Is Science a Religion?

[Quintessence]

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

I'm not interested in arguing. You're quite entitled to your opinion, and even if I wanted to change your opinion, the odds of me being able to do so are negligible. Because the public education system in my country (and probably yours) abdicates the responsibility of teaching its citizens about world religions, they have to be self-motivated to learn about it themselves. On top of that, most people don't think like scientists either, so they take personally-observed patterns for statistical frequency, even though their observations are not representational. Those are both very hard habits and obstacles to break.

Besides, even if a certain type of religion is dominant in a particular region of the world, as @Politesse said, this isn't a numbers game in the first place. Do we ignore black people in this country because they're a racial minority? Do we talk about all Americans as if they don't exist? The answer is yes, we do. The next question is: should we? To me, the answer to that is no.

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

I'm not convinced that's fair of Abrahamic religions either. As far as I've noticed from what actual data I've looked at from groups like PEW research - which limits itself to America typically, so conclusions cannot be generalized beyond the United States - there's really only one major sector of the Abrahamic religions that is like this: Evangelical Protestantism. Judaism certainly isn't, and neither are more moderate or progressive branches of Christianity and Islam.

But, as so often happens, the squeaky wheel gets the attention. Obnoxious, authoritarian, dogmatic fundamentalists are all up in our face, so we take them as being more common than they actually are. All in all, I prefer to base my assessments on actual statistics, though. Even then, as I mentioned above, this isn't a numbers game.

 

[suncowiam]

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

Religious people did help but not the religious process. The scientific process of observation and validation helped. Religious process doesnt really involve observations and it sure doesn't validate. Its based on faith. Blind faith is redundant to simply faith.

You can assert your religious beliefs but it hits a road block when I ask you to prove it.

[Edited]
For you to assert that if science is a religion then these things happened. Your argument is also distinguishing science and religion.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not interested in arguing.

Then do not do so.

You're quite entitled to your opinion, and even if I wanted to change your opinion, the odds of me being able to do so are negligible. Because the public education system in my country (and probably yours) abdicates the responsibility of teaching its citizens about world religions, they have to be self-motivated to learn about it themselves. On top of that, most people don't think like scientists either, so they take personally-observed patterns for statistical frequency, even though their observations are not representational. Those are both very hard habits and obstacles to break.

That is a non sequitur and a non starter. What does the U.S. public education system have to do with any individual's knowledge of world regions or science?

Besides, even if a certain type of religion is dominant in a particular region of the world, as @Politesse said, this isn't a numbers game in the first place. Do we ignore black people in this country because they're a racial minority? Do we talk about all Americans as if they don't exist? The answer is yes, we do. The next question is: should we? To me, the answer to that is no.

Culturally and legalistically you are correct, however, if you are making a statistical description, small groups are just outliers.

I'm not convinced that's fair of Abrahamic religions either. As far as I've noticed from what actual data I've looked at from groups like PEW research - which limits itself to America typically, so conclusions cannot be generalized beyond the United States - there's really only one major sector of the Abrahamic religions that is like this: Evangelical Protestantism. Judaism certainly isn't, and neither are more moderate or progressive branches of Christianity and Islam.
But, as so often happens, the squeaky wheel gets the attention. Obnoxious, authoritarian, dogmatic fundamentalists are all up in our face, so we take them as being more common than they actually are. All in all, I prefer to base my assessments on actual statistics, though. Even then, as I mentioned above, this isn't a numbers game.

The problem is that moderate or progressive branches of Christianity and Islam don't deal with their own. Sam Harris sums it up well: "While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. From the perspective of those seeking to live by the letter of the texts, the religious moderate is nothing more than a failed fundamentalist. He is, in all likelihood, going to wind up in hell with the rest of the unbelievers. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance – and it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism. The texts themselves are unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question – i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us – religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Obnoxious, authoritarian, dogmatic fundamentalists are all up in our face, so we take them as being more common than they actually are.

Yes, that's probably true. But the important point is that science keeps an open mind, whereas many religionists have fixed beliefs which look dogmatic.

So science doesn't share the characteristics of religion, and it looks to me like an idea conjured up by religionists in defensive mode. It's like saying "Yes, us religionists have irrational beliefs, but scientists have them too..." Well no, not really, it's like trying to compare apples and oranges. You could argue that scientists have "faith" in the scientific method, but that confidence is well-founded.

 

[Bobbyh]

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?

There is science of religion, but there is no religion of science.

Science is clearly defined as an intolerant acknowledgement of empirical evidence.

