Is Science a Religion?

[The Atheist]

Indeed. Cold Fusion. Fact or Fiction? Some say yea, and some say nay. Both are using scientific principles. Both are nigh rabid in their belief or disbelief. Sounds like many religious arguments to me.

This is where it gets difficult to separate science from pseudoscience, but I can assure you that the cold fusion side is all pseudoscience. Some of the proponents may well be scientists, just as Fuelstar has believers who are scientists - in fact, New Zealand's most respected scientist and chemist believes it works. I'm using Fuelstar because it's a perfect analogy for cold fusion - it employs magic masquerading as science. It's also a subject I spent many months researching and I agree that the arguments do look religious at times.

Strangely, just about all of the proponents of Fuelstar and cold fusion are christians...

[blazeofglory]

What makes some people fuse science and religions.

We should not seek to answer questions of religions through science. This is a great wrong.

[zado_k]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

But modern science is characterised by this attitude - that is to say that science is not irrefutable truth or infallible. On the contrary scientists and philosophers of science insist on fallibilism. "Irrefutable truths" outside of the formal disciplines (Mathematics, Logic...) are not favoured by scientists precisely because they cannot be tested.

But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?)

I notice that you found possible analogues for scientist and for tomes of fact but not for experiments! Experimentation is at the core of scientific rationalism and is part of what distinguishes its world view. Scientists rarely write tomes of fact - they are more concerned with devising ways to test hypotheses than cataloguing facts.

which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

I don't know if it is faith but it does look like accepting an argument from authority. It's not a scientific attitude. Remember that if pragmatically people who don't do science accept the conclusions of scientists without being able to confirm them themselves, this has no bearing on the scentific attitude itself. I cannot repeat lots of experiments for practical reasons and so I rely on the honesty and diligence of others and I critically and tentatively accept the scientific consensus on issues where I can't make my own determination. But that's pragmatic reasoning - not science.

Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works.

I don't think this can be said often enough: scientists don't do experiments to prove theories, they do them to test hypotheses in fact the canonical form of the experimental method is to set out to try to disprove the null hypothesis and to present this as reason to accept an alternative hypothesis. Science proceeds by falsification.

This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

Yes in a sense, if an experiment is successful in demonstrating that we should reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative and this is replicated then it will tend to become part of the leading consensus in some field, but there is rarely total unanimity outside of a set of core assumptions and plenty of argument about detail.

But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught.

The point of replication is not to use the same data (in most cases that just simply isn't possible - at most you can reanalyse data collected and presented by someone else but you can't usually use it again). Replication involves collecting new data and submitting it to the same treatment and analysis as the original to see if the results support the same conclusion. I'm not sure really how to think about your mistakes in formulae or bad equations - it happens and sometimes they are caught when the data are analysed and sometimes they are caught when the formulae are checked and of course sometimes - especially if no replications are attempted - they aren't caught for a very long time (if at all).

This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

No, scientifically it does not because only by the use of the scientific method is knowledge actually acquired. Pragmatically, scientists, because they cannot repeat all experiments in all domains for themselves, will decide to trust that other scientists act in good faith in conducting experiments and publishing results. Sometimes they are deceived but the distinguishing mark of science is that a hypothesis must be tested to transparent and known standards, in replicable ways, with all the workings and results made available for public scrutiny. That scrutiny may not always be carried out in fact, but the requirements that must be met for it predispose science to honesty and rigour.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z

God Bless

Pen

[jon1jt]

It's all about the proof, man.

[Pendragon]

It's all about the proof, man.

Proof, smoof! People are always on about if I can see, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, then it is real. Practically, this doesn't work with real science, yet that is the claim for disbelief in the supernatural. What if it exists, yet we have no way to measure it as of yet. When we do, it becomes science.

[ballb]

I ask this question not because I am convinced that science is always wrong, so please don't get that idea. I simply do not consider what one or more learned scientists say to be irrefutable truth or that science is infallible. For that matter I don't consider even my own Christian beliefs to be infallible, I might be wrong on how I see things.

But look at it this way: We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

Let us say this: Suppose a scientist does an experiment to prove a theory and it works. This experiment is then repeated, perhaps by others and again it works. This leads to what is perceived as viable proof.

But what if there was a mistake in the formula or a bad equation? The repeated experiments use the same data, so this will not be caught. This doesn't mean I think they are all full of baloney, just that what we cannot see for ourselves or touch, taste, or feel for ourselves requires faith in someone or something.

