Is Science a new Religion?

Great Debates
1

(I got an account just because I wanted to talk about this! first post!)
yes, we all went over this before. big flame wars “no they are diffrent, blah blah blah, argue argue argue”.

I know, science itself is not a religion, and is based on totally diffrent principals and such. and thats not really want I was thinking about. I am no way implying that Scientists and preists are the same thing. or that the bible and a physics text book are basicly the same thing. the consept of science is NOT a religion.

however, is it becomeing the religion of the semi-educated? is beliveing in some vauge notion of “science” takeing the place of faith in alot of people’s minds? in America at least?

you know what I mean? evolution is a big one, seems almost a majority of people that belive it, don’t actually understand what it is. same with the big bang. quiz someone on it… you will get fairly nonsense filled answers often. and mostly “I don’t know, other smarter people know… so thats good enough for me to belive it strongly” aditudes.

and darwin, certainly is treated the same as any deity, a symbol of the idea he came up with (the darwin awards).

would you say “scienceism” is a religion? not science itself, but a strange mix of real sience treated like a religion, and some misunderstanding of how things work.

argue in a “creation vs evolution” debate. alot of the people are rational on the science side. but you always get one or two that argue for evolution, with apparently no idea in the world what the ideas of evolution are, and just seem to be defending a religion. “science is true because its science!”

2

Owl, I do not know where to start.
There will always be ignorant people who are willing to believe ‘the experts’; they are called:
Republicans
Democrats
Liberal arts majors, and
Doctors of Philosphy in Physics (the most evil, when ignorant)
Lots of people are intellectually lazy; I think Marx’s greatest mistake was to assign all intellectual laziness to religion. I think you are making the same mistake.
Religion is the human instinct to understand all reality; science is the human instinct to measure any and everything that can be measure, do some statistical calculations, and torture graduate students.
People will always use both science and religion to support their prejudices.
But why do you doubt evolution?

3

I have a feeling this could out of hand quickly.

People do take a lot a scientifice knowledge on faith because they trust their sources, and dammit its a pain to actually research and prove everything to yourself. Even if you wanted to, could you understand the math behind the big bang theory? Many people in this world don’t have that capacity.

Certainly science has made religion a lot less popular, and in displacing it, the needs that religion filled are now left lacking. I think some people do lean on science the same way that they used to do with religion. Beyond that the similarity stops for me.

I have to agree with j66 in general though. There are a lot of things that some people take on faith besides science and religion.

4

I just re-read my post; I’m mildly astonished at how many prejudices I got in there. Shall we discuss the Rich?
Owl is addressing the major flaws in
the American education system
the American psyche
the religious hierarchy and
the viscious arrogant semi-ignorant proponents of ‘science as religion’, that is, 75 % of the elite of the scientific community.
The scientific elite want the great unwashed to view science with the same on-sceptical acceptance as religion is granted. It’s a power game. BTW, I am a chemist, of no particular religious affiliation.
I can not tell you how often I have heard a trained scientist say ‘That’s impossible’ when there is NO evidence, and that is just wrong.
Science deals with measurable quantities; anything there is as yet no way to measure (ghosts, gods, whatever) science can not comment on.
Science should concentrate on finding new measuring techniques for long recognized but poorly understood phenomena, such as the placebo effect.
Oh, dear, I’m all out of hand in response to my own reply.

5

Um, ‘non-sceptical’

6

no no… you misunderstand, I was just saying the faith thing as a small example. I was trying very hard to not make the same old statement.

just sorta wondering, if anyone thinks that “scienceism” is becomeing a religion. people useing sceince to fill the same places in their life religion used to. not all people… not most people… I just am trying to ask… how much do you think that exists as a religion.

religion IS diffrent than science. science is not inherently a religon.
I expected people to miss my point… and say “science is ____” and “religion is ______”

I just want to hear thoughts, people have on how some people use science. some people DO act like its a religion. some people act very much like fundimentalist science… people. I sort of wish this discussion to be about if its possible for science to BE a religion. and not about if science IS a religion.

7

I suppose one crucial difference is that any literate person can start with a basic physics book and gradually self-educate to the point where they could build a reasonably elaborate machine.

On the other hand, you can read the New Testament until your eyes bleed and that ain’t gonna help you turn water to wine.

8

Science can be mis-used, by being accepted on faith; on this, I believe, we are on the same page.
Science can bring you back to the pure human religious instinct; wonder and appreciation of the mystery and complexities of, well, everything.

