hypothesis varies greatly by individual. Meaning practically any variable desired can be injected to the test.

                The outcome is often noted based on the building of the theory on particular textual references, to see if they line up accordingly. Recently, this was done in certain church circles, who were dubbed the Name It Claim Claim theology. They tested to see if the quoting of the texts during this test (prayer) resulted in the manifestation of what they spoke.

                True, much of the results was manipulated, but eventually they had to stand down from the theory, because outsiders who tried it, discovered the theory of quoting scripture didn't work.

                Throughout history, religions of all types, have done quite a massive number of theories, postulations and tests, both on the intangible and the tangible from interbreeding to star mapping. astronomy still plays a huge role in quite a few global theologies.

                One of the most noted ancient theorists was Moses, who was by trade a chemist/apothecary, an engineer, a tinkerer and sort of a philosopher.

                James.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "True, much of the results was manipulated, but eventually they had to stand down from the theory, because outsiders who tried it, discovered the theory of quoting scripture didn't work."

                  Are you aware of any examples of religious experimentation that have had repeatable results?

                  1. jacharless profile image82
                    jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Based on historical reference or modern application?

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "It to considers, builds a hypothesis and postulates certain parameters by which their theory is also tested. The difference is the mechanic used. Religion tends to use internal constructs of thought, feeling/emote and energy in the raw, which most of science uses external mechanisms."

              Religion does indeed build a hypothesis just as science does and the methodology of building that hypothesis doesn't differ much.  At that point, however, the two diverge completely. 

              The thought, feelings and energy in the raw (whatever that is) you correctly describe is merely rationalization of wants and desires to produce whatever conclusion is required by the person.  It is not testing, it is never repeatable by anyone else (let alone everyone else) and thus does not result in a theory.  On the contrary it usually results in a fantasy unconnected with reality that is then declared to be factual and real.

              That you claim the two methods of finding "truth" are the same (hypothesis, testing, conclusion) does not make them so.  They are vastly different, as different as the conclusions they often draw concerning the same question.  As that seems to be the crux of your argument that concludes that science and religion are both cults, that conclusion can only be considered as unknown yet. 

              Your argument is as bogus as you claimed mine to be, although I came to no conclusion and offered no theory.  I merely pointed out that religion does not deal in theory, but stops with that first step of conjecture, postulation, or speculation. 

              I also inquired whether you knew what a theory was; anyone that thinks an acceptable theory is reached by use only of internal constructs of thought, feelings, emotions, and energy in the raw does not understand what a theory is or what it consists of.  Indeed the last 3 must be kept as far as possible from the process, not made an intimate part of it.  (I'm assuming that "energy in the raw" is similar to or connected with feelings and emotions?)

              1. jacharless profile image82
                jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am only going to comment is this, because this statement makes my case for the indoctrination of many into science and a complete 'duh' about reality.

                All theory is reached by internal constructs of thought, feeling, emote and energy itself, else you just called yourself, your scientist pals and every philosopher who has ever lived a retard. All theory comes from within.

                The TEST of the theory can come internally or externally, depending on the hypothesis and applied parameters of the test. Which is an altogether different thing than the theory itself, its origin and thesis.

                A psychologist will use the individuals thoughts, etc to formulate a theory on what is wrong and how to assist that person. Religions do the same. Science does also. The goal is to express a control over the situation, events, outcome in some cases. ( This is the root of Theory: Theos). One of core fundamentals of religion is helping others to some degree, as is science. Science also uses much internal when theorizing.

                It is the applications or methods of testing AND the outcomes that I am pointing to as cultish practices.

                James.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You once more confuse conjecture and hypothesis with theory - they are not the same.  I repeat, theory is the result of a hypothesis being tested, not the result of the original thought that produced the hypothesis or conjecture.  Sloppy language would seem to indicate otherwise, but it is not so.

                  I missed your earlier post (sorry about that!) explaining the theological theory and test.  I think your post says it well; theologians test by reading old texts, feeling their emotions and thinking about their hypothesis.  They then apply these feelings and thoughts to their hypothesis, declaring it to now be a viable hypothesis, worth of being considering as the beginning of new knowledge.

