Is Science a Religion?

[psychoslice]

Well said suncowiam.

 

[sampuna]

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 wouldn't go as far as to say science as a religion. science presents life as a matter of factly. It stops short at death. religion on the other hand goes further, preparing its adherents for another life beyond the physical death, reinforced with spiritual values.

 

[bishblaize]

I certainly don't think it's a religion. I think for some people it has become an ideology though.

 

[Politesse]

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.

You quoted me, but I'm confused as to how this response has anything to do with my post?

 

[Sapiens]

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

Authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religion is the dominant form and the limited religions that do not fit this model don't do much to protect the rest of us from their coreligionists, in fact they protect and encourage the authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religionists by putting religious "tolerance" above common sanity and decency.

 

[outhouse]

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

It is factually not a pool of credible knowledge. It factually is theology that contains mythology allegory and metaphors.

. It is a system of beliefs that explains the world around us.

You have a serious problem.

People go to universities to learn all that. Someone going only to church would not have a grade school education, and would literally be ignorant to the world around him.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

I would observe that organized religion bends great effort to remain stagnant, change is rarely (if ever) welcomed.

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

That accounts for a few thousand people world wide ... get real.

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?

Easy, a belief is not the same as a hypothesis, it is easy to have either without the other. I have many hypothesis without beliefs, you have many beliefs without hypothesis.

 

[Quintessence]

Authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religion is the dominant form and the limited religions that do not fit this model don't do much to protect the rest of us from their coreligionists, in fact they protect and encourage the authoritarian, fundamentalist, dogmatic, organized religionists by putting religious "tolerance" above common sanity and decency.

If that is the story you wish to tell yourself, so be it. But when you tell yourself a story like this, which is not the matter-of-fact of things, you really shouldn't be surprised when we get annoyed by your attitude.

 

[Politesse]

I would observe that organized religion bends great effort to remain stagnant, change is rarely (if ever) welcomed.

"Organized religion" is not a monolithic entity, and though the past is fetishized in many traditions, it's just as often the case that radical change is stirring things up. The history of religion in my country, for instance, cannot be understood without grasping the Protestant Reformation, the Pietist movement, the Great Awakening, and the birth of Pentecostalism and Mormonism respectively. And those were only the most popular revolutions.

That accounts for a few thousand people world wide ... get real.

I didn't realize it was a numbers game. Most people don't enjoy thinking about thinking, especially, but religion is not what causes that to be true.

I have no idea how to parse your strange definitions of hypotheses and beliefs, so I'm not going to try. I would be unable to do my work as a scientist if I were as confused about the workings of my own brain as you seem to think I ought to be. We all have beliefs- some are more justified than others and there are many methodologies and epistemologies to sort them all out, but we all have them. The question is how you determine which are true, which are possibly true, and which are false.

 

[Me Myself]

It is factually not a pool of credible knowledge. It factually is theology that contains mythology allegory and metaphors.



You have a serious problem.

People go to universities to learn all that. Someone going only to church would not have a grade school education, and would literally be ignorant to the world around him.

Ehm 1- we are all ignorant on the world around us 2- science keeps debunking findings they did themselves just as well as it debunks religion. Three decades from now you could get people saying the same about today´s science "not being knowledge" simply because its not UP TO DATE to then.

Knowledge in religion kep us alive for millenia, you think thats a glitch? It doesnt mean it was accurate, but today´s science wont be as accurate as tomorrow´s science, so with your standards, we wont be able to say what truly is knowledge until we get a time machine working and go to maximum development moment.

 

[Vishvavajra]

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?

It's a polemical tactic used by certain Evangelical Protestants in an attempt to undermine scientific authority by claiming it's just another arbitrary belief system. It rests on a number of fallacies.

First of all, you have the characteristically Protestant assumption that religion=belief, plain and simple. That's a very simplistic definition that doesn't really work, but there you go.

Then you have the assumption that science is basically a belief system, which isn't really accurate either. But when all you know about science is a smattering of theories, it can seem as if scientific models are all there is, without any indication of how they came to be or what their real function is.