Religion requires worship and social aspects and is tolerant of sharing formed opinions based on human statements alone.

Science is performed by observing predictability.

Religion is performed by interpreting text.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, that's probably true. But the important point is that science keeps an open mind, whereas many religionists have fixed beliefs which look dogmatic.

Perhaps yes; I also get the impression that those who have not actually done research in the sciences rather underestimate the amount of dogmatic thinking that goes on, though. The only substantial difference between the dogmatic (or "dogmatic" if you prefer) thinking that goes on in the sciences and that of dogmatic religions is that in the sciences, the dogmatism has to be backed with a certain type of evidence and methodology. As a scientist, it really kind of bothers me when people don't understand that this aspect is there. Basically, anything I or my co-authors cite on a paper is analogous to dogma. Granted, we cite it because we think their research is valid, but that doesn't make the approach any less dogma-like; dogmatic religions do the same thing, only with different standards of what validity looks like. Not admitting the dogma is there is the worst thing to be doing, because it means you don't recognize it for what it is, and you won't ever question it. When it does get questioned, in the sciences it self-corrects; in religions, you get new traditions and sects.

So science doesn't share the characteristics of religion, and it looks to me like an idea conjured up by religionists in defensive mode. It's like saying "Yes, us religionists have irrational beliefs, but scientists have them too..."

I'm not a "religionist" (whatever the blazes that means) in defensive mode. I'm a scientist who is also be religious, and who upon making a comparison of the two, doesn't find it rational or logical to deny the similarities. Did you take a look at this post? I can't lie to myself and pretend the similarities aren't there. I get that this sort of argument is abused or misused by some people for questionable reasons. But you know, unless we have a poor understanding of how sciences actually work in practice, how the sciences are utilized and understood by non-scientists in their lives, as well as a poor understanding of religions and religious expression, I don't see how we can pretend there aren't a lot of parallels. I sympathize with the fact that many will deny the parallels to resolve cognitive dissonance - particularly if they are anti-science or anti-religion. But I am neither of those things, so... I'm left honestly acknowledging "well, yeah, there's lots of similarities."

That is a non sequitur and a non starter. What does the U.S. public education system have to do with any individual's knowledge of world regions or science?

I confess I am very surprised you ask the question. It means the general public in my country is even more ignorant about religion than they are about science, since we don't bother to systematically teach our population anything about it. I always have a hard time deciding which pisses me off more: the systemic ignorance of sciences in my country, or the even worse systemic ignorance of religions. They're both gods awful and unacceptable, in my mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't see how we can pretend there aren't a lot of parallels.

I do see parallels between some religions and science, for example Buddhism has been called "the science of the mind". So with some religions there is a path of exploration and discovery, not dissimilar to the scientific method.

But I'm still not seeing the parallels between science and faith-based religions like the Abrahamic ones. The approaches look completely contradictory to me.

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

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?

Is the belief in gravity or the periodic table religion? Religion is faith based. Science is evidence based.

 

[Quintessence]

I do see parallels between some religions and science, for example Buddhism has been called "the science of the mind". So with some religions there is a path of exploration and discovery, not dissimilar to the scientific method.

But I'm still not seeing the parallels between science and faith-based religions like the Abrahamic ones. The approaches look completely contradictory to me.

My apologies, I was under the impression from the OP that we were considering religions as a whole, not some specific flavor of variety.

Either way, even religions which we could classify as "faith-based" are not solely characterized by that aspect, and what precisely it means to be "faith-based" isn't exactly without contention. Again, I'd go back to that list of things I made in my first post in this thread. Do religions or "spiritualities" do all those things? Yes. Do the sciences, collectively, do all those things? Also, yes. Is a scientific worldview the central axis of meaning for some people in a way analogous to a religious axis of meaning? Yes. When we get more specific, comparisons can fall apart, of course; that tends to happen whenever you shift from the general to the specific.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps yes; I also get the impression that those who have not actually done research in the sciences rather underestimate the amount of dogmatic thinking that goes on, though.

I suspect that I've done as much research as anyone here and frankly I've seen the "dogmas" of science overturned so often that describing them as dogmas is far less accurate that simply recognizing that hypotheses are falsified and kick the skids out from under accepted theories. This process was slower in the past, but occurs in almost real time now, e.g., how long did claims of cold fusion last?