But
I fear that semi- or misunderstood science is the new ‘opiate of the masses’; I think you would agree?

I think a related point is that scientists are the new Priests; the jealous holders of arcance knowledge deemed too abstruse for the common man (and woman, common or uncommon, is totally out of the picture.)

Damn, there I go, off on my own rant again. Pardon me; I did not misunderstand you, I just went off on my own little rant (anti-scientist, not anti-science). My apologies.

9

I don’t buy that “jealous holders” crap, especially when there are thousands of universities and tens of thousands of libraries in the U.S. alone. Aside from a few narrow fields like corporate trade secrets and military tech, virtually all of science is open to the “common man”.

Don’t blame the scientists if you’re too damn lazy to crack a book, in other words.

10

Well, on reflection, there may not be thousands of universities in the U.S., but there are certainly a buttload of them.

11

I think both science and religion boil down to one thing,“where do we belong?” The scientific method has not been around quite as long as our “spiritual” (I use the term b/c I can’t think of a better one) beliefs. I think given enough time, people can wrap themselves around an idea and close their mind to everything else. I believe once you close your mind you become a sort of “Zealot.”

But, If I understand your question, my answer would have to be no. I don’t think science as a whole could become “religion,” simply because science can only account for things measureable and repeatable, and there will always be more questions than answers.

Sorry for the seemingly non-sequiturs, only my second post.

must obey the taco…

12

I don’t think that’s a particularly supportable assertion; please can you give an example of a religion that treats it’s deities with the same sort of regard that Darwin is afforded?

Nope, I think you’d have to dilute the meaning of ‘deity’ almost to the point of being meaningless for this argument to hold up.

The existence of ‘Darwin Awards’ adds as much weight to the argument as it would if we were talking about, say, Alfred Nobel.

13

As I see it, there are four main ways to look at the universe and our existense:

  • Magical
  • Religious
  • Philosophical
  • Scientific

The idea about science replacing religion is ludicrous. The very idea about ** the scientific method** is to question authority and possibly disprove ‘truths’. New scientitific theories start out with a “what if…?” and then the scientist starts out by trying to prove his/her own theory wrong, knowing that when it’s presented to other scientist, it’s exactly what they will try to do.

Thus, science works in the totally opposite way of religion, where you’re not ‘allowed’ to question authority.

And science didn’t kill religion. It was only the weapon. It was the printing press that started it all. By spreading The Word to the masses, interpretation was taken from the priesthood and open to questioning and critique.

If anything, the magical outlook is replacing religion, what with crystals, astrology, wicca and all the rest. The Public might take what scientists say on faith, but they embrace magic.

Philosophy might be prevalent here on the SDMB, but in society it’s fading away.

14

Even less, since Darwin himself had nothing to do with the creation of the awards, while Nobel created a foundation specifically to that purpose. The so-called “Darwin Awards” were created by a late 20th century writer named Wendy Northcutt collecting stories about really dumb people; hardly the work of anyone with a sense of reverence.

That’s another difference between religion and science. In the former, you can make stuff up and remain unchallenged. In the latter, bullshit is subject to exposure.

15

When science acts as science should, no religion is involved. Looking at evidence, formulating hypotheses, testing them on the basis of available evidence and reaching conclusions based on that data is not in any way a religious exercise. Indeed, “faith” being the belief in something in the face of all contrary evidence, science is the antithesis of religion.

What scientists can do, of course, is believe that the theories they have postulated, to the extent currently supported by available evidence, are actual “truth.” The classic example is the evolutionary development of man. We can’t ever know the truth, short of time travel. But we have ample evidence to support the theory. Accepting that theory as fact is as much “belief” as accepting any other postulated method of emergence.

Is all belief religion? No.

16

The scientific process as practiced by scientists is not up for debate here. I think it is the perception of science by some people that aren’t scientists that is being debated.

And really the common person isn’t allowed to question science in any meaningful way. Because largely science is too complex and mysterious to them. Like I said, who really can do the math for the big bang theory? Yet people who can’t do it espouse the theory anyway. Heck if the newspapers said tommorow that really universe came about some other way, most of us would just accept it. “Those scientists know what your doing, who am I to argue?”
The same with evolution, how many people can explain carbon dating or geologic theories that date fossil finds? Yet they accept evolution anyway and might even argue for it with the same dogmatic approaches that fundamentalist use ( “look,right here on pg 243 my science book says so, so you’re wrong.”).

