Is Science a Religion?

[Politesse]

I think religion is too vaguely and variously defined to make blanket statements about what does or doesn't belong to it. Socially speaking, science fills the role of a cosmology or philosophy more than a full blown "religion", but then, so do many things that are often called religions. And I've certainly known people who use "Science" to refer to much more than just a research methodology.

 

[Politesse]

Based on these premises, science is certainly not a religion as it is not based on a set of beliefs. I can conduct a scientific experiment and draw factual conclusions over baseless claims.

I take it you never did much thinking about how science actually works. Without accepting certain beliefs, indeed assuming them, you cannot come to a scientific conclusion. The validity of inference key among them. Also a very high degree of trust in observation.

 

[Bunyip]

Science is not a religion, it does not conform to any of the characteristics of a religion.What I do find absolutely deliciously ironic is how often I have seen believers accuse science and atheism of being religions, and demanding faith - as some kind of insult.

But you never see people accusing religion of being a science.

 

[Sapiens]

Jesus wept. That is one of the most stupid replies I have ever read.

You can find "some people" who will say and do almost anything. Citing "some people" as what you hang the proof of you claim upon and calling someone who calls you on that "stupid" really doesn't cut it. You'd do better to say, "New Atheists" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster Worshipers" or naming a few by handle or name, but really ... "some people" is a bit too defuse to be meaningful.

Science is not a religion, in general, but some people seem to 'deify' it. This is a fact based on personal experience, based on the definition I provided.

What people? Who? Where, When?

There are no "facts" based on personal experience, that's not the way "facts" are developed.

What 'some people' do is perfectly relevant in the context of the thread. It means some people.

Again, "some people" is not a reference.

Plenty of 'scientific knowledge' is highly inaccurate and is later proved to be so.

False. Scientific knowledge is as accurate as possible for the time and place, except in the case of fraud. In any case, when it is no longer accurate it is replace with a better set of "facts."
The 'atheist 10 commandments' is what 'some people' created and called the 'atheist 10 commandments'. Hence I quoted them and put the information into the context of 'an atheist 10 commandments'. I assume that most people have the basic intelligence to infer that this is not something that ALL atheists pledge allegiance to.
[/quote]So what is it? Some internet thing? No, google says it's something CNN is pushing on us, crowd sourced via the internet ... "some people" indeed.

Science involves all those things at times but that doesn't make every time those things help gain understanding part of 'the scientific method'.

What "things?" You have a serious propensity for drilling your posts full on undefined pronouns, that eliminates all actual meaning.

 

[psychoslice]

No science isn't a religion, and I cannot understand how anyone could think it is.

 

[oldbadger]

Is Science a Religion?

Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion - Listverse
listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/
15 Dec 2012 - As a Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences, I'm well aware that this is a controversial subject for both scientists and religious people alike.

The above site, one of many, has some interesting observations.
People who think, devise, research, discover and produce, etc..... don't generally introduce themselves as scientists. The genuine don't tend to misuse the word.

But those that do misuse it so have created a religion.
Many of them would want a world where only those with a certain IQ could take part in the ruling/political process, which makes their 'Science' a theocracy.
They insist that they are right, no matter what, until a true researcher discovers that they were wrong, and by the next morning they have adjusted themselves to 'Science' and forgotten their earlier follies.
Oh.......... the list could go on and on, but for now you might just read the points on that www site.

The pretenders........... do you love 'em or despise 'em?

 

[psychoslice]

Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion

I read that and thought it was a load of garbage, it had no intelligence what so ever.

 

[Politesse]

I read that and thought it was a load of garbage, it had no intelligence what so ever.

Ladies and gentleman, a true rationalist.

 

[psychoslice]

Ladies and gentleman, a true rationalist.

I don't know about being a rationalist, but simply someone who thinks for themselves, and plainly see's garbage where it is, it was so embarrassing to even read what I read, that someone could write that.

Why are so many afraid of science, I think its because science reveals the truth of things, and by doing so it exposes ignorance of long ago beliefs.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't know about being a rationalist, but simply someone who thinks for themselves, and plainly see's garbage where it is, it was so embarrassing to even read what I read, that someone could write that.

Why are so many afraid of science, I think its because science reveals the truth of things, and by doing so it exposes ignorance of long ago beliefs.

Sciences do not reveal "The Truth" of things, it is a set of explanations that is most consistent with known information as derived be empirical methodology. The kind of statement you're making here strikes me as far too dogmatic, and smells of scientism, not sciences.

But you are right that the list from that blog is... well... poorly argued. Sciences have plenty of characteristics in common with the structure and function of religions (to the point that it effectively is one for some individuals), but that article... well... that was kind of rubbish. It was probably intended to be.

 

[Quintessence]

I take it you never did much thinking about how science actually works. Without accepting certain beliefs, indeed assuming them, you cannot come to a scientific conclusion. The validity of inference key among them. Also a very high degree of trust in observation.

Pretty much.

Beliefs are also NOT the equivalent of "baseless claims," and assessing the question of the OP using non-specialist dictionary definitions as opposed to a comprehensive encyclopedia or subject knowledge is... well.. ill-advised given the sheer complexity and heterogeneity of the things being compared.

 

[psychoslice]

Sciences do not reveal "The Truth" of things, it is a set of explanations that is most consistent with known information as derived be empirical methodology. The kind of statement you're making here strikes me as far too dogmatic, and smells of scientism, not sciences.

But you are right that the list from that blog is... well... poorly argued. Sciences have plenty of characteristics in common with the structure and function of religions (to the point that it effectively is one for some individuals), but that article... well... that was kind of rubbish. It was probably intended to be.