The only substantial difference between the dogmatic (or "dogmatic" if you prefer) thinking that goes on in the sciences and that of dogmatic religions is that in the sciences, the dogmatism has to be backed with a certain type of evidence and methodology.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be insulting, but you seem to have little understanding of the process of science. There are major differences between religion and science, including, but not limited to, peer review, replication and a culture that awards status as a result of disproving "dogmas."

As a scientist, it really kind of bothers me when people don't understand that this aspect is there.

As a scientist, it really kind of bothers me when other scientists don't understand that these aspect are there.

Basically, anything I or my co-authors cite on a paper is analogous to dogma.

This is the root of our difference. "Dogma" is defined as: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." I don't know about your field or employer or community, but this does not describe science as I know it, in the world that I live in where nothing is "incontrovertibly" true.

I'm not a "religionist" (whatever the blazes that means) in defensive mode. I'm a scientist who is also be religious, and who upon making a comparison of the two, doesn't find it rational or logical to deny the similarities.

Sure there are similarities, just like there are similarities between fish and birds ... that hardly makes them the same thing.

Did you take a look at this post?

Yes I did.

I can't lie to myself and pretend the similarities aren't there.

I find the same similarities present in my local scuba club ... does that make it a religion?

I get that this sort of argument is abused or misused by some people for questionable reasons. But you know, unless we have a poor understanding of how sciences actually work in practice, how the sciences are utilized and understood by non-scientists in their lives, as well as a poor understanding of religions and religious expression, I don't see how we can pretend there aren't a lot of parallels. I sympathize with the fact that many will deny the parallels to resolve cognitive dissonance - particularly if they are anti-science or anti-religion. But I am neither of those things, so... I'm left honestly acknowledging "well, yeah, there's lots of similarities."

I agree that science education needs to be improved. I would also point out that the dogmas of religions are some of the major impediments to effcective science education for the masses.

I confess I am very surprised you ask the question. It means the general public in my country is even more ignorant about religion than they are about science, since we don't bother to systematically teach our population anything about it. I always have a hard time deciding which pisses me off more: the systemic ignorance of sciences in my country, or the even worse systemic ignorance of religions. They're both gods awful and unacceptable, in my mind.

Systematic ignorance of science is a demonstrable problem. Systematic ignorance of religion (beyond a study of it as mythology) is a "blessing."

 

[outhouse]

. I would also point out that the dogmas of religions are some of the major impediments to effcective science education for the masses.

That is a fact.

A huge danger to all humanity is religious fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[Quintessence]

This is the root of our difference. "Dogma" is defined as: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

This is not the definition of dogma I was assuming. Remove the word "incontrovertibly" and that's the intended spirit of what I've been saying.

Although, adherents of what can be called "scientism" do indeed take sciences in a dogmatic fashion that is every bit analogous to dogmatism found in certain religions. Sciences themselves are not scientism of course, and scientism is anathema to science (if not an utter mockery of it), but that doesn't stop a number of folks in the general public from taking sciences as dogma in the sense that you mean.

Sure there are similarities, just like there are similarities between fish and birds ... that hardly makes them the same thing.

I didn't say they're "the same." I get the impression that you're wanting to paint my position as more extremist than it actually is.

I find the same similarities present in my local scuba club ... does that make it a religion?

If it is the central axis of meaningfulness upon which you base much of your life, it functions analogously to religions. Whether or not we label it with the word "religion" is... well... kind of besides the point, IMHO.

Systematic ignorance of science is a demonstrable problem. Systematic ignorance of religion (beyond a study of it as mythology) is a "blessing."

It sounds like you are quite anti-religions. I can understand why you would want to build a wall of separation between you and that which you oppose.

At any rate, I am more than likely done with this conversation with you. I wasn't responding to you when I wrote most of that in the first place, and I'm very much not a fan of posting styles that shred other people's words into little quote snippets. It makes things very hard to follow and respond to, and then the entire thing degenerates into a bunch of senseless arguing. I won't waste my time with it.

 

[outhouse]

I'm a scientist who is also be religious, and who upon making a comparison of the two, doesn't find it rational or logical to deny the similarities.

But your not typical. You represent the vast minority of self proclaimed religious behavior.

Anyone can use imagination and pervert the definition of science and religion to mean what ever they wish. I would need you to be more clear before I made a judgment.

 

[outhouse]

I get the impression that you're wanting to paint my position as more extremist than it actually is.

Your not extreme.

But that doesn't mean your not far far far left or far far far right of typical theism either.

 

[Quintessence]

But your not typical. You represent the vast minority of self proclaimed religious behavior.