The vast majority of us are exposed to science through school, where if anything, debate is discouraged because it slows down the learning process.

Science says its all about debate, but only the privileged few with the proper credentials can question it with any effectiveness. In action in the schools across the country, science is all about dogma.

By creating an alternate cosmology, science has given people something else to choose besides religion. I think the printing press was damaging to the catholic church, but it only helped the protestants.

I think most people want to believe in something no matter what it is. While they accept, in principle, that something is up for debate that doesn’t make it a reality for them.

17

<quote>could you understand the math behind the big bang theory?</quote>
that is what made me think about this to start with. I took some nasty physics classes this last semester. and I had always assumed “any theory I don’t fully get… some sciencey type person somewhere gets it better than me… so its okay”

looking in a real physics book I was sorta disapointed, alot of the big sciencey stuff that I always assumed was beyond me because I never heard how it worked… simply didn’t exist.

physics is still alot of “we know exactly how the math works, drop a ball and we can tell you exactly the force of gravity, the amount the electric charge on it attracts a duck in china, and how much it slows down do to motion… ask why… and we can give you about a third of an answer and sort of an uncompelling one at that.”

the big bang is the err… big one. I feel on this. on the surface it sounds like a beautiful simple explanation. but you start thinking about it and there starts to be “but what about (some question with the theory)?”

and up till recently, whenever I had a question I did not know the answer on (why gravity doesn’t collapse it instantly, how something could have happened before time existed, ect ect ect) I assumed that someone out there someone knew more than me.

looking it up, about of 1/3 of the questions there were good answers. about 1/3 of it is beyond me… math that is complicated enough that it looks right, but I can’t really say. and about 1/3 were either “no one knows” or “we made up a new force/partical simply because it would make things work right, and there is no other proof of it”

thats cool, science is working on getting better answers. thats what they do. I have a feeling some of the stuff they say now is just anallogy or pure bunk and will someday be replaced by better stuff, science is a prossess. I think “big bang” and about half of the underlieing theory is probobly just about on the nose being correct. the other half, we just don’t know… there are several theorys, they aren’t all right.

thats why I think of science as a religion to alot of people. even myself sometimes. most people think of science as more or less knowing everything, with some details that still need sorting out. it seems the general concensous that anything you don’t know some brainy type in a morterboard hat and a robe could explain it to use useing lots of math that you would never get in a million years.

but thats not how scientists are. there isn’t even an agreeded on theory of how gravity works! or even a good start of one! (you know, how it doesn’t seem to work with the other forces of the universe… grand unified theory and all)

thats what I was getting at. people think of ‘science’ as a mystic all knowing power. a god that is a collection of mythical books that exist somewhere but you couldn’t read even if you tryed unless you knew the secret of how (math classes).

thats what I don’t like the way people think of science. we know alot of stuff, but we don’t know alot of stuff.

18

The Scientific Method is a process which gleans information. It is not a Dogmatic system of worship like most religions. Even if some scientists are unreasonably dogmatic. Science is not a religion.

Some cats are trying to start a religion based on scientific principles. It looks a little something like this. The sins of this religion:

I dig.

DaLovin’ Dj

19

From Encyclopædia Britannica:

I hope we can agree on this as a sort of general definition of what a religion is. With that as a base for debate, it’s clear, at least to me, that science in no way is near being a religion, even for the ones, like me, who don’t get the math.

That people believe in science, is not the same as to say that they worship science, even though I’m certain some do. I belive many things that I, myself, cannot prove or disprove, that I cannot, or do not want to, experience first hand.

I believe that most people see that science is not, hrmf, an exact science :stuck_out_tongue: , but mostly good enough for everyday purposes. We ‘know’, if we belive today’s scientist, that Newton’s Theory of Gravity was not right. Yet his theory serves most people, since we rarely travel at a speed close to that of light. Darwin’s theory works well enough, though it also contains flaws.

Saying that science is sort of a new religion, since people believe it, without understanding it, is wrong. If anything, television is the new religion - and how many understand how that works?

20

It’s starting to seem like those of us who like science are being forced to defend it against people who have some axe to grind with their high-school teachers.

If you find science is too complex to understand, nothing is stopping you from finding some basic textbooks and slowly working your way forward. If at any point, you find a failure of logic, nothing is stopping you from publishing your results.

You may encourage others to agree with you, but you also risk ridicule. That’s life. Deal with it.