                  Science considers its hypotheses and performs physical tests to determine its validity.  Emotion, rather than being a primary ingredient of the test, is to be kept out of the equation as it usually leads to a false conclusion.  Tests are repeated several times, then sent to other people for them to repeat.  Great effort is expended in attempting to prove the hypothesis wrong.  Finally, just as the theologian, a conclusion is reached and the theory formed.

                  These two theories, however, are different animals; they are neither identical or equivalent.  Consider a jog around a football field; it is termed a "lap".  So is the top of my thighs when sitting down.  They are both "laps", but are not similar in any manner.  Neither are the two "theories".  One is an attempt at describing reality while the other is an attempt at describing a personal perception of reality.  That the theologian has used the same word to describe the product of his work in an effort to make it sound better or more in phase with reality does not make it the same as the theory of the scientist.

                  This is not to say that the theologian cannot produce a scientific theory; many top scientists come from the religious world.  If he uses the theological tests and methods of producing his theory, however, and presents it to the scientific world he will become a laughingstock as it is not a theory at all.  Just as will the scientist that tries, using his concept of what a theory is and how one is made, to produce a viable theory in the world of theology.

                  Your post above listed one attempt at theory by theologians concerning prayer.  This could have been a scientific theory if done properly, but it wasn't.  Rather, as you say, results were manipulated, probably in an effort to force the result to agree with what the emotions wanted.  The theorists were unable to separate theological theory production from scientific, and by trying to use both methods failed at both as they are almost always mutually exclusive, resulting in different products. 

                  No, the scientific concept of "theory" and the religious concept are not comparable or similar.  That both use the same word to describe different things cannot be used to declare that both are cults.

                  To coin a phrase, It won't work, Mac - I saw you palm that card.  You can't produce a connection when there isn't one by twisting words and changing their meaning.

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    People generally 'believe' in science for the same reason they 'believe' in a hammer or a toaster.  It does they stuff it is designed to do.  Being a religion is not one of those things.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you, all by yourself prove what science tells you, or do you take their word for it?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Could you, with all the resources of billions of religious believers, prove even the basic tenets of religion?  Or do you take their word for it?

        The difference, as psych points out, is that science works.  It feeds us.  It will provide transportation to the next town.  It will, within ever widening limits, heal us when broken.

        Religion can do nothing outside of the imaginings of the human mind.  God won't send you manna to eat, He won't send a flaming chariot to get you to your destination and He won't heal your broken body.  While you may make the claim that He does do all these things that doesn't make it true; it just points out what I said.  Religion cannot affect the world outside of the human imagination.

  3. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    So, before the war continues raging on, any concludes as to whether or not science is in fact a cult?

    James.

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'll be honest. I don't see science as a cult. To me, the actual study of science is simply humans trying to find answers. I see the cult as those who idolize science beyond the boundaries of the answers found thus far.

  4. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps I should have exemplified the actions of science, instead of the philosophy of science itself. I see the applications of theology and science identically cultish, yet in their origin, their core ideology, also identical, yet not cultish in any way.

    James.

  5. profile image0
    Muldanianmanposted 5 years ago

    A cult consists of a group of people who believe in something which is not based upon experiential evidence, but rather upon some teaching, ideaology or dogma presented as the truth.  Science, starts with the basis of an hypothesis, and then uses the process of experimentation and observation to reach its conclusions.  It does not accept anything on faith alone, unlike a cult, or indeed any religious movement.  The main diffrence between a cult and mainstream religion is that of the numbers involved.  Usually a cult will have few adherents, whilst established religions have many.  Usually though most religions begin as cults, until their numbers increase.  No scientist will declare that they know something to be true, because God told them that it was so.  They simply use hypotheses as the starting points of discovery.

    1. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      apparently you are misinformed regarding the term: experiential.
      all cultists attest to experiential evidence, by their methods of expression -documentation, experiments with or without various mechanics, observations deemed considerable and applicable to the sole purpose of the organization: promotion of the cause, survival at all costs of the entity itself.

      Granted various social, economical and theologically based expressions have high media expectation equal to the now carte blanche of science, but it does not negate science being a cult. Science merely uses a different set of vices to indoctrinate the masses. I exemplified it before in the form of pills, electronics, etc.

