Is Science a Religion?

[Quintessence]

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

It depends. Yes for some, no for others. The comparison is complicated and entirely hinges on how one is defining the sciences and religions, as well as whether or not one is looking at the functions these things have in a culture or a person's life or only looking at content. The approach I took when I first responded to this thread was a function-based, not a content-based. I ask the question: what are the sorts of things that religions do for people's lives? I took this approach because both the sciences and religions are heterogenous; their content varies too dramatically, so it doesn't seem possible nor useful to take a content-based approach for comparing them. So, in the first post I made in this thread, I made a brief (and admittedly not all that refined) list of some of the functions religions play and asked "do the sciences serve these functions in the lives of some people?" The answer is yes. It is also no for other people. Like I said, it depends and it's complicated.

Based on the rest of your post (which I am not quoting here for simplicity) you appear to be taking a content-based comparative approach. For the specific content-types you're talking about, I would agree with components of that. It's definitely true that the sciences don't deal with the supernatural, as it's non-testable. Yet there are also religions whose focus is non-supernaturalistic along with a few that don't address supernaturalism at all. It's also true that the sciences don't involve what we typically think of as worship in my culture. And yet, the cross-cultural core of what worship is - deep reverence, respect, and gratitude - is definitely present towards scientists that have earned it. Finally, there is also some truth in the suggestion that sciences are not in of themselves grounded in emotional or aesthetic concerns. That said, I've yet to meet a single science professor that isn't passionately emotional about their work (a good thing, I think!)

When it comes to slapping the label "religion" on the sciences or people who hold science in a functionally analogous position to religions, well... I don't feel that's the point. The labeling is a superficiality; the analog holds regardless of the label we stick on things. I don't think we should get hung up on that labeling exercise. Does that help? Either you or @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.

My thing here is that the label "faith-based" doesn't describe the be-all and end-all of those religions. There are other components to them. There's community, life-orienting meaningfulness, all that stuff. Depending on what you mean by faith, yes, I could see that being a non-paralell with the sciences, but that doesn't mean there are not other aspects of those "faith-based" religions that don't have parallels.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think we should get hung up on that labeling exercise. Does that help?

Enough to agree to disagree.

There is a general context to each definition that has very distinct and sharp division, even if we don't get hung on labels. Its the actions, the practices in each that are night and day different.

 

[Quintessence]

Enough to agree to disagree.

There is a general context to each definition that has very distinct and sharp division, even if we don't get hung on labels. Its the actions, the practices in each that are night and day different.

They aren't in my religion. Science is the study of my gods.

 

[ScottySatan]

Nearly everyone I've heard say that science is a religion was a religious person trying to take science down a notch. I agree that science has what an anthropologist would call a "creation myth" and there is faith in that myth. But belief in a creation myth is a small part of religion, neither necessary nor sufficient to make a religion. Where in science is the ritual? the moral code? the explanations for the unknown? the sense of comfort in troubled times? the community of suport?

 

[Marisa]

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've heard it too, and had it levelled at me. Nearest I can tell, it seems to be an effort to draw similarity between the religious and those of us who operate by requiring evidence on which to base our beliefs.

ETA: I.E. "You're just as religious as I am, you just follow science."

 

[Quintessence]

But belief in a creation myth is a small part of religion, neither necessary nor sufficient to make a religion.

Yup, most certainly.

Where in science is the ritual?

A series of actions performed in a prescribed order, over and order again? Sounds like typical research methodology to me. *laughs*

the moral code?

Research ethics are a major part of the sciences, even if they are (unfortunately) poorly addressed. IMHO, research ethics should be a more overt part of science education. It should be mentioned in high school courses, expanded upon in undergrad, and a required course for any graduate student.

the explanations for the unknown?

Isn't coming up with explanations for the unknown sort of the bread and butter of what the sciences do? Gods, seems to me it does this even more than most of the things we agree to call religions!

the sense of comfort in troubled times?

The sciences sure do seem to serve as a comfort to some people, in troubled times or otherwise. I know it has for me. There are few things I like better than studying the gods, and that's something I particularly like doing through the sciences.

the community of suport?

The scientific community does that. When I got accepted to a graduate program and needed some extra hands to move me in to a new place around the university, who helped me out? Yup. Plus then you've got things like local and national conferences. Regular seminars at institutions around the world. The peer-revewied literature. There's plenty of community, even for those who aren't scientists themselves, found in things like science discussion groups and clubs.