Even presuming this is true (which is a big presumption), I don't see how that is at all relevant. Unless you want a pull a "oh, since you're a minority, you're irrelevant," which, to be honest, is kinda rude.

Anyone can use imagination and pervert the definition of science and religion to mean what ever they wish. I would need you to be more clear before I made a judgment.

Well, what would you like to know? I don't at all mind having conversations in the spirit of mutual understanding. That said, I suspect that some here are going to claim I "pervert" definitions instead of respecting my point of view, which is... well... doesn't exactly offer much incentive to participate in a conversation. I don't care if folks disagree with me, but as a human being with feelings, I do kind of mind when people disrespect where I'm coming from.

 

[outhouse]

Unless you want a pull a "oh, since you're a minority, you're irrelevant," which, to be honest, is kinda rude.

Not my intention. Minority has nothing t do with a correct definition of science. I think the minority hold all the knowledge on the subject.

I don't care if folks disagree with me, but as a human being with feelings, I do kind of mind when people disrespect where I'm coming from

Its why I said I need more information before I would comment.

Well, what would you like to know?

More definition and clarity that science is a religion, if you really think that?

I don't see a tie between religion and science. One is based on spirituality and perception and supernatural elements.

Science observes and reports, trying to figure nature out. Then the work is reexamined to see if it is credible or half credible or not credible by a group of peers.

One you go to a place of worship to feel better. ore emotional based then anything else.

The other you bust your butt in a classroom learning exactly what makes the world tick. Emotion and spirituality are taken out completely.


One will make you feel good.

The other saves your life.

 

[Sapiens]

This is not the definition of dogma I was assuming. Remove the word "incontrovertibly" and that's the intended spirit of what I've been saying.

I'm glad that you explain the "spirit" of what you are saying. Unfortunately when you remove the word "incontrovertibly," it is no longer the definition of "dogma" unless you substitute in some similar phrase such as, "without being questioned or doubted."

Although, adherents of what can be called "scientism" do indeed take sciences in a dogmatic fashion that is every bit analogous to dogmatism found in certain religions. Sciences themselves are not scientism of course, and scientism is anathema to science (if not an utter mockery of it), but that doesn't stop a number of folks in the general public from taking sciences as dogma in the sense that you mean.

I completely agree.

I didn't say they're "the same." I get the impression that you're wanting to paint my position as more extremist than it actually is.

No, actually I was prodding you to clarify what impressed me as rather unclear / indefensible positions you appeared to be attempting to express on behalf of all of the scientific community. It seems that a great deal of confusion might have been avoided with more careful use English on your part.

If it is the central axis of meaningfulness upon which you base much of your life, it functions analogously to religions. Whether or not we label it with the word "religion" is... well... kind of besides the point, IMHO.

No, there still is the test of "dogma" (not all religions have dogmas, but dogmas tend to be attached to religions).

It sounds like you are quite anti-religions. I can understand why you would want to build a wall of separation between you and that which you oppose.

Only by comparison, I am actually quite a-religious.

At any rate, I am more than likely done with this conversation with you. I wasn't responding to you when I wrote most of that in the first place, and I'm very much not a fan of posting styles that shred other people's words into little quote snippets. It makes things very hard to follow and respond to, and then the entire thing degenerates into a bunch of senseless arguing. I won't waste my time with it.

Sorry if I took it personally, I think most reasonable people would have, consider the snide "shred other people's words into little quote snippets" that you just posted.

Well, what would you like to know? I don't at all mind having conversations in the spirit of mutual understanding. That said, I suspect that some here are going to claim I "pervert" definitions instead of respecting my point of view, which is... well... doesn't exactly offer much incentive to participate in a conversation. I don't care if folks disagree with me, but as a human being with feelings, I do kind of mind when people disrespect where I'm coming from.

Then you should be clearer about what you say, and what you mean ... good definitions aid in clear communication.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My apologies, I was under the impression from the OP that we were considering religions as a whole, not some specific flavor of variety.

I think we do need to be specific if we are trying to draw parallels with science and religion. I'm still not seeing it with science and the faith-based religions, simply because faith is not evidence-based.

 

[Sapiens]

I think we do need to be specific if we are trying to draw parallels with science and religion. I'm still not seeing it with science and the faith-based religions, simply because faith is not evidence-based.

Let's not forget the problem raised by "incontrovertibly."

 

[AmyintheBibleBelt]

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.

People of faith deplore admitting they were wrong in their interpretation, or worse that god was wrong. It compromises their entire belief system.