Yea I was more about how many once thought such things as having an epileptic fit was of the devil, how they once thought the weather was controlled by a man in the sky, and if he was angry, well look out.
How they thought the earth was flat, that the sun orbited around our planet, and so on. These things have been revealed by scientific thinking, and this thinking once could have had you burnt at the stake.

 

[gnostic]

For the OP:

No.

Religion mean not only believing a deity (or spirit) or more, but worshipping those entities.

Science is just attempting to the world, with methodology to acquire knowledge, through logic (like mathematical models) and through observation (like evidences or tests), to verify if the hypothesis/theory is true.

Although, I don't often use the word - "naturalism" with science, but science is a mean to understand a phenomena through natural science, and not some religious dogma or superstitious belief in the supernatural.

 

[Augustus]

You can find "some people" who will say and do almost anything. Citing "some people" as what you hang the proof of you claim upon and calling someone who calls you on that "stupid" really doesn't cut it. You'd do better to say, "New Atheists" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster Worshipers" or naming a few by handle or name, but really ... "some people" is a bit too defuse to be meaningful.

The point is that, there exist people who meet the description I mentioned in my 1st post. That is it. No grand 'anti-science' diatribe. No support of a religious or post-modern relativist worldview. Unless you believe there are no people who meet that description, I don't see what the issue is. As to how many, I have no idea, and don't really care. It is completely unimportant to any of the points that I was making. 'Some people' are simply individuals who meet those criteria and are not representative of any broader social movement so it would be wrong to label them as anything.

So are there 'no people' who meet my description, or 'some people'?

There are no "facts" based on personal experience, that's not the way "facts" are developed.

It is a fact that it rained today. I know because I got wet. I didn't need to check the weather forecast or carry out an experiment to have it confirmed.

False. Scientific knowledge is as accurate as possible for the time and place, except in the case of fraud. In any case, when it is no longer accurate it is replace with a better set of "facts."

As accurate as possible can be highly inaccurate. Knowledge considered 'scientific' is frequently wrong, medicine, healthcare diet, etc would be prime areas for 'scientific' knowledge that can be highly inaccurate to the extent that it can actually be harmful rather than helpful. And it is not only 'fraud' that causes this, as you well know.

Plenty of articles published in scientific journals are also later found to be incorrect. The MMR vaccine/autism was published in a respected medical journal. It was later refuted.

Again this is not a criticism of science, but a criticism of the way some people interpret knowledge that they deem 'scientific'.

 

[Sapiens]

The point is that, there exist people who meet the description I mentioned in my 1st post. That is it. No grand 'anti-science' diatribe. No support of a religious or post-modern relativist worldview. Unless you believe there are no people who meet that description, I don't see what the issue is. As to how many, I have no idea, and don't really care. It is completely unimportant to any of the points that I was making. 'Some people' are simply individuals who meet those criteria and are not representative of any broader social movement so it would be wrong to label them as anything.

So are there 'no people' who meet my description, or 'some people'?



It is a fact that it rained today. I know because I got wet. I didn't need to check the weather forecast or carry out an experiment to have it confirmed.



As accurate as possible can be highly inaccurate. Knowledge considered 'scientific' is frequently wrong, medicine, healthcare diet, etc would be prime areas for 'scientific' knowledge that can be highly inaccurate to the extent that it can actually be harmful rather than helpful. And it is not only 'fraud' that causes this, as you well know.

Plenty of articles published in scientific journals are also later found to be incorrect. The MMR vaccine/autism was published in a respected medical journal. It was later refuted.

Again this is not a criticism of science, but a criticism of the way some people interpret knowledge that they deem 'scientific'.

So ... all this is so that you can advance the hypothesis that "some people" are stupid? That I'd agree with, but I don't see that that is a new thought of any importance.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Now and then I hear someone claim science is a religion? Do you think that notion has any merit? If so, why? If not, why not?

No. Unless you have a warped idea of what "religion" mean there is no way to say that science is a religion. The biggest problem with the statement usually comes from some kind of fundamentalist church that wants to bring down the claims made by science and the claims made by their religious sect to the same level or elevate it above that of scientific claims. There is a reduction in legitimacy based down to purely un-educated opinion.

 

[lovemuffin]

science is not religion

But naturalism is a worldview and as such describes a sort of way of thinking or understanding reality which includes certain premises that inform that worldview. The elevation of objective epistemology as a highest principle is an example of a generally held naturalistic premise, that is the principle that what is true (or what is real) is what may be rationally and empirically demonstrated. By premise I mean that this principle is something that can be argued for abductively but not proven. It becomes axiomatic to the worldview. The reason "science" gets conflated with naturalism is mostly that the argument for the adoption of naturalism is essentially the success of science.

Religions also involve (sometimes implicit) worldviews with their attending premises, for example about faith as a means of experience, "knowledge", or union with the Divine, or religious narratives that give a meaning to human existence. It is at the level of worldviews that there is a valid comparison.

 

[Quintessence]

No. Unless you have a warped idea of what "religion" mean there is no way to say that science is a religion. The biggest problem with the statement usually comes from some kind of fundamentalist church that wants to bring down the claims made by science and the claims made by their religious sect to the same level or elevate it above that of scientific claims. There is a reduction in legitimacy based down to purely un-educated opinion.

Is my idea of what religion means "warped" then?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Is my idea of what religion means "warped" then?

What is your idea of religion? In what way would you view science as a religion if you viewed it as a religion.

 

[Quintessence]

What is your idea of religion? In what way would you view science as a religion if you viewed it as a religion.

Refer to what I posted on page one of this thread.