Science is The New Religion

Well no, I don't think so. But I was have a conversation with some friends about science and religion, and this is one of the things that they said. We were well into the rice wine by this point, but I am still not sure how to respond to this. The only thing I could say is that religion offers an answer that rarely changes and discourages curiosity, while the scientific method has allowed us to expand our understanding of how the universe works and our beliefs/knowledge has changed immensely throughout history. I didn't tell them that is so many words but I feel it is a relevant distinction.

One of them even went so far as to say that it takes as much faith to believe in the big bang theory as it does do believe in God. I am not entirely sure how to response to things like this.

 

A great analogy for science is an axe head.
When you look at the cutting edge of the axe (and science) it can be rough, chipped and in need of more refinement. It's the working part.
And that's what people focus on. The stuff that's on the cutting edge of science can sometimes change, become obsolete and require some faith to opt for one or the other because the evidence isn't conclusive yet.
What people forget about is the other part of the axe (and science) that gives it power and that's the weight of the head itself. The mass and legacy of scientific knowledge through history.
What people do is take the uncertainty of cutting edge or new science (like the big bang which is arguably really neither) and then think that that uncertainty applies to all of our scientific understanding.
As an example...evolution is established as fact and I'd bet my house will never be disproved (merely refined and added to).
Why a particular feature of evolution evolved is much more open for debate.

TLDR? Science works bitches!!

 

I saw one excellent pictural refutation of this point a while ago and had the foresight to save it. I'll post it at the end.

Essentially they're stretching the definition of the word "religion" in order to fit science into it alongside all the religions. The trouble, however, is that science and religion are so different that in order to define them both as religions the word "religion" has to be stretched to a point that it becomes so broad as to be meaningless. A definition of religion that is broad enough to include both science and what we currently define as religion will likely end up including all sorts of other things as well. Things your friends might not be too happy also having included - like sports, politics, watching television and going down the pub for a drink.

In my opinion, most people who claim that science is a religion are likely either honestly ignorant of how different they are or they are being dishonest on purpose.

You might also make an argument that your friends are betraying a certain lack of faith in their own religious beliefs if they are using that argument to say "science is no better than religion".

 

I never come in here. Pongs too much, but here's a video which is relevant and interesting (I almost posted it earlier today in its own thread, so I'll put it here instead)

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic

 

Religion gives you answers, science looks for them. If science had all the answers it wouldn't be science any more.

 

Well if we take the word "religion" and use it in a looser context then why not?

Like football is a religion to some, in the same way science is a religion to others. So, sure why not. In the spirit of the word religion rather than its literal use.

You can talk about a person religiously doing this or that and it's quite acceptable. So if you use the word like that, then sure, I don't see a any problem to say that.


For many Science is the new religion. In that it's what they live by. So in that sense for many it plays a similar role in some respects. That's not to say it's like religion when it comes to articles of faith and all the rest of it.

That would be missing the point.

I'm a big fan of science, much much moreso than organized religious organizations.

 

In my experience, the "science is a religion" argument is usually a weak grasp at straws made by religious people trying to put their beliefs on the same logical footing as science. Religion, of course, is nothing of the sort.

That's not to say religion is wrong, necessarily, but it's not science, and science is not religion. Every few years someone here in the USA tries to muddy those waters for the sake of getting intelligent design into public schools, but it never works.

 

religion has to do with spirituality and morality, science deals with facts and what you can prove.

sometimes morality enter into science, like cloning of human beings for example. But not usually. It deals in facts. and you can't prove in gods and spirits.

 

I'd agree the word could be used in that way. Language is pretty flexible and it is our tool to use. What's more important, I'd argue, is that we manage to communicate what we mean effectively. You defining science as someone's "religion" in that context is fine as we know that you're using the word metaphorically and don't mean to say that it is in a more precise understanding of the word.

However, I do often see the "science is a religion" argument made in the dishonest way presented by the OP's friends.

 

Agreed. In the sense that it's what many of us live our lives by. Then it's quite fitting.

If anything, this is something to celebrate. Science reassures me that sex before marraige probably won't result in my burning in hell.

I'd say that was worth celebrating!