Put those assumptions together and you can end up with the impression that science is just an alternative to religion. The implication, of course, is that people choose to believe in the scientific belief system instead of [insert your favorite religion]'s belief system because they're decadent hedonists who don't like following rules etc.

In other words, the entire assertion is built on false premises from start to finish and is almost always used in bad faith.

 

[suncowiam]

Ehm 1- we are all ignorant on the world around us 2- science keeps debunking findings they did themselves just as well as it debunks religion. Three decades from now you could get people saying the same about today´s science "not being knowledge" simply because its not UP TO DATE to then.

Knowledge in religion kep us alive for millenia, you think thats a glitch? It doesnt mean it was accurate, but today´s science wont be as accurate as tomorrow´s science, so with your standards, we wont be able to say what truly is knowledge until we get a time machine working and go to maximum development moment.

What knowledge? What real knowledge does religion offer?

Did it cure diseases? Did it build our roads and highways? Did it build a banking system? Did it conceive electricity? Did it conceive the basic elements? Did it conceive irrigation, genetics, medicine? Did it build our super computers. Did it build your laptop? Did it fly a shuttle into space and land it on the moon?

Religion tells people how to live but the major religions does so with ultimate authority. Some of the Gods could might as well be Kim Jong Un as far as I'm concerned. Then you have other theists here that argue that their religion is more tolerant and moderate. Well, that's great but why do you need a higher authority telling you how to be a good person? Why cant mankind do this on his own?

 

[Sapiens]

... Knowledge in religion kep us alive for millenia, you think thats a glitch?

No I think that's false.

"Organized religion" is not a monolithic entity, and though the past is fetishized in many traditions, it's just as often the case that radical change is stirring things up. The history of religion in my country, for instance, cannot be understood without grasping the Protestant Reformation, the Pietist movement, the Great Awakening, and the birth of Pentecostalism and Mormonism respectively. And those were only the most popular revolutions.

These are changes in religion that made things less hidebound and more open to new ideas? Hardly.

I didn't realize it was a numbers game. Most people don't enjoy thinking about thinking, especially, but religion is not what causes that to be true.

It's not a numbers game, but the total number of followers of all the faiths you identify don't amount to a hill of beans.

I have no idea how to parse your strange definitions of hypotheses and beliefs, so I'm not going to try. I would be unable to do my work as a scientist if I were as confused about the workings of my own brain as you seem to think I ought to be. We all have beliefs- some are more justified than others and there are many methodologies and epistemologies to sort them all out, but we all have them. The question is how you determine which are true, which are possibly true, and which are false.

What sort of scientist do you claim to be ... you write like a Christian engineer. I know of few scientists so foolish as to speak of what is true or possibly true ... we do deal, however, in falsification.

 

[Sapiens]

If that is the story you wish to tell yourself, so be it. But when you tell yourself a story like this, which is not the matter-of-fact of things, you really shouldn't be surprised when we get annoyed by your attitude.

Then make a coherent argument against it, emotional reactions count for naught.

 

[Politesse]

These are changes in religion that made things less hidebound and more open to new ideas? Hardly.

Um, all of those movements vastly changed the beliefs and practices of Christianity as it was then understood.

It's not a numbers game, but the total number of followers of all the faiths you identify don't amount to a hill of beans.

This is a contradictory statement. How many times does a hypothesis have to be disproven before a scientist ought to start questioning it? If your model does not have predictive power in all situations, it is a problematic model, until you know why.

What sort of scientist do you claim to be ... you write like a Christian engineer. I know of few scientists so foolish as to speak of what is true or possibly true ... we do deal, however, in falsification.

"Claim" to be? I'm an anthropologist, it's my job. Did not claim that science "foolishly speaks about truth", pointed out that all humans have beliefs. this is demonstrably, unequivocally true. Science is one method among many for sorting between potential beliefs. Yes, by process of elimination. I'm amused that you are preaching to me about the limits of science when a few posts ago, you ardently argued truth claim after truth claim, and are still defending your portrayal of religion despite not being able to produce a scrap of evidence in support of it. You're fishing, insisting that your foes ought to produce evidence to contradict your claim, then ignoring any evidence that contradicts your thesis. I look forward to your hypocritical sermon on how science works.

