belief is theism, so science is a religion

I’m sorry to miss the last round, got tied up with work and just never made it back in time to post an argument. It appears that my opponent is claiming that the only thing that can be known is immediate experience and consequently everything other than that is false or a lie, and therefore, science is a religion because they are both false. Or something like that, it’s some kind of “Now” philosophy thing, Eckhart Tolle on acid comes to mind. In any event, even if it were true that almost everything is false, or an illusion, or whatever these posts are supposed to mean, the fact that two different things are both false certainly doesn’t mean they are the same or one is a subset of the other. My opponent’s “argument” deems almost everything false, not just religion and science, but philosophy, history, mathematics, logical arguments, and debates. In the end, it strikes me as rather pointless, I think the contentions put forth are preposterous at best, and repetition doesn’t change that, and they certainly do nothing to support the subject of the debate, which is his assertion that all “belief is Theology” and “science is a religion”. . Because I don’t see a lucid chain of reasoning to refute, I suppose I will just discuss the differences between science and religion here to demonstrate just how different they are. . Science and religion are practically polar opposites; they completely differ in their basic presuppositions and in the domains in which they operate. Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Consequently, they contribute to different areas of human existence and give meaning to life in different ways. Religion’s focus is on transcendence, it is typically referential to a spiritual realm, often involving a supernatural being or beings. While it is not a conclusion of science, “methodological naturalism” is its starting point, so it necessarily presupposes that neither spiritual realms nor supernatural beings can be the data or proper areas of study. Science involves the measurement, description and classification of natural processes; it is the study of how things behave, it cannot tell us why they behave the way they do, and it offers no insight into issues of what is morally right or wrong. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive, consequently, science can say nothing about values and ethics, it can only tell us what is — not what ought to be. Science deals in objective fact, it attempts to remain free of subjective values. Religion’s primary focus is the subjective realm of values, meaning, and purpose, while science’s methodology involves the systematic denial that ‘true’ knowledge can be got by interpreting nature in terms of final causes, which is to say it consciously denies that “purpose” is an aspect of nature. Science has nothing to do with such subjective matters; it seeks objective facts in the dispassionate analysis of evidence that leads to certainty. Religious belief does not depend upon a dispassionate analysis of evidence that leads to conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, it is always a commitment made in response to an insight that is individual and unique. Because science attempts to remain as objective as possible, its focus is only with what is public and sharable, and it’s theories must be repeatable and falsifiable. Religion focus is primarily inward, it is designed to bring about a new understanding of human existence and achieve inner spiritual renewal rooted in encounter with a personal, moral, liberating, and transcendent power and presence. One of religion’s goals is a personal experience of liberation – freedom from egoism and union with a spiritual reality of supreme goodness. Religion is comprehensive, religious beliefs offer a wider framework of meaning in which particular events cab be contextualized, in the final analysis, it is a way of life. Science on the other hand is selective, it does not claim that its picture of reality is complete; it asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena, it is not intended as providing an overall worldview, a philosophy of life, or a set of ethical norms. These and much more make it clear that science is not, nor can it be, a religion. My opponent’s contention that science is a religion is an extraordinary claim which would require an extraordinary argument to support.