# Make Science a Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857 "2009-10-23T14:16:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/81 "2009-10-30T23:44:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > That big elephant you’re ignoring is named “creation myth”. It’s not a big elephant in the room. I can’t help it if a bunch of otherwise smart atheists want to view it the same way as a bunch of otherwise stupid religious nuts. Creation myths are allegorical based upon primitive assumptions about the cosmos. > [@](#): > > Religions provide all sorts of things, with different religions providing different things to different people. And becuase science does clash with it on _some_ of those things, notably among them the facts detailing where they came from and as a consequence, what their value is, then _religion_ announces that they’re at odds. Vigorously. Repeatedly. And with seemingly unabating emnity. Yes, religions provide all sorts of things. Science doesn’t clash with ‘religion’ because there is no such unified entity known as ‘religion’. The word religion is meant to denote a category of human effort, it is not a singular thing, but a type of thing. Things of the type, ‘religion’, tend to be quite broad and have some very stark differences. Individual myths having facts conflicting with science are neither here nor there. ‘Religion’ as such doesn’t _announce_ anything being that it’s a category with an extreme amount of variation that can encompass in varying combinations the vast majority of human activity throughout history from Senatorial procedure to whether or not it’s your duty to knock up your Brother’s wife in the event that he dies without leaving behind any progeny. In pre-modern religious societies ‘religion’ meant something roughly analogous to ‘society’. > [@](#): > > Your post denies this. It sufferes from the fallacy of “being utterly and completely divorced from reality”. No, you’re just using the word religion incorrectly. It’s commonly done because atheists with their lack of religion try to claim science as their own whereas science can be used equally effectively by the religious as by the atheist. The atheist commonly likes to make broad claims about religion that are too wide to be meaningful for any other purpose than vulgar condemnations of people who think differently than they do. I am using the word correctly, you are not. It’s as simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/82 "2009-10-30T23:47:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It’s not a big elephant in the room. I can’t help it if a bunch of otherwise smart atheists want to view it the same way as a bunch of otherwise stupid religious nuts. Creation myths are allegorical based upon primitive assumptions about the cosmos. > > Yes, religions provide all sorts of things. Science doesn’t clash with ‘religion’ because there is no such unified entity known as ‘religion’. The word religion is meant to denote a category of human effort, it is not a singular thing, but a type of thing. Things of the type, ‘religion’, tend to be quite broad and have some very stark differences. Individual myths having facts conflicting with science are neither here nor there. ‘Religion’ as such doesn’t _announce_ anything being that it’s a category with an extreme amount of variation that can encompass in varying combinations the vast majority of human activity throughout history from Senatorial procedure to whether or not it’s your duty to knock up your Brother’s wife in the event that he dies without leaving behind any progeny. In pre-modern religious societies ‘religion’ meant something roughly analogous to ‘society’. > > No, you’re just using the word religion incorrectly. It’s commonly done because atheists with their lack of religion try to claim science as their own whereas science can be used equally effectively by the religious as by the atheist. The atheist commonly likes to make broad claims about religion that are too wide to be meaningful for any other purpose than vulgar condemnations of people who think differently than they do. I am using the word correctly, you are not. It’s as simple as that. I’m not interested in your No True Scotsman fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/83 "2009-10-30T23:57:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m not interested in your No True Scotsman fallacy. Another phrase you are using incorrectly. I didn’t make a No True Scotsman fallacy. I didn’t say ‘religious people don’t do X’, what I did say was that ‘religion is such a broad category that you can say just about anything about it and have a high likelihood of it being true.’ It’s actually the inverse of a no true Scotsman fallacy. You can say for instance: The religious kill babies. And you’d be right. You can say: The religious believe in stupid creation myths. Again you’d be right. You can say: The religious conquer and enslave other peoples. And you’d be right. You can also say: The religious hold bake sales to fund construction work on their temples. And again you’d be right just as if you said: The religious don’t believe in God. And it would be true. Why? Because religion is a category, not a thing. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/84 "2009-10-31T00:06:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Another phrase you are using incorrectly. I didn’t make a No True Scotsman fallacy. I didn’t say ‘religious people don’t do X’, what I did say was that ‘religion is such a broad category that you can say just about anything about it and have a high likelihood of it being true.’ It’s actually the inverse of a no true Scotsman fallacy. > > You can say for instance: The religious kill babies. And you’d be right. You can say: The religious believe in stupid creation myths. Again you’d be right. You can say: The religious conquer and enslave other peoples. And you’d be right. You can also say: The religious hold bake sales to fund construction work on their temples. And again you’d be right just as if you said: The religious don’t believe in God. And it would be true. Why? Because religion is a category, not a thing. You’re defining religion incorrectly, and getting quite garbled in the process (either that, or shuffling goalposts around like you’re trying to play “find the pea”). Nobody says religious people don’t use science. That’s dumb. The vast majority of religious people base actions on prior experience and observation all the time. Some even have admitted to believing in gravity, and one or two even admit the notion that the earth orbits the sun and vice versa. So what you’re doing is attacking a strawman. To correct your category error, religion is either the term for (usually) organized establishments that (usually) are devoted to a given belief system that is (usually) based around a theories set of supernatural forces; or alternatively it is the collectived term for actions taken by the people in the service or due to the influence of groups like this, or belief systems comparable to such belief systems. People who associate with religions are considered “religious” or “the religious” - which is _not_ a synonym for “religion”. And of course, not everything believed or done by a “religious” person is itself “religious” in nature. Suffice to say, once one start using the terms correctly, your post collapses in shambles. ETA: Oh, and your Scotsman fallacy obviously involved denying things were related to “religion” when they hurt your argument, specifically in this case creation myths. It had nothing to do with the “religious”, of course. That’s just your goalpost-moving dodge. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/85 "2009-10-31T00:14:23Z")
I’m done playing this game with you. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2009, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/86 "2009-11-01T06:54:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Little Nemo Religion isn’t a system of knowing in the way science is. So you’re still arguing, “My Corvette does a better quarter mile than your scarf.” > > Science has replaced nothing at all that religion provides, nothing whatsoever because they are not at odds. > > No matter how eloquently you argue for it, it doesn’t matter, you are still arguing a category error and thus a logical fallacy. > > What you are saying falls into the, “not even wrong”, category. It appears I’m failing to grasp what you’re saying. I’ve said all along that science and religon are two different things that serve different purposes. Reading the above, you appear to be saying the same. What is the point of disagreement between us that you see? ---
**Author:** ![Eternal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@Eternal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eternal)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/87 "2009-11-02T11:56:04Z")
You can’t make science a religion, but you can get religious people believe in science. A large number of the atheist community, be they new-age loons or science fetishists, are dogma-spewing sheep. Functionally it serves the same purpose. I’m not making any accusations against anyone on this board. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I can’t contribute meaningfully to anything on this board because I don’t think anything can be done about the human condition. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857/88 "2009-11-03T00:22:49Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I’m done playing this game with you. Good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-science-a-religion/514857.md?page=4)