But as I've said earlier in the thread, I really don't care what label someone puts on their central axis of meaning in life. The word stuck to it doesn't matter. It's the function that speaks the volumes. Many who claim a religion are hardly religious about their alleged religion; what I'd consider their "true" religion to be is something else entirely. Sometimes methinks we need to learn to stop trying to put this thing into boxes; religion, like people, do not fit into boxes. Too complex for it.

 

[ScottySatan]

Yup, most certainly.
A series of actions performed in a prescribed order, over and order again? Sounds like typical research methodology to me. *laughs*

Research ethics are a major part of the sciences, even if they are (unfortunately) poorly addressed. IMHO, research ethics should be a more overt part of science education. It should be mentioned in high school courses, expanded upon in undergrad, and a required course for any graduate student.

Isn't coming up with explanations for the unknown sort of the bread and butter of what the sciences do? Gods, seems to me it does this even more than most of the things we agree to call religions!

The sciences sure do seem to serve as a comfort to some people, in troubled times or otherwise. I know it has for me. There are few things I like better than studying the gods, and that's something I particularly like doing through the sciences.

The scientific community does that. When I got accepted to a graduate program and needed some extra hands to move me in to a new place around the university, who helped me out? Yup. Plus then you've got things like local and national conferences. Regular seminars at institutions around the world. The peer-revewied literature. There's plenty of community, even for those who aren't scientists themselves, found in things like science discussion groups and clubs.

But as I've said earlier in the thread, I really don't care what label someone puts on their central axis of meaning in life. The word stuck to it doesn't matter. It's the function that speaks the volumes. Many who claim a religion are hardly religious about their alleged religion; what I'd consider their "true" religion to be is something else entirely. Sometimes methinks we need to learn to stop trying to put this thing into boxes; religion, like people, do not fit into boxes. Too complex for it.

I can see you got my point, anyway. What you say is right, but all that stuff describes how research projects are done, not how lives are lived. There aren't any science wedding traditions. The folks at the ASCB conference aren't going to take up a collection for you when you get laid off. When I wrote about religious community, I was picturing in my mind the services rendered by the church and your fellow adherents, in those old-timey scenarios where being shunned or excommunicated meant you'd have a very hard life. By those criteria, I think I just convinced myself that modern religion isn't much of a religion either.

Based on your descriptions, I'd be willing to agree that YOU made science YOUR religion. It's just my opinion. I bet you'd get a fair proportion of scientists saying that it is a religion, but not a majority.

I'm glad your peers are being good to you, but I could picture this happening if you went into anthropology instead of science. A lot of what you said would hold for a different academic but non-scientific context. Maybe what you mean to say is that academia is a religion?

 

[shawn001]

I can see you got my point, anyway. What you say is right, but all that stuff describes how research projects are done, not how lives are lived. There aren't any science wedding traditions. The folks at the ASCB conference aren't going to take up a collection for you when you get laid off. When I wrote about religious community, I was picturing in my mind the services rendered by the church and your fellow adherents, in those old-timey scenarios where being shunned or excommunicated meant you'd have a very hard life. By those criteria, I think I just convinced myself that modern religion isn't much of a religion either.

Based on your descriptions, I'd be willing to agree that YOU made science YOUR religion. It's just my opinion. I bet you'd get a fair proportion of scientists saying that it is a religion, but not a majority.

I'm glad your peers are being good to you, but I could picture this happening if you went into anthropology instead of science. A lot of what you said would hold for a different academic but non-scientific context. Maybe what you mean to say is that academia is a religion?

"anthropology instead of science."

anthropology is a branch of science.

"Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences. A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems. Historically, anthropologists in the United States have been trained in one of four areas: sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. Anthropologists often integrate the perspectives of several of these areas into their research, teaching, and professional lives."

What is Anthropology?

Science in not a religion.

"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

 

[ScottySatan]

Meant to be quoted to Shawn...

My own prejudice reared its ugly head. You got me, please substitute any other non-scientific field in for anthropology.

I think there is an element of faith in science, because no scientist has evaluated the raw data for every fact they claim to understand about the universe. They have taken someone's word for most of it. They could go back and look it up, provided the older papers have been scanned into pdfs and thye have journal access, but they don't. And then you have all the non scientist athiests who are just as heaviliy criticised for subscribing to the religion. They don't read any primary literature.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Science, done properly, doesn't quality as a religion as it's not dogmatic in nature. However, when you see people sneak their dogma into science via their definition of science, then yes, this brand of science is unquestionably a form of religion.

