Is Science a Religion?

[Guy Threepwood]

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

and if it can, that's usually called engineering, R&D etc

The term science in popular use more often applies to inherently speculative and ideological fields, cosmogony, theoretical physics, evolution, global warming, political/social 'science'.. etc

 

[LuisDantas]

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

There is some sort of confusion at work here.

 

[LuisDantas]

and if it can, that's usually called engineering, R&D etc

The term science in popular use more often applies to inherently speculative and ideological fields, cosmogony, theoretical physics, evolution, global warming, political/social 'science'.. etc

Nope. Technology is the applied use of science, and it is indeed different from science itself.

Although that it works at all shows how reliable science is.

 

[Musty]

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?

Some people could be said to treat science as a religion when they give it a capital 'S' and take whatever is labelled as science as gospel regardless of it's accuracy. These people however aren't the majority when it comes to science so I wouldn't call it a religion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Some people could be said to treat science as a religion when they give it a capital 'S' and take whatever is labelled as science as gospel regardless of it's accuracy. These people however aren't the majority when it comes to science so I wouldn't call it a religion.

Agreed, although that is exactly how the word is most commonly used in popular culture, media, politics etc. to it's followers it's a label meaning of unquestionable authority- which stands in lieu of evidence.
It's not a new phenomena-
'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact' (Mark Twain)

witch doctors who demanded sacrifices to appease the weather gods operated on the same principle, and haven't changed all that much- just computer sims instead of scary masks

 

[Musty]

Agreed, although that is exactly how the word is most commonly used in popular culture, media, politics etc. to it's followers it's a label meaning of unquestionable authority- which stands in lieu of evidence.
It's not a new phenomena-
'[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact' (Mark Twain)

witch doctors who demanded sacrifices to appease the weather gods operated on the same principle, and haven't changed all that much- just computer sims instead of scary masks

Unfortunately that is often the case in the popular media. I'm sick of reading or hearing 'Scientists have discovered...' because the way it's presented is completely at odds to the reality of how science works, and only serves to the confuse the general public who are mislead into believing that the reported research (Assuming it's reported accurately with the appropriate caveats which is pretty much never) represents the consensus only for another article to contradict it the following the week.

This has nothing to do with the scientific method itself. Granted religious sometimes get the short end of the stick in the media (Some nutter does something in the name of religion therefore all religious people are nutters) but there is nothing to verify any particular religious practice, whereas the scientific method has been proven to work (Mostly).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Unfortunately that is often the case in the popular media. I'm sick of reading or hearing 'Scientists have discovered...' because the way it's presented is completely at odds to the reality of how science works, and only serves to the confuse the general public who are mislead into believing that the reported research (Assuming it's reported accurately with the appropriate caveats which is pretty much never) represents the consensus only for another article to contradict it the following the week.

This has nothing to do with the scientific method itself. Granted religious sometimes get the short end of the stick in the media (Some nutter does something in the name of religion therefore all religious people are nutters) but there is nothing to verify any particular religious practice, whereas the scientific method has been proven to work (Mostly).

we agree here, though I don't see a conflict of science v religion- we have science the method we all know and love, and theism, atheism, various ultimate beliefs about the larger nature of it all.

nature is the executor of God's laws. (Galileo)

As long as we all ultimately acknowledge our own personal beliefs, and not try to impose intellectual superiority/authority over other's beliefs, we can all get along?

Also in the case of Lemaitre's primeval atom, Planck's quantum physics, some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time could be better characterized as a battle of science v. atheism.

 

[Musty]

we agree here, though I don't see a conflict of science v religion- we have science the method we all know and love, and theism, atheism, various ultimate beliefs about the larger nature of it all.

nature is the executor of God's laws. (Galileo)

As long as we all ultimately acknowledge our own personal beliefs, and not try to impose intellectual superiority/authority over other's beliefs, we can all get along?

Also in the case of Lemaitre's primeval atom, Planck's quantum physics, some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time could be better characterized as a battle of science v. atheism.

There is plenty of room in the world for us all to have our own perspective on it as long as (As you say) we don't try and impose ours on others. The only caveat I would add is that where science clearly has the upper hand on the reality of the world, religion shouldn't stand in the way.

 

[paarsurrey]

These people however aren't the majority

I think majority people who think science should be given a walkover are not the scientists strictly speaking.

Regards

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is plenty of room in the world for us all to have our own perspective on it as long as (As you say) we don't try and impose ours on others. The only caveat I would add is that where science clearly has the upper hand on the reality of the world, religion shouldn't stand in the way.

well we almost agree on everything, but what fun would that be?!