      Scientific credence does not negate its cultish (habitual) applications (practices), nor justify its ultimate purpose of said indoctrination.

      Without sounding corny, is the 'i' now the cumulative moshe, jesus, muhammad? Is Science the new priesthood, the new temples (museums), the new magicians and sorcerers (now titled scientist, botanist, chemist); the new breed of prophets predicting -at will- everything from the weather to the stars to 250 millions years ago as to what really happened? Then if those prophecies fail, they say, oops, our 'experiential data was incorrect' and the masses accept it, until the next wave of prophecies emerge?


      James.

  6. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Nicely said Muldanianman. smile

  7. secularist10 profile image90
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    Well, technically, everything is a "cult." The Brad Pitt fan club is a "cult." Any group of people that I don't like, and that all agree with each other on various things, I can call a "cult." If I'm a dorky teenage girl, then I can call the cheerleading squad a cult. It's arbitrary.

    However, if you want to talk about the real definition of a cult, then we can consult trusty Dictionary.com:

    1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
    2. a sect devoted to such a system
    3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
    4. a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure


    It refers to a "religious" system. Science is thus automatically disqualified because it is not religious; religion involves the supernatural (including deities), and science does not. Science is not a system of worship, it is a system for gaining knowledge.

    It also mentions "devious psychological techniques" to control people. Again science is disqualified because science is simply a tool. It is not a club or an organization or a group. Anybody can "do" science. You can take a magnifying glass, go into your backyard and record in your journal the types of bugs you see. Voila, you have participated in science.

    Science is therefore comparable to a hammer. It is a tool, not a group of people. A hammer cannot use devious psychological techniques to control anyone. You either use it or you don't. Since science is not a group, it is also disqualified from the fourth definition.

    If you want to criticize scientists individually or as a group, that is another issue entirely. But that is not science itself.

  8. Mikeydoes profile image79
    Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago

    You are completely creating something from nothing, although so does probably 99% of the world. No one understands what science is anymore.

    It is clear that scientists and their practices can be exactly what you are describing. People create what a scientist is and how science should be performed. It now obviously has 2 different meanings, and it can be very confusing. The way I think and practice Science is nothing is really fact, but more or less a way for us to understand things. Nothing more. It is hard to explain, but if you think gravity is fact. It very well could be, but wouldn't it be wild IF what we know about gravity is actually wrong? Am I saying it is? No, but it very well could be. If scientists who spent their time trying to disprove gravity, how bad would they be laughed at today? Not only that, they'd probably not be considered scientists anymore, or at least not respected by many of the "scientists" of today. Trying to disprove something is real science and it is going on still, but there are so many situations that are exactly what you explain. And that is why I understand your frustration.

    Science has really been tainted, in fact I can give an example of the science you are talking about.Al Gore for one has taken the science thing way to far. An Inconvenient Truth, is really an inconvenient truth. Why do you ask? It is the exact situation you are describing. That is what science has become. HOWEVER there ARE real people out there practicing real science like I described above.

    Please take the time to watch this. These are the real scientists I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec

    Just remember money is also another reason science is what it is. Most experiments are wayy too costly and in fact never get off the ground. Mainly due to greed and curruption. Something that our world should plan on fixing.. Maybe today? Or we can just keep putting it off. If there was a way to take legitimate hypotheses and test it without having to go through what you have to go through now-a-days this world would be a much better place.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have seen fundy atheists declare verbal war on Religion plenty of times by using the methods of logic, reason and science. One can say, sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me
      Science, Evolution, and God are words we may know to a low degrees on the surface of earth and the Universe, Yet for all of us it lack the knowledge over all to a very high degree
      Take science, there is a branch of science to everything we know. Take Christianity it’s self proclaim supernatural powers has no importance to most of the world’s population today because most of the people on earth are not aware of its existence in the first place

  9. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 5 years ago

    Science starts with faith, just like religion does!
    That puts them in a similar class, in my opinion. smile

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have faith in up, down and sideway , there is a degree of science to this kind of faith, This kind of faith takes away our fears and replace it with understanding plus time

      Your God fearing Yahweh is a bully that wants to take everyone’s whole soul wail most of the whole world will never understand or be aware of Yahweh existence for their entire lifetime or for ever more,

      No other group or profession can hold a candle to Clergymen and his BS stories from the bible,

    2. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You know, there is an interesting statement. I don't think science starts with faith. But, the boldest questions they have attempted to unravel, at this moment, end with faith.