God Bless

Pen

Science is the antithesis of religion. The former is built on proof, the latter on blind faith.

[Tsuyoiko]

Proof, smoof! People are always on about if I can see, touch it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, then it is real. Practically, this doesn't work with real science, yet that is the claim for disbelief in the supernatural. What if it exists, yet we have no way to measure it as of yet. When we do, it becomes science.

Disbelief in the supernatural comes about not because we can't sense those phenomena in the usual way, but because those phenomena can't be held up to rigorous scrutiny, in the way that Science can. If the existence of telepathy (say) is confirmed in a double-blind study of ten thousand individuals, subjected to peer review and published in a respectable journal, then as you say, it will become Science.

[chrismythoi]

has anyone heard of or read a theologian called john milbank?

he and a few others came up with an idea called 'radical orthodoxy', which states that secular society is based on just as many assumptions and tenets that a religios faith is. therefore i think it is a fairly solid statement that much of science reflects faith/religion in its practices and appearance. i'm sure you can think of many such parallels.
however it may just be that humanity is the only common link between science and religion. both attempt to answer the core existential questions, the only difference is that they come at them from different starting points. i think it was descartes who said that the roots of knowledge is metaphysics, the trumk physics, and the branches and leaves the rest of the sciences...

[Wilde woman]

I think Science (yes, with a capital s) can become a religion for some people, though it is not a religion per se. There are people guilty of automatically believing whatever conclusions come via the scientific community and, with the same carelessness, disregarding anything coming from religious institutions. In a sense, some believe as blindly in Science as others believe in God.

Either way, it comes down to truth. But truth will never be set in stone for mankind because (IMO) people ultimately believe what they want to believe, regardless of what's actually there.

We have scientists (prophets?) who do experiments and write tomes of fact (holy books?) which are then accepted by people who cannot repeat these experiments for themselves nor are they able to gain proof of their own on things, yet they accept them as total proof (is this not faith?)

If you define faith as "believing (within reason) what my predecessors have claimed, based on their experimentation," then yes, of course there is faith in the scientific world. If our understanding of the world was based completely off our own observations, we'd all have to start from ground zero. Theoretically, we'd have to recreate every experiment ever done just to get to the status quo. Of course we learn from others; of course we use history as a starting point. But the difference is that I today could theoretically run some experiments and come up with the same speed of gravity as Newton did. Sure, the 9.8m/s^2 may not be correct, but it's there on my calculator and I got to it using the objective measurements I took. If someone else comes along and comes up with a different number but following a similar logical mindset, it could very well be that he's right and I'm wrong. With religious texts, it's hardly the same thing. One cannot verify the way we do in science. You can’t go back in time and see Christ on the cross or witness his resurrection. That is an anecdote in and of itself; your belief in it has nothing to do with logic. Once you pull in historians' accounts and relics and whatnot, then it becomes more logical to say it actually happened. I’m just saying there’s a difference between a scientific history where certain theories are replicable and a religious history based completely on word-of-mouth.

Pen, the big difference is that science is open and religion is closed. Religion starts from an assumption: belief in the divine. Take away this belief and religion is gone.

Yes, blp hits it right on the head. Through experimentation and observation, one can construct and reconstruct a scientifically-logical world. There is no assumption of any pre-existing truths. There is only one's own observations. And from such observations, one constructs what he thinks sounds like a reasonable explanation of any given phenomenon. Of course, if one's logic is faulty, you're in trouble, until another person comes along, does his own experiment, and comes up with a slightly different result. Then the scientific theory of the first person is revised and so on and so forth throughout history. If, as blp says, we turn to religion and take away the assumption of a belief in the divine, does the same process still work? It might...But say if I touch a spark to gasoline and get fire, I'd be more likely to assume the reason the fire came to be had something to with the combo of a spark and gasoline...rather than reason that an invisible, immortal deity caused the fire because he willed it at in that particular time and space.

It seems more reasonable to me that someone would jump to "a god did it" explanation more if they cannot explain and reproduce some phenomena themselves and through their own independent logic. But it's all subjective. It's quite possible that given the same spark/gasoline situation, some people would come to the conclusion that a god created the fire.

