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:


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.

Yes, and I addressed that with the first section of my post, which came before the definition. Did you read that? Science has none of the attributes of a religion, even in the colloquial sense of the word.

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).

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of scientific inquiry, then, because it doesn't deal in truth, but rather, in facts..

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.

In your OP, you said you hoped to encourage debate -- yet here you are now waving away an opinion because it doesn't agree with your own. I didn't just tell you "I don't agree", I explained why, as well. If you didn't want this sort of response, you ought not invite it.

Words have meanings. If you use them in unconventionally, misunderstandings can and will happen.

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).

It's the only real similarity between the two fields of thought, so I wanted to put it to bed.


I'm sorry, I had thought you asked for opinions. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't render my opinion moot.

Additionally,