      It ends with faith, in my opinion, because of our ingrained desire to know the answer. It is so difficult for some people to simply admit the truth. No one knows for sure.

      Faith has come full circle when you look at it. It is said that Abraham was considered righteous because he had faith without any evidence,  and now we have faith in the evidence we've found.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Emile R

        Who would dare today, go back to the old hardship days of Abraham holding only a  righteous faith without any evidence

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No one should, of course. My point was that we still take things on faith. That, for the big questions, religion began with faith and science ends with faith.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image24
            Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Since religion is just an ancient spirituality, save a few good thing about it, and dump most of it’s old as Flintstone crap and regrets like sin

            Start over with true essence of a spiritual age, in which is just the 99% unknown world and Universe and only regent what we don’t do in the future about things.

  10. pisean282311 profile image58
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    science starts with doubt and curiosity...religion starts with believe...both are poles away...science is corrective in nature...once it has evidence , it would correct itself...religion is frozen in time entity...though evidence keep surfacing , it still keeps believing in stories...science is biggest contributor to humans in improving quality of life...religion was biggest contributor in having social order but now it has been replaced by constitutions...religion is dying ...may be new religions would pop up in future...

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's just what the op said.
      Science is becoming that new religion.
      We, apparently, can't live without science! It has to tell us how to live our lives, answer all our deepest questions and supply all our daily bread, to boot.

      1. pisean282311 profile image58
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        i disagree that science can ever become new religion...science is singular reason that we survived and excelled as species but it is last entity which we humans thank because we know it is from humans!!!!!!!!!!...religion too is from humans (my opinion) but since most believe it is divine it works...but it wont work for long , since what answers could satisfy people 2k years ago wont satisfy people 2k years later...

        coming to we can't live without science...well i agree with it..since humans began to think and invent we survived...so science and living are co related since humans began to think ...so we can't survive without science...for that matter we can't survive without religion either as species..so we see many god to one god evolution of religion..in future new religion might get created...if we go by history...

        1. Castlepaloma profile image24
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Religion is much of our recorded human history, Military was one our first form of politics guided mixed with religion. Wars, today per capita are at its lowest death rate ever in history. It's because we are realizing we are spiritual being first, rather than any one religion,

          I predict a spiritual age of very little regrets, no longer a predominate religious age, and no need to remember deeply our regrets

          Two most of the most important thing in life for happiness:
          1, Your health
          2  What you can forget

  11. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    I will admit that I have faith in science. I have faith that if sciences discovers it is wrong about something, it will say so and attempt to correct the mistake. Science will not self destruct if one answer is discovered to be incorrect. Religious people tend to act like admitting the possiblity that even one personal belief might be invalid, will cause their entire belief system to crumble.  Has religion ever admitted it was wrong about anything?

    After years of study, the vatican released it's report on the increase of child abuse by priests. They blamed it on the 60's and the relaxed attitudes towards sex. 

    I agree that science starts with a question pisean, but I feel religion starts with every answer already filled in for you. It then spends your entire life trying to keep you from questioning anything ever again.

  12. דוד מיכאל profile image59
    דוד מיכאלposted 5 years ago

    Indeed it is... but if u believe in Yah and his Son Yeshua... and u ask Him to show u the beauty of Science then it is not a cult... otherwise it's just atheism which is a religion... a false one .... I have a masters degree, 2.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      33דוד מיכאלWelcome the hub pages

      Atheist is the top group of professional scientists

      Do you think Atheists is a Religion?

    2. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      David, welcome to HP.
      I agree atheism is also a splinter group of organized religion(s).
      This only further solidifies science as a cult, as it is from the previous expressions of organized cults that scientists come.

      Compare a medicine man to a chemist and, essentially, you have an identical persona. Yes, different looks, techniques and presentations, but nonetheless identical entities. Same with a botanist and an apothecary, etc.