 

I disagree. It seems to me that when you say "use it in a looser context" you're essentially admitting that you're changing the definition of the word to suit your purposes. Before you can stretch the word religion to cover science, you must remove from its definition anything that transcends the material world or reaches conclusions without logical process, since those things have no place in science. And if you remove those things from the definition of religion, then religion no longer has any definition at all.

 

I think the big difference is that if I don't believe in the big bang theory I'm not going to go to hell or be killed or tortured for being a heretic.

 

I think we both have a man crush on this guy.

I always find it funny how people associate science being like religion. If I were to describe science to somebody, I would describe it as the pursuit of not having a clue about something, taking a wild guess and creating an environment to test and see if you're right. I see this simply as a structured way to figure something out.

To compare it to martial arts, the scientific method is the same as a structured form of learning how to fight by observation, trial and error, and experience through application. That's how we got karate, judo, boxing, mma, etc.. Everyone knows about fighting, and everyone can "fight" (or flail around like an idiot trying to fight). But there are structured ways to learn how to fight that enable the practitioner to better refine efficient skills and perfect them, as well as learn quicker rather then wasting a lot of time figuring out everything on their own. That is exactly how I see science. The school of thought or style was made through means very much (if not exactly) the same way the scientific method works; trial and error based off of a hypothesis or observation.

It baffles me how some religious people like to deny scientific findings. I don't see science as a threat, and I very much believe in God. If God is an all knowing, present in everything, all powerful "I am" . . . . then I see the scientific method as a way of helping reveal the tapestry in which God created everything, how he got it done, and revealing the epic level of "there is so much beyond us" that God is. If something is found to be true via scientific method, and there is nothing to disprove it then I think religion should adapt to that (being most of the structure of religion is based in ancient history, with an even more limited view of the universe then we have today) rather then the findings be adapted by religious belief.

One thing that always strikes me is how the Bible talks about people being deceived, how they claim to see the truth but are really evil and vile and etc..

Throughout history, who has been the deceived? Who has been the manipulator? Who has exploited and done perverse things? I think that we find those who seek answers and put in the effort to find them to be honest, giving, honorable and seek the truth (big religious theme there) rather then those who blindly follow what others tell them without questioning, or fail to take in the entire scope of a situation and all the implications from their environment. God has no need for religion if he is truth, and if the scientific method disproves something taken literally in a religious text then it is probably the religious text, written by some man who may have had inspiration augmented with a serious lack of understanding of the intricate works of life itself, that is wrong or has a serious misinterpretation by those who think they understand.

I see God like I see hitting somebody. You can call it what you want, a punch, a kick, a spinning double dragon uppercut of death . . . . whatever. The reality is that you're getting hit, in the face, and you're going to connect with the ground after I hit you regardless of what appendage or object I do it with. I don't need to define how you're getting hit by a doctrine, create a style for the way I hit you and claim it's better then something else, it is absolute truth that you're getting knocked the . . . . out because I hit you whether you believe it or not.

That's God to me, and it doesn't need to be defined and all we can really do is attempt to recognize the way we are getting hit. Too often overlooking that the most important factor in all of this was not to figure out HOW we got hit and define it . . . . but how to dodge. Rather we should learn to adapt to the reality of getting hit, or as I'm applying it to God, trying to understand what the idea of God is and how it applies rather then making crap up or not building upon the foundation others (who again, had much less understanding then what we have today) have laid before us in their interpretation of what getting hit was.

 

This could be the basis for a very interesting philosophical discussion

 

Science is not the new religion. Study the vedas.

 

TJ Lou, are you referring to some specific Vedic text? Also, please explain how studying the Vedas illuminates on your reply below:

Thanks!

 

Well, i'm using it like this, and the Oxford English dictionary agrees that it is correct to do so. I'm not changing anything!

[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

 

In that sense they're quite different, religion and science. However a person may nevertheless choose whatever they wish to follow with devotion, what they believe in and all the rest.

 

I disagree. If that's not a scientific question then it's not a religious one either IMHO.
"How should I behave?" is (often) a question of inter-relationships between tangible living entities. Entities with brains and feelings and their own desire for well-being.
As such we can make hypothesese about how best to manage those inter-relationships.
Hypothesese can be tested, refined and conclusions drawn. Especially with our advances in neuro-science and psychology.
A scientific approach to ethics and morality.
Sam Harris has written a whole book about it.