Poll: Science as a Religion

[Mray3460]

Recently, I've had a lot of time to be left alone with my thoughts (Which are generally not pleasant things to be left alone with) and it crossed about how many people claim that science can serve as a religion. Personally, I disagree, but I suppose I should explain my definition of a religion.

Religion is the combination of:
1. morals concerning behavior within the physical world.
2. beliefs considering the nature of the physical and spiritual worlds, and
3. perspectives upon the purpose of existence.

As to why science does not, and cannot, while remaining science, serve as a religion, quite simply, it doesn't meet any of those requirements. First, science has no concept of morals (Not no morals, as the concept of no morals is still a moral ["Rule #1, there are no rules"]), it is objective concerning all phenomena and actions, with no concept of good or evil.

Second, science has no standpoint on the nature of the physical of spiritual worlds (Believing that neither or both of the worlds does not exist is still a standpoint on their natures). I.E. are we the shadows of a more perfect world (Plato), is the world random or predetermined by some higher being (Free Will vs. Predetermination), does the universe even exist at all, or are we simply a thought in some greater being's sick mind (Various). Science cannot answer these questions, as answers to them can neither be proved nor disproved by scientific methods (that, and all of the questions, and their answers, are ultimately irrelevant).

Third, finally, and probably most importantly, science cannot give purpose to anything. It can tell us what something is, how it works, what it does, and why it does it (as in, what caused the action), but it cannot define the purpose for any of those (the why on the scale of, what does this contribute to the universe, if anything. Again, believing that nothing has any purpose is still a perspective on purpose).

Anyway, that's why I disagree with the statement that science can serve as a religion, and I suppose this also explains why I disagree when people say that science and religion conflict with each other. With the exposition out of the way, here are my questions:

Do you believe that science can serve as a religion? Why?

Note: I did a search and found nothing on this specific topic. If this has been done before, please post a link to the original thread.

 

[Motti]

I don't think so, simply because of the fact that religion is based on faith. By definition it cannot and will not be proven. Science however, is based on proving a hypothesis right or wrong through experimentation. There's a difference.

 

[Kollega]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Science can serve as a cult,but it can't be a religion. Religion has moral guidelines which you follow if you want a place in heaven. Science is morally gray - only when we start applying it to make things does it become good or evil. Most prominent example is nuclear power.

But i'm pretty sure you can take scientific philosophy and make a religion out of it.

 

[The Salty Vulcan]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Science can serve as a cult,but it can't be a religion. Religion has moral guidelines which you follow if you want a place in heaven. Science is morally gray - only when we start applying it to make things does it become good or evil. Most prominent example is nuclear power.

But i'm pretty sure you can take scientific philosophy and make a religion out of it.

It has. Its called New Pyhsics. Pretty interesting actually

 

[thom_cat_]

I'm confused with the question.

Science is not a religion if that's what you mean.

Religion is not needed if you are saying that science can't explain everything.

Religion doesn't answer any of the questions you raised. Religion is the assumption of a higher power, ie the creator of everything. It doesn't answer anything, nor explain anything. It doesn't expand thinking, or make us more advanced. It just limits us, scientists using religion hardly ever get anywhere, seeing as they always start with the unfounded assumption that God does exist.

 

[Canton]

Not to mention science encourages/requires critical thinking be applied to everything including it.

Religions and critical thinking don't mix very well.

 

[thePyro_13]

Even with nuclear power, its up to people to decide how we use it. Its up to people to decide if it's to be used for good or evil. Science just makes it possible.

As has been said, Religion relies on faith. This means that you have to be willing to convince yourself to believe something even if it doesn't appear(or cannot be proven) to be true.

Science doesn't suffer from this. If tomorrow we find a way to prove that one of our current scientific hypothesis or 'belief' is wrong, then we'll ditch it without a second guess and find out how to make it right.

Religion still holds on to beliefs that just don't make sense, or just aren't practical. Such as homosexuality. The only reason they still oppose it is because their belief structure tells them not to question the reasoning behind it, only to join the mob and feel the hate.

It's the key difference between 'knowing' and 'believing'. Something you 'know' might be wrong. Something you 'believe' is always right(In the eyes or the believer) no matter how ridiculous it may appear to everyone else.


None of the questions you raised can be answered by Religion either. Why else would they ALL come up with a different answer?

 

[Skeleon]

Science is about constant doubt, testing and evidence.
It's not about belief or dogma.

It can become tainted by scientific dogma or religious/political/ideological beliefs interfering with a hypothesis, but I wouldn't call the result proper science or religion.

 

[Mray3460]

I'm confused with the question.

Science is not a religion if that's what you mean.

Religion is not needed if you are saying that science can't explain everything.

Religion doesn't answer any of the questions you raised. Religion is the assumption of a higher power, ie the creator of everything. It doesn't answer anything, nor explain anything. It doesn't expand thinking, or make us more advanced. It just limits us, scientists using religion hardly ever get anywhere, seeing as they always start with the unfounded assumption that God does exist.

