This post is concerning the same preacher I have posted about recently. In his society’s newsletter, he penned, “Science is a false religion, the opiate of the masses”. If you recognize that quote, it’s because the original was written about 150 years before the preacher’s statement, and called “religion [itself] the opium of the people”. I recognized this as cheap role-reversal, but have any of you seen this tactic used before; if so, can you give me some more information about it? Thanks. :dubious:
Kent Hovind is (was) fond of calling evolution a ‘religion’. In a debate with Massimo Piggliucci (sp?) he kept saying that Massimo’s god was ‘time’.
Hitchens quoted the context of that famous saying by Marx in his atheism book. It really means that religion is used to make the masses feel better about their miserable lives so they don’t rise up against their oppressors. Kind of like reality TV today. That is pretty hard to dispute.
Since science actually does make the life of the masses (and everyone) better, unlike religion, the preacher’s comment is particularly stupid.
I once saw someone post (not to here) that evolution is pseudoscience.
In my early college years I brought up this idea with my Comparative Religions professor, that the modern religion is Science & Technology. He agreed, to a certain extent: The average person seems to have a blind faith that advances in science and technology will always help humans overcome their doom – agricultural science defeats the Malthusian paradox; medical science and technology has overcome age, disease, traumatic injury, and even death; physical sciences and technology have overcome separations of distance and time. Technology has even responded to our population density issues (remember those analogous studies of crowded rats?) by giving us new worlds in which to escape from or with each other.
The difference, my professor noted, is that religion says, “Sit and wait for your divine reward; it will come.” while science & technology says “Give us a bit longer (i.e. sit and wait), we’re working on it.” and actually does deliver. Much of the criticism is that the promised ‘deliverables’ are very different: Getting safely by car from LAX to the Las Vegas* is not the same as achieving Enlightenment or gaining entrance to Heaven.
IMHO, the problem really is with blind fath and lack of critical thinking – which are the foundations of religous zealotry and nationalistic fervor. Faith and patriotism are fine, so long as people can also think, compare, contrast, challenge, and even discard or replace untenable elements. Religions prohibit that among the ‘truly faithful’ while, to be a true scientist, you must do that; it’s how and why science works properly.
As for having seen the cheap role-reversal tactic used before, it seems to me the great economic debacle of the 2011 summer was the Republicans insisting on tying the Debt Ceiling to budget approvals, tax breaks, and inheritance taxes (which independent economists were noting have no intrinsic connection at all) and refusing to budge even when the POTUS was offering more than they requested – and now they blame him for lack of progress.
*GPS Technology relies on satellites applying some of Einstein’s theories about time and space – though I can’t recall the exact names right now.
—G!
“I can’t explain the time it takes
to make you understand.”
. --Robin Zander (Cheap Trick)
. Never Had A Lot To Lose
. Lap of Luxury
At least he’s honest enough to call it a “false” religion, rather than some who define it as a true religion. But even there he’s incorrect - a false religion IMHO claims to be a religion, science does not.
Given what science has done, I wouldn’t call faith in it blind. But the big difference is that faith in science is not required. Anyone who wants to put in the effort can go to the original papers and the data and see what the real story is, or read simplifications by those who can do this. In religion, on the other hand, even the leaders must believe by faith. It is not like you can study for some time and then reliably talk to God, or even read books by a dozen religious leaders who do this and all agree.
Moved MPSIMS --> GD.
I must disagree; for most people, faith in science is blind.
I know lots of well-educated and intelligent people who have blind faith in science. Most of these people studied the humanities. The rest studied economics and computer science.
They don’t have a clue. They will come to me (when, after I’ve told them for decades to stay away from margarine, they hear the word ‘trans-fat’ and come to J666), and ask about some news report, “Does this make sense?”
The answer is, invariably, no. This, I explain, is what is really going on. Why didn’t they say that? Because incredibly intelligent and well-educated Americans like you can’t process the dumbed-down version - why should they try to get it right. So what I should I do? What I’ve been telling you for twenty years - two cups of vegetables with every meal, breast-feed, and avoid black holes, just in case they do exist.
I lose them at “No”. Science education in the U.S. is shameful.
It always amazes me to see religious people using this tactic in arguments against evolution. They try to improve the image of their religious beliefs by pretending they’re science and then they try to denigrate the actual science by dismissing it as just religion. By framing the argument in terms that science is more credible than religion, aren’t they basically conceding the issue from the outset?
Shouldn’t a person who genuinely believes in his religion use that belief as basis of his argument? He wouldn’t argue that evolution is a religious belief - he’d argue that the flaw with evolution is that it lacks any divine authority. And he wouldn’t support creationism or intelligent design theory; his belief isn’t founded on mere science, it’s founded on the much stronger basis of religion. He wouldn’t claim he has the evidence on his side; he’d claim the evidence doesn’t matter because he has faith on his side.
