Is Science a Religion?

[Midnight Rain]

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

I liked your list of what determines a religion to be a religion. I do not see science as fitting several of them. For example science does not answer the big questions. Science asks the big questions and infers from what observable evidence we have. IT is not an unquestionable answer of what "is" but what "might be". This of course may be a fundamental core reason why I do not believe science to be a religion.

In my own religious views we find answers and we ask questions. However it is not based upon empirical evidence or weighed against competing theories.

 

[Quintessence]

@Midnight Rain

When I say religions address the "big questions," I do not at all mean to suggest that religions do this in a way that is dogmatic or intended to be incontrovertible. That is a characteristic of some, but hardly all religions. The answers in religions can be inferential and subject to change; they can be those "might be" and even "answers" (plural), rather than The Answer®. I think we need to be careful to not confuse religious dogmatism with religions as a whole.

If, when we ask "big questions," we derive that central axis of meaning from the sciences, I feel we're using the sciences in a religious fashion. I do this constantly in my path, though I understand that much of the meaningfulness I draw from it is not, in of itself, sciences. There was a book I read quite some time ago - I forget the author - that proposed using our scientific understanding of origins as a common creation mythology for all humanity. While it's a little much to suggest it could be a common creation mythology for everyone (not everyone likes the "religion" of sciences after all), it is still beautiful to tell stories that emerge from the sciences to derive meaningfulness.

Honestly, I go back and forth in terms of whether or not I consider sciences to be a religion, and whether or not I say yes or no to that depends on context. At a minimum, it is absolutely an expression of religiosity, regardless of whether or not it is formally systematized into a religious framework.

 

[Midnight Rain]

@Midnight Rain

When I say religions address the "big questions," I do not at all mean to suggest that religions do this in a way that is dogmatic or intended to be incontrovertible. That is a characteristic of some, but hardly all religions. The answers in religions can be inferential and subject to change; they can be those "might be" and even "answers" (plural), rather than The Answer®. I think we need to be careful to not confuse religious dogmatism with religions as a whole.

If, when we ask "big questions," we derive that central axis of meaning from the sciences, I feel we're using the sciences in a religious fashion. I do this constantly in my path, though I understand that much of the meaningfulness I draw from it is not, in of itself, sciences. There was a book I read quite some time ago - I forget the author - that proposed using our scientific understanding of origins as a common creation mythology for all humanity. While it's a little much to suggest it could be a common creation mythology for everyone (not everyone likes the "religion" of sciences after all), it is still beautiful to tell stories that emerge from the sciences to derive meaningfulness.

Honestly, I go back and forth in terms of whether or not I consider sciences to be a religion, and whether or not I say yes or no to that depends on context. At a minimum, it is absolutely an expression of religiosity, regardless of whether or not it is formally systematized into a religious framework.

All that science "is" is questioning and observing. A great deal of thought and meticulous action goes along with it for a systematic processing of information but that is the basis of what it is.

I don't think history is a religion. I don't think math is a religion. I don't think chemistry is a religion and I don't think science as a whole is a religion. In what way do you think science is a religion? I can respect your opinion on the matter but so far I don't really agree with it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Science is general and in specific is not a religion.

Love it.

 

[shawn001]

This is older.

Is Science a Religion?
By RICHARD DAWKINS

"Given the dangers of faith -- and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science -- I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."

Is Science a Religion? - Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net

 

[Sapiens]

...
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.

There are many ways that you might have gotten all wet and misinterpreted. You also could have been deluded. To make it fact requires more than your anecdotal say so.

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.

That was a fraud case and was quickly corrected ... the correction (which gets faster and faster) is one of science's best features.

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

Please, who are these undefined "some people?"

 

[Markella]

My simple opinion would be, yes.
Science Definition
dictionary.search.yahoo.com
n. noun

• 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. new advances in science and technology.
• 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. the science of astronomy.
• 3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. the science of marketing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now and then I hear someone claim science is a religion?

No, it sounds to me like a pejorative claim by those religionists who view science as a threat to their faith.

 

[Me Myself]

It could be depending on concept.

Science is the currently accepted pool of knowledge about how the world and stuff works.

That`s... pretty much religion.

But then religion has aspects that science does not have that are mainly about community and morals.

Science renews itself it ways almost no religion does though, but it stays I believe with it´s core pillars of the scientific method and the materialist view of the universe.

I d say it usually doesnt really help to think on science as a religion. I simply see it as one of the more reliable ways and places from where to get your measurable knowledge.

 

[suncowiam]

It could be depending on concept.

Science is the currently accepted pool of knowledge about how the world and stuff works.

That`s... pretty much religion.

But then religion has aspects that science does not have that are mainly about community and morals.

Science renews itself it ways almost no religion does though, but it stays I believe with it´s core pillars of the scientific method and the materialist view of the universe.

I d say it usually doesnt really help to think on science as a religion. I simply see it as one of the more reliable ways and places from where to get your measurable knowledge.