 

[Bunyip]

Um, all of those movements vastly changed the beliefs and practices of Christianity as it was then understood.

This is a contradictory statement. How many times does a hypothesis have to be disproven before a scientist ought to start questioning it? If your model does not have predictive power in all situations, it is a problematic model.

A hypothesis needs to be disproven once.

"Claim" to be? I'm an anthropologist, it's my job. Did not claim that science "foolishly speaks about truth", pointed out that all humans have beliefs. this is demonstrably, unequivocally true. Science is one method among many for sorting between potential beliefs. Yes, by process of elimination. I'm amused that you are preaching to me about the limits of science when a few posts ago, you ardently argued truth claim after truth claim, and are still defending your portrayal of religion despite not being able to produce a scrap of evidence in support of it. You're fishing, insisting that your foes ought to produce evidence to contradict your claim, then ignoring any evidence that contradicts your thesis.

 

[Sapiens]

Um, all of those movements vastly changed the beliefs and practices of Christianity as it was then understood.

In most all cases they simply changed details the dogma of the oppressor in a Lilliputian fashion.

This is a contradictory statement. How many times does a hypothesis have to be disproven before a scientist ought to start questioning it? If your model does not have predictive power in all situations, it is a problematic model, until you know why.

One good falsification is all it takes, but try to not confuse a datum with a falsification.

"Claim" to be? I'm an anthropologist, it's my job.

What sort of anthropologist? Academic, civil service or ? Many publications in good journals?

Did not claim that science "foolishly speaks about truth",

Actually, you did. I'll accept that you were mistaken, but you did say it: "The question is how you determine which are true, which are possibly true, and which are false."

pointed out that all humans have beliefs. this is demonstrably, unequivocally true.

An unsupported claim.

Science is one method among many for sorting between potential beliefs.

But it is the only method for sorting the wheat from the chaff that does not require belief.

Yes, by process of elimination. I'm amused that you are preaching to me about the limits of science when a few posts ago, you ardently argued truth claim after truth claim,

I'm happy that you're amused ... but I see no "truth claims," just my observations that rather than address you prefer to retreat into ad hominems.

and are still defending your portrayal of religion despite not being able to produce a scrap of evidence in support of it.

Do you really need proof that most of the religions in the world attempt to establish a dominant position so that they can dictate to all others?

You're fishing, insisting that your foes ought to produce evidence to contradict your claim, then ignoring any evidence that contradicts your thesis. I look forward to your hypocritical sermon on how science works.

No, I'm just making reasonable prediction that at the level required by good science, a random sampling of religionists would find them hidebound and resistant to change. That's my hypothesis ... falsify if you are able.

'A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.' - Max Planck

 

[Politesse]

Do you really need proof that most of the religions in the world attempt to establish a dominant position so that they can dictate to all others?

Of course I do, that really doesn't make sense as applied to "most of the religions". there are actually just a handful of evangelistic religious traditions, important though they have been in shaping world history. "Most" religious communities are local affairs with no apparent grand aspirations.

No, I'm just making reasonable prediction that at the level required by good science, a random sampling of religionists would find them hidebound and resistant to change. That's my hypothesis ... falsify if you are able.

Hmm, and how would you falsify this? How do you define "hideboundness" in away that could be reasonably tested for? I've already explained why the notion of "resistant to change" makes little sense in the context of the actual world. I know of no religious tradition that has remained unchanged by significant shifts over time as one generation follows the next, with new ideas and practices their grandparents were horrified at. I am by no means challenging the existence of conservatism, but even if it were overwhelmingly a fair descriptor of all religious people, conservative movements are often no less radical in the changes they wish to enact. They cite history as validation, but they also creatively reinvent that history to meet the social and political needs of the present.

'A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.' - Max Planck

Oh, so now science does give us truths. Make up your mind, sir.

I also reject your implied false dichotomy between people who belong to religious groups and people who practice science. These are in fact heavily overlapping groups. Nor are all non-religious people especially interested in science.

 

[It's Ya Girl Jesus' Wife]

Nope. Mathematics, Linguistics, and History would have to be religions too if science is a religion....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

That does seem quite descriptive of the Abrahamic religions. Though I agree it isn't descriptive of many others.