Science: A Religion? (long post)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't regard the scientific endeavor with any sort of religious fervor, I don't kneel at the pronouncements of scientists that lack evidence, and I don't regard science as either infallible or as any sort of moral guidepost. Science doesn't commend any course of action or set of rituals for me, the layperson; science doesn't make pronouncements in the field of ethics, aesthetics, or day-to-day living.

I don't think it qualifies as a religion per the OED:

religion
Syllabification: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: /rəˈlijən /
NOUN

1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

1.1 A particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions

1.2 A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...h/religion

Only the third definition might appertain at all; but even that is a colloquial sense, and not religion as I gather you mean here.

I regard the scientific method as the most reliable means we have of inhibiting our inherent subjectivity as we go about the task of defining and exploring reality. As such, it is always tentative, and that, to me, is the antithesis of the religious mode of thinking, which relies on dogma and appeals to an unappealable authority. It should be noted that I don't even ascribe supreme importance to the scientific endeavor, and thus it can be fairly said that in no way for me is it a religion, at all. Now, there may be some who fill your bill, but I'd be careful about thinking that because some laypersons are zealous in their advocacy, science must be a religion. I'm sure there's a fallacy in there, though the name escapes me at the moment.

[Ryantology]

Fine, but I'm not saying science should be re-evaluated because it needs to do x, y, and z or that it approximates x, y, and z in it's dogma, I am saying that science meets the same fundamental human needs as religion.

What fundamental human need does religion satisfy? I'm unaware of a single one.

[bennyboy]

You could argue that big-S "Science" (aka scientism) functions as a religious INSTITUTION. Those who don't do Science may refer to famous scientists in appeals to authority, for example. Many people put faith in Science, saying things like "Science hasn't solved that problem YET." There's some implication there that Science has some magical power that guarantees all secrets will be reveled and all problems solved.

But this has nothing to do with actuall, small-s "science," which is about knowledge and the processes by which one can reasonably be expected to get it. Science as a process is almost diametrically opposed to religious institution.

[fr0d0]

I think people live their lives distracted from what is important by means of technological advances. Religious ideals are too complicated and time consuming for modern man to be bothered with. In religious terms, our gods are now the shopping centres and movie theatres. Technology sucks our attention. That's how science supercedes religion. What informs your everyday decisions: our capitalist ideology. We're all programmed to think the same as each other, enslaved by an elite hierarchy intent on maintaining their position.

[Losty]

Fine, but I'm not saying science should be re-evaluated because it needs to do x, y, and z or that it approximates x, y, and z in it's dogma, I am saying that science meets the same fundamental human needs as religion.

What fundamental human need does religion satisfy? I'm unaware of a single one.

Hmmm there's a new forum member who told me Christianity is the only reason he doesn't murder and steal. I'd say not murdering and stealing is a pretty good fundamental need. :p

[bennyboy]

Hmmmm. . . without the Catholic religion, there'd be no Catholic schoolgirls. Just sayin', don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Michael]

Interesting post, ManMachine. Personally I wouldn't describe science as a religion, but I would say that there are some people who make science into a religion. I suppose it is then what some call 'scientism', using the definition from Wiki....

'Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.'

Certainly there is a risk of imbalance in our understanding; if science is pursued too much at the cost of understanding our history, for example. Or there is risk of inappropriate censorship, such as dismissing poetry and great literature because it does not see the world through the lens of science.

At its best science leads to a great broadening of our horizons. But there is also a danger that, for some, it leads to a narrowing of their horizons.

Anyway, that's just the way I see things.

[ManMachine]

Fine, but I'm not saying science should be re-evaluated because it needs to do x, y, and z or that it approximates x, y, and z in it's dogma, I am saying that science meets the same fundamental human needs as religion.

What fundamental human need does religion satisfy? I'm unaware of a single one.

Read the OP.

MM

[ManMachine]

I don't regard the scientific endeavor with any sort of religious fervor, I don't kneel at the pronouncements of scientists that lack evidence, and I don't regard science as either infallible or as any sort of moral guidepost. Science doesn't commend any course of action or set of rituals for me, the layperson; science doesn't make pronouncements in the field of ethics, aesthetics, or day-to-day living.

I don't think it qualifies as a religion per the OED:

religion
Syllabification: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: /rəˈlijən /
NOUN

1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

1.1 A particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions

1.2 A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...h/religion

Only the third definition might appertain at all; but even that is a colloquial sense, and not religion as I gather you mean here.

I regard the scientific method as the most reliable means we have of inhibiting our inherent subjectivity as we go about the task of defining and exploring reality. As such, it is always tentative, and that, to me, is the antithesis of the religious mode of thinking, which relies on dogma and appeals to an unappealable authority. It should be noted that I don't even ascribe supreme importance to the scientific endeavor, and thus it can be fairly said that in no way for me is it a religion, at all. Now, there may be some who fill your bill, but I'd be careful about thinking that because some laypersons are zealous in their advocacy, science must be a religion. I'm sure there's a fallacy in there, though the name escapes me at the moment.