The only caveat I would add to your caveat is that atheism has not only stood firmly in the way of science, it has permeated parts of it, and for a very specific reason inherent to atheism

Lemaitre, a priest, went out of his way to disassociate his personal beliefs from his theory, because he could, even writing the Pope to tell him to knock it off with the gloating when his primeval atom was accepted.

Hoyle in contrast explicitly rejected what he mockingly called the 'big bang' for the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event- and so this by his own admission is why he preferred steady state.

i.e his 'science' was entirely faith based, but based on blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself- how can we dissociate our personal beliefs from science, push them out of the way, if we don't even acknowledge we have any?

 

[paarsurrey]

atheism has not only stood firmly in the way of science, it has permeated parts of it

Yes, it has.
Regards

 

[Musty]

well we almost agree on everything, but what fun would that be?!

The only caveat I would add to your caveat is that atheism has not only stood firmly in the way of science, it has permeated parts of it, and for a very specific reason inherent to atheism

Lemaitre, a priest, went out of his way to disassociate his personal beliefs from his theory, because he could, even writing the Pope to tell him to knock it off with the gloating when his primeval atom was accepted.

Hoyle in contrast explicitly rejected what he mockingly called the 'big bang' for the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event- and so this by his own admission is why he preferred steady state.

i.e his 'science' was entirely faith based, but based on blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself- how can we dissociate our personal beliefs from science, push them out of the way, if we don't even acknowledge we have any?

I'm an atheist and I love science but I don't conflate the two because I understand that fundamentally they have very little to do with one another. I find that someone people conflate the two because science (in theory, if not always in practice) relies on the application of logical reasoning, and they believe they came to their atheism through the same process that atheism. Generally speaking I think most people are theistic/atheistic because that's just the way that they are, not because at some point in their life they actively thought about it and decided one way or the other. It's important not to apply too much meaning to what I see as a seemingly arbitrary characteristic of a person.

Admittedly it's not reasonable to ask someone to dissociate their beliefs or views from anything because how else would they decide their stance on something. I suppose the challenge then it to find means of ensuring that people with different and even conflicting views and beliefs can get on peacefully and constructively. That said there are instances where dissenting voices are clearly being obstructive for the sake of being obstructive, a clear of example being creationists who refuse to accept evolution and go as far as to block children being educated about this. It's situations such as this that religious needs to take a step back and let reality hold centre court.

In regards to atheism permeating science I wouldn't say this is the case. I remember a quote from Stephen J Gould..

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.”

I'm inclined to agree with him that science is compatible with both atheism and theism.

 

[outhouse]

The only caveat I would add to your caveat is that atheism has not only stood firmly in the way of science

Supply sources. Because I don't think that holds up.

Some theist however are severely stunted in their scientific approach to the point of severe retardation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm an atheist and I love science but I don't conflate the two because I understand that fundamentally they have very little to do with one another. I find that someone people conflate the two because science (in theory, if not always in practice) relies on the application of logical reasoning, and they believe they came to their atheism through the same process that atheism. Generally speaking I think most people are theistic/atheistic because that's just the way that they are, not because at some point in their life they actively thought about it and decided one way or the other. It's important not to apply too much meaning to what I see as a seemingly arbitrary characteristic of a person.

Admittedly it's not reasonable to ask someone to dissociate their beliefs or views from anything because how else would they decide their stance on something. I suppose the challenge then it to find means of ensuring that people with different and even conflicting views and beliefs can get on peacefully and constructively. That said there are instances where dissenting voices are clearly being obstructive for the sake of being obstructive, a clear of example being creationists who refuse to accept evolution and go as far as to block children being educated about this. It's situations such as this that religious needs to take a step back and let reality hold centre court.

In regards to atheism permeating science I wouldn't say this is the case. I remember a quote from Stephen J Gould..

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature’s factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.”

I'm inclined to agree with him that science is compatible with both atheism and theism.

I think that sounds reasonable on the whole, but reality according to who? They teach something in schools that <20% of the population believes in after all this time, so at the very least it is not very convincing to most people.

I'm not an 'activist' creationist, but I believe they- 'they' being the majority of the people being forced to pay for this education, would like to have at least disclaimers, alternatives discussed as opposed to blocking evolution entirely.

I think science is compatible with any belief that acknowledges itself as a belief, not a dogmatic mandate- and that evolution as taught is more closely related to atheism than science.

It would seem illogical to me and most I think, that God would create a reality so specific to supporting life, without any particular result in mind. And that the result being a single sentient being capable of appreciating that creation- is yet one more staggering coincidence?