      The priests of science may not concur 'demons' from a fire, but they certainly concur 'super-natural' forces the same way.

      What most do not see regarding science is that supernatural v nature. Better said, observable v unobservable. According to there texts, 95% of the universe is unobservable, yet they are religious in exploring and finding out what that unobservable is.
      That unobservable is called the supernatural.

      Rather than use prayer or meditation to understand it, they prefer to apply mechanics to it. 4,000 years ago, the same thing was happening in the Mayan world, Egyptian world and Slavik world.

      some of the Vedas Archives, Hieroglyphs and Babylonian scripts show this well and show it as the earliest constructs of the sciences.

      The modal of science has not changed in that time. What has changed is how powerful and acceptable/accessible it has become. It has changed from pyramid fire pots to Bunsen burners where ritual after ritual (experiment after experiment) is performed, from sacrificing animals or human bodies to uncover the secrets of the universe. By all accounts, it is a form of worship. Take for example a 'new' medical procedure. How many watch as it is being performed and stand in awe of it --especially with the use of live televised broadcasting- not unlike the people of old did with their alters and others did by pulling beating hearts out of humans to offer to their gods.


      BTW, What field is your Masters in?

      James.

  13. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Also, note: science claims it is observing the natural universe, right? My son @ 2.5 years observes the natural universe and reallly enjoys it.

    Is he being scientific, no.
    now, here is where the cult comes in: if he were to take the beautiful butterfly, run a series of chemically induced tests on it, then drown it in liquid, to stiffen it, pin it to a board and begin sadistically peeling its layers off, pulling of its wings, etc, yes he has become scientific. Now, during these tests he finds a cure for baldness. He is practically sworn by blood brotherhood, not to let anther group of scientists get this information, so their portion of the cult can become supreme to another within their ranks and certainly outside. now every man who wants to be cured of this infliction becomes indoctrinated into the cult of baldness cure. Little do they know one of the "ooops, there are side effects' is he will grow blue and orange speckled hair and his liver will be permanently damaged from consuming the drug on a daily basis and other side effects -which are the 'price you pay' for having hair.
    So, yes, to sciences advantage, religion is not the same in that respect.

    James.

  14. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 5 years ago

    People in the remoter areas of the US lead such sheltered lives- untouched by the cruel insights of the renaissance, enlightenment or modernism.

    Someone should build a special park for them where they can run free.

  15. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Oh... Really? Renaissance? Cruel lessons of enlightenment? Modernism. We are falling into anarchy. So much for the renaissance.  We still walk in the darkness of violence, man's inhumanity to man, starvation, and poverty. There is the enlightenment. Modernism, only if that is what Rome was going through before the fall. Someone should build a special park for delusional people who see the world through rose colored glasses.

  16. jacharless profile image82
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Wilderness, a hypothesis by definition IS conjecture.

    Theory is the sum-substance, that includes hypothesis, experimentation, alteration, consideration, findings, mechanics with a result coined: facts or fantasy.

    Hypothesis does not lead to theory anymore than following Buddha leads to enlightenment, as it is "could be", "supposedly", "might be", "maybe" aka "guesswork or an educated guess". That is called conjecture and/or hypothesis. The later is consider more realistic than just a 'shot in the dark', true, but generally they are the same.

    A hypothesis cannot be valued nor be considered alone (singular), it must have a root thought, emote or energy in-the-raw to even exist. Hypothesis is the jump point between the idea and the result. The later half being where most of the experimentation is done. The former is most postulating, thought and emote are done.
    The entire thing together IS called Theory.

    (ps, there is no such thing as new knowledge --but that is an entirely different conversation.)

    so, in closure, a theist or scientist applying the aforementioned are identical. Again, the difference is in the mechanics or documents used and the parameters of the experiment. 9Even science uses texts/documents as part of there postulations as religion does...)

    Even still, your argument does not negate science being a cult, in actuality, it reaffirms it by your own admission.

    smile

    Enjoy the day!

    James.


    EDIT:

    Theory IS NOT exclusive to science as Enlightenment is not exclusive to Christians. This is the problem with both cults.

 
working