All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secularism welcome.
Are science and religion/atheism/agnosticism related or unrelated??
Do you view these as being related? Are they a cause and effect for you? Are they unrelated? How? Please also discuss what questions you think they attempt to answer!




I think the main connection is that through modernism people came to believe that what mattered was what could be experimentally proven. Religion requires faith, which by definition cannot be experimentally proven.
It would be related if it was faith that you could defy gravity. Because that is a testable claim that is related to science.
Is there a religion based on faith that you can defy gravity?
Or that Zeus throws lightning bolts or that thunder is caused by Thor. Some Christian religions believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago, that evolution is false, and that whole Noah thing.
It's important to realize that those religions exist as much as the ones that don't make any such claims. So, it depends on the religion.
Ah, I see what you mean, I worded my response incorrectly. Instead of "religion" I should have said "theology." My only point was that theology rests on faith in a premise (the existence of deity) that is neither provable nor falsifiable--which is the antithesis of science.
Yeah, these words have grown and stretch so much over time, with overlap sometimes and being completely disjointed at others. It's kind of a mess.
Thus my appreciation of /word_of_the_day 😉
Hm. I wouldn't say they are related, but they strongly correlate with each other.
That means you can be an atheist while still believing in anti-science woo. It doesn't automatically make you an enlightened person.
But you're way more inclined to be a "fan" of science, I think.
I think you hit the nail on the head @Temmie! Thanks for your comment!
I don't think the two are related, as in if I am a scientist/science enthusiast, it doesn't necessarily mean I am religious, agnostic or atheist. They aren't intrinsically connected. However, my logical, scientific ways of thinking directly effect my views on religious claims. I always look to see if there is evidence to support any claim. So, naturally, a claim that relies on faith, doesn't have evidence to support it and this is my reason for not believing.
I voted unrelated because they work differently and talk differently, religion works with the ipse dixit amd you believe because you want to, science works with demonstrations and positive existence (ie the famous "you can't prove this doesn't exist therefore it does" is simply incorrect, if you try to use that in math the professor will throw you out of the window) so you just accept facts since you can see them to be true. Some people can live with both, others can't, but i doubt learning science can destroy your faith, unless you really didn't get the point of faith itself.
I voted 'unrelated' because they are only as related as the religious claims make them. Some religions don't make claims at all. Other's make specific claims. For example, many neo-pagan practitioners use religious metaphor but don't believe it's true. It's about focus and introspection. Of the main buddhist schools, one comes very close to being secular (and certainly atheistic).
I said they were related, because I think they are in many ways, opposites. Is it possible to create a religion that doesn't contradict science as we know it right now? I mean sure, you could probably piece something together. But in ten years, science will have moved on, and your religion won't have. The job of a religion is to provide assurance, certainty, and stability. The job of science is to push forward and change. They might match up for a little bit, like how many Middle-ages European scientists were also very religious, but eventually they drift apart. It is impossible to keep them in sync.