What??? Religion explains why a toilet flushes in one direction for particular locations? Or religion explains how semiconducting elements like silicon can build the transistor which is the catalyst of modern computing?

 

[outhouse]

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?

I don't pray to a scientist. Nor read their text for comfort. Never been married by a scientist, nor has a scientist laid anyone I know to rest.

I think some people resent reality, and I have seen a few fence post with higher IQ's.

 

[outhouse]

Science is the currently accepted pool of knowledge about how the world and stuff works.

That`s... pretty much religion.

That is the opposite of religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is the opposite of religion

Exactly. Science has an open mind and changes it's view as further discoveries are made. Religion has dogma, and often a closed mind.

 

[Me Myself]

That is the opposite of religion.

Millenia of history disagree.

 

[Quintessence]

No, it sounds to me like a pejorative claim by those religionists who view science as a threat to their faith.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Although I have no idea what a "religionist" is so I obviously would not identify as one, when I point out the similarities between the sciences and religions, it is no way intended to be pejorative; nor do I regard the sciences as any threat to religions. It's only a threat to certain trends that exist as components of some religious traditions - trends that have no business being in a mature religion in the first place.

Do you regard "religion" to be a pejorative term or something? If so, that is... well... that's sad.

Exactly. Science has an open mind and changes it's view as further discoveries are made.

So do many religions.

Religion has dogma, and often a closed mind.

Many religions lack dogma. Can we please stop pretending that authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religion is representative of religions?

 

[outhouse]

Millenia of history disagree.

How so???????????????????

 

[Me Myself]

How so???????????????????

Well, most religions I am aware are a pool of knowledge of the world around them, how stuff works, worked and will work, etc.

Science is fulfilling the role religion fulfilled for millennia. (minus some aspects though) . It is a system of beliefs that explains the world around us.

 

[Sapiens]

Millenia of history disagree.

No they do not. Religion freezes knowledge and allows little or no advancement. Science is open ended and grows through self-correction.

I'm sorry you see it that way. Although I have no idea what a "religionist" is so I obviously would not identify as one, when I point out the similarities between the sciences and religions, it is no way intended to be pejorative; nor do I regard the sciences as any threat to religions. It's only a threat to certain trends that exist as components of some religious traditions - trends that have no business being in a mature religion in the first place.

A religionist is one who practices a religion.

Do you regard "religion" to be a pejorative term or something? If so, that is... well... that's sad.

Sad? Why?

So do many religions.

Name a few.

Many religions lack dogma. Can we please stop pretending that authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religion is representative of religions?

[/quote]Please name a religion that can be accurately identified as anarchic, inventive, open minded and disorganized.

Well, most religions I am aware are a pool of knowledge of the world around them, how stuff works, worked and will work, etc.

Science is fulfilling the role religion fulfilled for millennia. (minus some aspects though) . It is a system of beliefs that explains the world around us.

But science is not a system of beliefs, it is an identification of naturalistic causes and effects.

 

[Politesse]

No they do not. Religion freezes knowledge and allows little or no advancement. Science is open ended and grows through self-correction.

Ironically, one must ignore the scientific method to make such a statement. What possible data could you cite to support this hypothesis, given the constantly changing and adapting nature of every known religious tradition? Conservatives may not like the idea of religious change, but that religions change, and on non-arbitrary grounds, is beyond reasonable dispute.

Please name a religion that can be accurately identified as anarchic, inventive, open minded and disorganized.

The Cult of Dionyssus. Gnostic Hermeticism. Contemporary Paganism. Satanism.

But science is not a system of beliefs, it is an identification of naturalistic causes and effects.

How could one possibly identify a cause or effect without forming a belief about it? Without beliefs about how knowledge is formed and validated, how could you decide whether or not your identification is correct?

 

[suncowiam]

Ironically, one must ignore the scientific method to make such a statement. What possible data could you cite to support this hypothesis, given the constantly changing and adapting nature of every known religious tradition? Conservatives may not like the idea of religious change, but that religions change, and on non-arbitrary grounds, is beyond reasonable dispute.
The Cult of Dionyssus. Gnostic Hermeticism. Contemporary Paganism. Satanism.
How could one possibly identify a cause or effect without forming a belief about it? Without beliefs about how knowledge is formed and validated, how could you decide whether or not your identification is correct?

Do you think scientists just willed their creations and findings into being? That they had a mythological book to form the foundation of all their beliefs? All the faith in the world will not create a cure for aids or created the computer that you're typing on.

This is just playing semantics and comparing the similar semantics to form a correlation.

If science didn't overlap with such topics as initial creation and already disprove some religious notions, religious folks wouldn't have a beef at all. You sure are fine with all the technologies that are benefiting your lives already. The internet, the computer, the keyboard that you're typing on were not prophesied in any religious context. And yet, here it is today enabling you to debate on these forums, not to mention many other things. Science alone brought that to you and it sure wasn't due to simple blind faith.

And no, Scientology has nothing to do with science.