Does anyone think that when someone puts so much belief into a scientific theory, its similar as being a religion?

Wow, that’s a really great answer(sorry if I’m sounding sarcastic, I’m not, I’m just so happy that I can find a response I can agree to disagree with)

Well, when I say agree to disagree with, I guess it doesn’t really mean that. I guess that I still think they share some similarities such as having to have faith, but the thing you have faith in is different along with what they base their faith upon. (With God they base faith upon the bible or pure belief, with science, the faith is off incomplete data[if a theory]) So I agree they are different, just less in theories that have gaps.

I can’t really say science is something that people have faith in because science constantly changes. Faith defines itself, in this particular situation as : “complete confidence in a person or plan etc” To put complete confidence in something that could well possibly change does seem a little absurd doesn’t it?

It does and doesn’t, but I personally don’t know that feeling of absolute faith to something that will change while some of my friends do. This question was really just food for thought.

Yeah, it was a good perspective on it. I can say that they (they being people) treat science and religion the same way though.

The scientific community is not devoted to its theories in the same way the religious community is to its doctrines and beliefs. Since you brought up evolution, for example, the theory has gone through many revisions since Darwin’s time, and is still being examined and revised today. Science, by its very nature, is constantly questioning itself. As Miguel said, it’s constantly changing. Religions usually require commitment to something, or acceptance of it, even though it can’t be observed, tested, and verified. Faith and science are difficult to reconcile.

The story of the “doubting Thomas” in the Christian Bible is one I’ve always thought interesting. The moral of this story is that one should not be skeptical, or demand proof, when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A person is considered “blessed” if he or she believes without any proof or evidence. You see a similar view in many other organized religions, when it comes to belief in their own teachings.

I don’t think so, as stated above me, scientists are quite happy to change their theories and challenge their ideas when they discover new evidence which could contradict them. Religious followers on the other hand don’t seem willing to do the same.

Then I can also challenge your statement by asking whether your statement would also apply to anything else that you put a lot of time and effort in? Like a new theory similar to the Capital asset pricing model in business?

Since I assume this question is a reaction to what I said, earlier I wont bother restating it. As I pointed out earlier, the difference is that scientists go looking for proof. The faithful bury their hands in the sand and refuse to see anything that contradicts their beliefs. And in that sense, they cannot be compared.

yes,in some cases I do. There are many scientific theories that people believe in without proof, and in many cases, scientists are NOT happy to challenge their beliefs or have them challenged by others. Someone disproving something you have worked on all your life is not fun, any more than it would be to have your religion disproved.