For example, any definition of science which says only abiogenesis could qualify as a scientific explanation for the origin of life, is a religious form of science. Why? Because science is no longer an open question for the truth of the universe, and is now a quest for the truth of the universe . . . as long as it conforms to my dogma.

Science limited by self-imposed dogma is religion.

 

[Deathbydefault]

This may be a black and white explanation, but I'm gonna throw some yin yang at you here.
I'm not going to be going into good and evil because that's just too much for me to type out.

Let's say religion is Yang, the white force. I'm sure most would agree with that because white is a representation of something holy in the main religions. The white contains every single documented religion stating a belief in a higher power. This also harbors those whom are agnostic.

Let's say science is Yin, the black force. Science lovers should be okay with that as black seems to represent realism. This involves people who study the world/universe/life in attempt to unmask all of its "secrets" per say. This also harbors those whom are atheist.

Now you can see a good difference between the two.

Although, they both may have their differences they do sometimes combine together. I can see a world where there is a potential for the two parties to get along so long the religious don't express bigotry and the science based don't rely entirely on theories and base every single thing off of a fact.

(But the basic point is there is a need for both of them in our world. It may sound crude but with only religion there would be terrible subjugation, so science types provide an escape from that. In a world of only science there would more than likely be terrible over population due to leaps in medical science, this being before space colonization, but religion slows down science by taking all the smart people away. Not to be mean to religion but you all really do slow down advancements xD

Then there are those like me :3 We don't believe or disbelieve, we just simply don't care. That right there makes life really simple mind you.)

So what if I went of topic, my point that they are different has been made.

 

[Sapiens]

Science, done properly, doesn't quality as a religion as it's not dogmatic in nature. However, when you see people sneak their dogma into science via their definition of science, then yes, this brand of science is unquestionably a form of religion.

For example, any definition of science which says only abiogenesis could qualify as a scientific explanation for the origin of life, is a religious form of science. Why? Because science is no longer an open question for the truth of the universe, and is now a quest for the truth of the universe . . . as long as it conforms to my dogma.

Science limited by self-imposed dogma is religion.

Sounds good at first blush but at closer examination, it's hogwash. Any natural origin of life can be properly termed "abiogenesis." The only origins for life that are not "abiogenesis" are ones that involve the supernatural. Now you are probably going to wrongly accuse me of being guilty of, "sneaking my dogma into science via my definition of science," but that's hogwash also, as I demonstrate with opinions from both sides of the asylum wall:

 

[EyeofOdin]

Science is concerned with matter. Religion is concerned with spirit. Not only is science so not a religion, the two are completely incomparable. Using spirit and matter to explain or experiment with the same thing is like saying "is 20 months equal to 100 gallons or 40 kilometers?" It just doesn't work.

 

[outhouse]

For example, any definition of science which says only abiogenesis could qualify as a scientific explanation for the origin of life, is a religious form of science.

Which is a extreme fallacy, because no academic science department states this.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Science a Religion?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics sometimes present science what science has never claimed with any certainty; there they take science as religion, there they become mythical also.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Is Science a Religion?

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics sometimes present science what science has never claimed with any certainty; there they take science as religion, there they become mythical also.

Regards

Can you give an example? I really don't know what you are talking about here.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science, done properly, doesn't quality as a religion as it's not dogmatic in nature. However, when you see people sneak their dogma into science via their definition of science, then yes, this brand of science is unquestionably a form of religion.

For example, any definition of science which says only abiogenesis could qualify as a scientific explanation for the origin of life, is a religious form of science. Why? Because science is no longer an open question for the truth of the universe, and is now a quest for the truth of the universe . . . as long as it conforms to my dogma.

Science limited by self-imposed dogma is religion.

You really need to learn the basics of what science is. You are misrepresenting it with a passion, which hurts your credibility something fierce.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science, done properly, doesn't quality as a religion as it's not dogmatic in nature. However, when you see people sneak their dogma into science via their definition of science, then yes, this brand of science is unquestionably a form of religion.

For example, any definition of science which says only abiogenesis could qualify as a scientific explanation for the origin of life, is a religious form of science. Why? Because science is no longer an open question for the truth of the universe, and is now a quest for the truth of the universe . . . as long as it conforms to my dogma.

Science limited by self-imposed dogma is religion.

except it would have to acknowledge it's faith to qualify as religion, most science is blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself?

 

[LuisDantas]

My previous post applies to you as well, Guy.

 

[paarsurrey]

most science is blind faith,

Because everything cannot be confirmed with repeated experiments in the lab.
Regard