Not in any official context, but there are a lot of idiots on the internet that think you can flip the subject of a sentence and still have a compelling or accurate argument.
Perhaps my definition of blind faith is different from yours. I dispute that faith in science is blind because everyone, even the clueless ones, see the results. They may not have a clue about semiconductor physics but they have faith in those who do because their computers work.
Even with good science education, and it was good when I was in school, not everyone understands everything - nor should they even try.
This happens with creationism not because of any respect for science but because they realize that the only way they can get religion in the schools is to disguise it, thinly, as science. Note how “creation science” became “intelligent design” after creation science lost court cases. They’d just assert the Bible as the evidence if they could get away with it.
As I see it Science is interested in learning the truth about things, Religion does not care if it is true or not, just believe what you have been taught, read or what was thought by some other human. That is why religions are so divided. Religions have many different translations of their beliefs, Science demand that all must come to the same conclusion and seek to know the truth, and prove it. If it can’t be proven they admit it was wrong or needs more study. Religion just tries to justify their teachings by saying that wasn’t what was meant by the writer thousands of years ago and make up reasons why, even though it can never be proven.
Don’t blame the US, it’s everywhere. Check out the Bad Science blog for particularly egregious examples mostly from the UK.
This is also what you typically encounter with devotees of all forms of woo. They covet and are jealous of the reputation of science, quote pseudo- and substandard science to support their woo and when it is refuted, condemn science in general, sometimes as a “religion” as though that is a deadly insult (must be a lot of self hatred involved).
I recently had someone accuse me of “scientism”, a buzzword for undue faith in science. This term actually describes wooists, who embrace science superficially with blind acceptance if it seems to back their woo, then turn on it instantly when shown that it does not.
I find them both as opiates to the masses and they are used as a person’s god. If you turn to religion as your supreme being or turn to science as your supreme being, the one you go to for answers, you have turned them into a god, and they are just tools for us to use, tools given by God for a purpose and there is a place for each.
It is God who will instruct when to use science and when to use religion and when to use what ever else, but if we ignore His instructions we commit a error, but may be satisfied (this is the opiate) that we are on the right path.
I agree with that statement, to a certain extent. The purpose of science is the pursuit of falsifiable knowledge to gain an understanding of the natural world. In that capacity it has absolutely zero overlap with religion. The problem arises when people draw conclusions from science that have philosophical and/or religious implications and act as though, because the premises of those conclusions are in science that the conclusion is scientific. Science is an amazing tool that makes life far easier and more comfortable over time, but it is only because of the philosophies of those setting the goals and aiming research; there is nothing inherently more or less scientific about researching new treatments for cancer or new treatments for impotence. Science is ultimately amoral, and it is the moralities and the beliefs of scientists and benefactors and the public that overlays a moral fabric onto it.
So, in that sense, people who look to science as some great benefactor for mankind, that the knowledge obtained is a way of continuing to make life better, this isn’t the result of science, as for science, knowledge isn’t a means to an end, but is only a means to more knowledge, as knowledge is the end in and of itself. So to put faith in science is to put faith in the goals set by those who create the agenda of research, and so to put faith in the beliefs and philosophies of those people.
There is your example OP.
I dont understand how science can be used as a personal God, or “turned into your supreme being.” The concept doesnt work for me. I dont see something that is only there to “interpret” as being possible of holding traits. Am I looking at God when I boil water, or mix corn starch and water? I feel the use of a broad term of “science” in such a context is misleading. I could entertain the concept or possibility of such, but it would be misleading to the actual purpose of the conversation and the basics of science.
If science were to prove a God existed, would science itself be mislabeled as a religion still?(ignoring the concept of knowing God through science, as that is not analogous…) I dont think so. The only reason it is mislabeled as such is because it has ruled out many religious possibilities indirectly. This is not a result of scientific endeavor, but a result of the religion being falsifiable in some sense and shown wrong.
I would like to know (from the OP and anyone who holds such a view) what your definitions are for these: Supreme Being, God, Science, Religion. I feel declaring these terms would be beneficial because they are all very broad and due to the nature of their scopes can overlap in different ways based on how you define them.
for me:
Supreme being: A Judeo-Christian style God.
God: similar to above.
Science: The act of properly using the scientific method.
Religion: wikipedia definition suits for me “Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values”
As a result I dont agree with kanicbirds interpretation.
Do you accept claims made in the name of science because you believe in science? Does your hope for humanity lie in science as it’s foundation?