 

[outhouse]

alternatives discussed as opposed to blocking evolution entirely.

There is no alternative to the fact of evolution.

 

[outhouse]

- and that evolution as taught is more closely related to atheism than science

People can hate academia all they want and place more importance on mythology, it does not make their fanaticism and fundamentalism credible.

 

[dgirl1986]

Absolutely not. Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

 

[lunamoth]

Science is not a religion. But, some people can make a religion out of science (scientism), or try to use science to justify their particular religion.

In my view science and religion are both instruments that help us get along in the world. Science is the best tool we have to understand our world and universe. It allows us to make useful models of how things work, which in turn allows us to control more and more of our own comfort and destiny. Religion is about our personal approach to how to live in the world, our view of what our purpose is and how we should interact with each other and our environment. Religion and science can very much work together for the betterment of our life and the health of the whole world, but unfortunately it is not necessarily that this be the case.

I think Sam Harris walks the line of scientism when he promotes his idea of science being a basis for morality. Some of the statements he has made (example: about the use of torture) illustrate just how misguided that approach would be.

I'm a "two wings of one bird" person, and I think we need science to help us ease human suffering, but not at the expense of hurting our environment, and we also need a framework in which to express and develop our sense of relationship to the world and to each other and our purpose in living. The latter has been historically filled by religion, and while I think that our traditional ideas about religion need to evolve, it is not a role that can be filled by science.

 

[Musty]

I think that sounds reasonable on the whole, but reality according to who? They teach something in schools that <20% of the population believes in after all this time, so at the very least it is not very convincing to most people.

I'm not an 'activist' creationist, but I believe they- 'they' being the majority of the people being forced to pay for this education, would like to have at least disclaimers, alternatives discussed as opposed to blocking evolution entirely.

I think science is compatible with any belief that acknowledges itself as a belief, not a dogmatic mandate- and that evolution as taught is more closely related to atheism than science.

It would seem illogical to me and most I think, that God would create a reality so specific to supporting life, without any particular result in mind. And that the result being a single sentient being capable of appreciating that creation- is yet one more staggering coincidence?

To a degree we have to take into account the opinions of the population but fundamentally the masses aren't qualified to make informed decisions about science, just as they aren't qualified to make informed decisions about engineering for example. When building a plane we don't generally ask the public whether or not they agree with with the engineers decision to add wings and then remove them because the majority of the population believes that plane's fly on winds brought forward by the Great Air Spirit, not on some silly scientific notion of aerodynamic lift.

More to the point if <20% of the population understands a well establish part of our scientific knowledge then evidently there is clearly an overwhelming need for it to be included in educational curriculum. A populations poor understanding of how the world works isn't aided taking away access to a real education because there is a preference fora religious one.

As for unverifiable speculation about God intentions I'll leave that to those who believe in it's existence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To a degree we have to take into account the opinions of the population but fundamentally the masses aren't qualified to make informed decisions about science, just as they aren't qualified to make informed decisions about engineering for example. When building a plane we don't generally ask the public whether or not they agree with with the engineers decision to add wings and then remove them because the majority of the population believes that plane's fly on winds brought forward by the Great Air Spirit, not on some silly scientific notion of aerodynamic lift.

More to the point if <20% of the population understands a well establish part of our scientific knowledge then evidently there is clearly an overwhelming need for it to be included in educational curriculum. A populations poor understanding of how the world works isn't aided taking away access to a real education because there is a preference fora religious one.

As for unverifiable speculation about God intentions I'll leave that to those who believe in it's existence.

I don't think the general public would remove wings, remember that the two brothers who put them there in the first place were high school dropouts, who were good at actually making stuff, not decorated theoretical academics or scientists who couldn't change a tire if their lives depended on it.

but us ignorant masses might chose to retire planes a little earlier, and be less reticent to dismiss pilots with histories of mental illness...

I take your point though, but there is a good reason that, in the free world, juries are selected from the public and not expert lawyers, and that politicians are elected by people, not economic/political scientists.
Because 'the general public' are the most impartial group of people available, and an impartial average citizen beats a biased expert any day

Their track record on big scientific issues is not too shabby either..

as above, atheist experts preferred static/eternal models for the universe, the unqualified and mostly religious public correctly predicted a specific creation event.

expert physicists claimed the laws of classical physics to be 'immutable' as a complete explanation for the physical world.- making God redundant, While the 'ignorant religious masses' figured that there's probably deeper, more mysterious and unpredictable forces at work.

I.e. perhaps, in the free world, the population's intuitive understanding of how the world works isn't aided by banishing their majority view in the classroom, because there is a preference for an elite minority academic atheist one.