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 think it qualifies as a religion per the OED:
Quote: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.