I don't want to get into the limited value of specific dictionary entries. The OED is one dictionary definition, dictionary definitions, while accurate, often do not convey the full connotations and context of the use of a word. Restricting yourself to this definition is limiting to say the least. I do not accept this definition as necessarily accurate, as we all know Buddhism has no god or worship so that would rule out the first two definitions without putting much thought into it.

My post is not about zealots or fundamentalism. Its about the needs we have as humans and how scientific endeavour meets those needs in a similar way to religion (hope and censorship). The points I raise are our need to align ourselves with some kind of 'truth' even though the evolutionary imperative and construction of our psychology are predicated on some level of deception (Free Will is a good example of this).

This is not a semantic debate, I acknowledge that this is not a common interpretation of scientific endeavour, that is the entire point of my post, you telling me you don't agree is moot.

If you think 'because some laypersons are zealous in their advocacy, science must be a religion' is the point or even an element of OP then you have misunderstood it because that is not my point at all (see above).

MM

---

You could argue that big-S "Science" (aka scientism) functions as a religious INSTITUTION. Those who don't do Science may refer to famous scientists in appeals to authority, for example. Many people put faith in Science, saying things like "Science hasn't solved that problem YET." There's some implication there that Science has some magical power that guarantees all secrets will be reveled and all problems solved.

But this has nothing to do with actuall, small-s "science," which is about knowledge and the processes by which one can reasonably be expected to get it. Science as a process is almost diametrically opposed to religious institution.

All scientific endeavour is predicated on faith. Empirical evidence can only present a picture of historical events. In many cases this can be measured and found to repeat (and in others it cannot - but that's another matter). All this demonstrates is that an observed event has repeated, it tells us nothing about whether or not it will continue to repeat. We can calculate these predictions down and demonstrate that they are 99% likely to repeat but that is not 100%, and it never will be. There is no scientific proof or empirical evidence that gives us 100% certainty the laws of physics will continue to be repeatable. The leap from this uncertainty to certainty, however small, is still a leap of faith.

In philosophical terms it is a commendatory belief-in,

"we may make an expression of 'faith' in respect of some performance by an agent X, when without prejudice to the truth value of the factual outcome or even confidence in X otherwise, we expect that specific performance."

The big 'S' and small 's' is a novel justification, I've not seen that one before so well done on that. It's still a justification and does not change anything about the reality of empirical evidence or scientific method.

MM

---

I think people live their lives distracted from what is important by means of technological advances. Religious ideals are too complicated and time consuming for modern man to be bothered with. In religious terms, our gods are now the shopping centres and movie theatres. Technology sucks our attention. That's how science supercedes religion. What informs your everyday decisions: our capitalist ideology. We're all programmed to think the same as each other, enslaved by an elite hierarchy intent on maintaining their position.

You make some very interesting points here. Systems of belief are hardwired into our brains, do these neural functions remain 'unused' or do we replace traditional religions and religious functions with technology. I don't know but it is something I think worthy of exploration.

MM

---

Interesting post, ManMachine. Personally I wouldn't describe science as a religion, but I would say that there are some people who make science into a religion. I suppose it is then what some call 'scientism', using the definition from Wiki....

'Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.'

Certainly there is a risk of imbalance in our understanding; if science is pursued too much at the cost of understanding our history, for example. Or there is risk of inappropriate censorship, such as dismissing poetry and great literature because it does not see the world through the lens of science.

At its best science leads to a great broadening of our horizons. But there is also a danger that, for some, it leads to a narrowing of their horizons.

Anyway, that's just the way I see things.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

I don't see that calling 'scientific endeavour' a religion necessarily has to change anything. It might make people re-think what they imagine a religion to be. All too often I read posts in AF that talk about religion but really they are polemics against Abrahamic doctrine, there is little to no talk of Hinduism, Buddhism, Aboriginal Belief systems (like the Australian Dreamtime or American Animism), etc.

The Abrahamic religions have badly skewed our understanding of religion and given us a edifice to throw rocks at which, of course, means people who put a lot of faith in scientific endeavour bulk at aligning themselves with the concept of religion.

Many people do not see the fallacy in saying, 'Christianity does x, y, and z which scientific endeavour does not do therefore scientific endeavour cannot be a religion'. I am not trying to counter this fallacy, what would be the point, I am trying to suggest that scientific endeavour meets the same fundamental human needs as religion, perhaps that means we need to re-evaluate what we mean by religion, perhaps it means scientific endeavour is a religion, that is all still up for debate.

MM

[Ryantology]

What fundamental human need does religion satisfy? I'm unaware of a single one.

Read the OP.

MM

I don't agree that religion legitimately satisfies the need for hope in people. If it did, death wouldn't be something that the religious fear and try to avoid and put off with such great vigor, and one religion would be enough for everyone.

As far as censorship, it provides no useful censorship that most people don't learn early in life and often by other, more practical avenues.