Science: A Religion? (long post)

[genkaus]

Science: A Religion?

The post meanders quite a bit, so I'll only address the points at which I consider your argument to fail.

4. Scientific Knowledge and Technology – The ‘output’ of scientific method and theory
5. Scientific Authority – The accumulated ‘significance’ scientific knowledge and technology has for humanity – e.g. Moral, Legal, Political, Societal, Educational, Commercial, (surprisingly for many or perhaps not so for others) Religious and in a recursive sense other Scientific Endeavour

These two points are a bit problematic. While the body of scientific knowledge is a principle concept, its application in other fields is not. That is the basic difference between scientific inquiry and technological application.

The fundamental purpose of religion is to provide hope and censorship,

That is an incorrect and inadequate definition of religion. As it happens, this is what your whole argument is based on.

Any intellectual pursuit can serve those purposes - philosophy, political and social movement, pursuit of arts etc. By your definition, all of them would automatically become one types of religion. This is without taking into account the fact that those two needs aren't the only ones that religion supposedly fulfills.

Further, defining religion should not simply rely on which needs it services but how it services. Positing supernatural agency as the authoritative source is the feature of religion that distinguishes it from other intellectual activities like philosophy, politics and yes, science.

---

I actually used this as my definition of religion;

'A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.'

By that definition, how do you differentiate between a political philosophy - say, communism - and a religion?