Most religions do answer all three requirements, for example, Christianity's Answers (From what I understand):

1. Leviticus, The Ten Commandments, The Teachings in the Gospels
2. Existence is the creation of an all-powerful God, Spirit world is Heaven and Hell.
3. Varies, depending on denomination. May be here to grow or to be tested.

Edit: Got confused by my own questions.

 

[scotth266]

Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that a religion thread was started by someone with a nuclear explosion for an avatar?

Science in and of itself is merely a tool. It can't really form the basis of a religion, though if we were talking about philosophies, it could probably be a basis for those.

 

[Mray3460]

Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that a religion thread was started by someone with a nuclear explosion for an avatar?

I can honestly say that I have no idea why that would be ironic in the slightest. Would you mind explaining?

 

[Kilaknux]

Does anyone else find it mildly ironic that a religion thread was started by someone with a nuclear explosion for an avatar?

I can honestly say that I have no idea why that would be ironic in the slightest. Would you mind explaining?

On a wild guess, I'd say he meant that a nuke is pretty much the ultimate expression of sciences power (Boy that came out wrong).

 

[haruvister]

I think it was Einstein who said that certain discoveries were akin to a feeling of spiritual enlightenment. But obviously this is not the same as a man-made moral code attributed to a mystical divine power. Religion is by its nature sectarian, whereas science is necessarily open source, as it relies on its theories being constantly unproven by subsequent generations. Just because there is no designer bestowing our existence with purpose, that doesn't mean our lives have no meaning.

Here's where Stanley Kubrick takes over:

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death ? however mutable man may be able to make them ? our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

 

[lostclause]

Not really. It might bred a philosophy (i.e. Rationalism) but it itself is neither philosophy nor religion.

 

[Jamous]

Religion is Faith, Science is Evidence. They're not the same and never will be. Science reasons, Religion doesn't (If it did it would realize how silly it was being.). Read the God Delusion. All explained in there.

 

[Sulu]

I don't think so, simply because of the fact that religion is based on faith. By definition it cannot and will not be proven. Science however, is based on proving a hypothesis right or wrong through experimentation. There's a difference.

Correct. There is a vast difference between a faith and fact.

 

[sneak_copter]

No. Religion is almost entirely reliant on people's faith. Faith relies on belief, and Science is entirely reliant on fact, the complete opposite. So it technically couldn't be the basis of any kind of religion.

 

[Korolev]

Science and religion are products of two different ways of thinking. Religion is about (primarily) emotional experiences, and a deep inner feeling that something higher exists. To those who "get" religion, the experience is extremely powerful and, for them, utterly real.

Science does its best to divorce itself from emotion. Good scientists instinctively understand that science is about human beings trying to understand the world around them. Humans are also not perfect. A good scientist will ALWAYS mistrust their feelings, because feelings are subjective, and not part of the real world which we believe to exist entirely independently of human emotions.

Religion is about utter conviction from a personal emotional view point. Science is about admitting that we start at nothing and must build up a working model of how things work in the universe. I am a scientist (currently doing a Master of Molecular Biology degree at UQ) but I know many religious people who work in science. They are smart guys. I disagree with them, but they are not stupid. Over time I understood that the reason they believed was due to the fact that they WANTED to believe, very strongly, and felt strong emotions that they could not discount. I, having never been raised in a particularly religious family, did not have the same feelings, and so, for me, religion is merely a cultural institution made up by humans, for humans.

But they cannot and never will be the same thing. Science is merely a process by which scientists try to understand how things work. It does not require faith, and it does not claim to know everything. However, I value it above religion, because religion, to me, explains less about the universe than a good physics textbook.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Religion is Faith, Science is Evidence. They're not the same and never will be. Science reasons, Religion doesn't (If it did it would realize how silly it was being.). Read the God Delusion. All explained in there.

The God Delusion is about as scientific as creationism unfortunately, and equally dogmatic. Read the review [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775] by Professor H. Allen Orr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Allen_Orr] to see exactly why.

I think what the op is describing here is more a worship of man rather than a worship of science. To many anti-theists, science represents something more than just repeatable experimentation, it represents something deeper and more important - a destination for mankind. This is something that all fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, atheist) have in common. They do not think of humanity as a large number of individuals with different lives and beliefs all rubbing shoulders and having different needs and ultimate destinations, they think that somehow the whole of humanity needs to get somewhere and they are the people to lead us to that destination. For the Christian fundamentalist it is choirs and angels, for the atheist fundamentalist it is the test tube and lab coat.

But there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. Industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. I find the faith that these kinds of people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels.

Religion is about utter conviction from a personal emotional view point.

No. Religion does not require "utter conviction". That is fundamentalism, and can come from the anti-religious as well as the religious.