(BTW, in my skepticism, this seems to be the basic premise of intelligent design and creationism, the trendiest attempts to reconcile science and Christianity. It seems that the scientists studying evolution reach a point where Darwin was obviously wrong or fossil evidence shows some unexplainable new development. And, already being religious men, these scientists simply conclude that because they cannot explain it in scientific terms, it is the work of God. Forgive me for my ignorance, but that's what it seems like to me. I'd love to be proven wrong.)

[librarius_qui]

Nope.







































Science isn't a religion.

It's only a kind of speech. As well as art. They're both usually "well" (much) used by politics, and religion(s).

Now, there's people who use science as religion? Yes, there is! So what? Let them be ... Most scientists had their opinions on "god". Opinions are opinions. Life tells truths -- and hides it, sometimes. (My opinion ...)

[librarius_qui]

Dangerous thing for you is (you) to call a scientist a prophet.

Not a mere feeling, however. Both a scientist and a prophet are supposed to tell the truth.

(Not always to either of them do so ...)

Many people will say here that there's no truth. Or ask "what is truth?".

There's scientist who does tell truth he found out. Galilee, for instance. Copernicus. This one was even killed because of it.

There's prophet who doesn't tell the truth. Actually, plenty more who don't than those who do, according to Hebrew writings and the appostles.

So, a scientist and a prophet do have something in common: truth. Both search for "revealing" it. Finding it out. Figuring it out.

*

(something else, still)

There's a great danger in questioning science, in a way. It is .. of use to question everything, at least once, so, why not to question science? No: it's good to question it. However, lets not forget that even a god will allow (give authority) to men to use science (knowledge) so as to do good. For instance, physicians receive authority (and responsability) to cure. And they do so. (Most of the times ... Nobody's perfect, and there's always a man who works in favour of others, and a man who works for himself ...) So, it's good that science is vehicle of authority. Not unquestionable, all right. But to be considered and respected most of the times.

(& Considering that we're all human beings, here, under the sun ... We commit mistakes all the time. More mistakes, maybe, than anything else. So ...)

*

(one last thing)

I HAD promised myself not to come back to this section on religion ... Blast!

[Tsuyoiko]

I think Science (yes, with a capital s) can become a religion for some people, though it is not a religion per se. There are people guilty of automatically believing whatever conclusions come via the scientific community and, with the same carelessness, disregarding anything coming from religious institutions. In a sense, some believe as blindly in Science as others believe in God.

I guess it's possible, although I don't think I've met anyone who blindly accepts the conclusions of Science just because it's Science. If they do so, I think it's usually because they have good reason to trust the scientific method.

I do agree with you that many disregard anything coming from religious institutions. I know a lot of people like that. They reject the Bible for good reasons, but they go too far and refuse to see anything of value in it at all.

(BTW, in my skepticism, this seems to be the basic premise of intelligent design and creationism, the trendiest attempts to reconcile science and Christianity. It seems that the scientists studying evolution reach a point where Darwin was obviously wrong or fossil evidence shows some unexplainable new development. And, already being religious men, these scientists simply conclude that because they cannot explain it in scientific terms, it is the work of God. Forgive me for my ignorance, but that's what it seems like to me. I'd love to be proven wrong.)

Creationism and Intelligent Design came from the religious community, not the scientific community. There may be a handful of rogue scientists who believe in either concept, but the consensus among scientists is that intelligent design has nothing to do with Science. The US National Academy of Sciences says:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science

[skasian]

For the people who doesnt really understand what a prophet is, let me explain.

Prophet is someone that has the power to predict the future, gifted by God. Prophet is also someone that is like an instrument for God to talk directly to people. Prophet really is a spiritual person that has strong connection with God.

And finally let me point out science attempts to understand creations of God, and implement it in a beneficial way in our feeble lives in earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

[kilted exile]

Nope, Science is not a religion.

Religions all attempt to answer the "WHY"

Science (good science at any rate) is far more interested in the "WHAT" & "HOW"

Science does not even attempt to offer any moral code for us to follow for the governance of our lives, one of the main requirements of religion

[zado_k]

And finally let me point out science attempts to understand creations of God, and implement it in a beneficial way in our feeble lives in earth. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry but what is your authority to point this out? First, you define science as essentially theistic (something the vast majority of practising scientists deny!) then you conflate it with technology! As someone who "does science" for a living, I do nothing that has anything to do with "creations of God" and there is no guarantee at all that anything I do can be implemented so as to be beneficial in anyone's feeble life. As it happens, I don't know these feeble lives you speak of.

Peace and loving kindness,

Z