Is science a religion?

[Cagliostro]

In a religion, you put faith in some kind of entity that you believe created everything. If you think about science, and how some have unquestionable faith in science to explain everything, it doesn't seem that far removed.

You have a creation myth (The Big Bang), dogma (the scientific method), and heaps of saints (Darwin, Einstein, etc.).

My brother in law is a Mason, and a requirement of joining the freemasons is to believe in a higher power. Well, being an atheist (I think), he said he fudged on it to say that as the big G you see in Masonic symbology stands for God as well as Geometry, he said he has faith in mathematics. I joked about his belief in the Pi in the Sky.

We are all trying to understand this world we live in, but is it any more valid to say that the drugs this person took cured the person, or the prayers from relatives? Rate of success certainly plays into this, but science has believed some very kooky things until they were later disproven.

I'd say the big difference that sets science apart is that it is generally evolving, where religion tends to remain fairly static, for the most part. Interpretation of religion can be argued that it evolves, but the core beliefs and texts stay in place. Actually, now that I discuss this, the offshoots of particular religions are certainly a form of evolution. For instance, Protestantism in Christianity.

I know a lot of you are saying that science is based on provable facts, whereas religions typically rely on "the word of God" (which isn't to discount Christian scientists who seek out proof that the bible is a historical record). But science is as much of a crapshoot, despite that results are usually a bit more obvious (you turn on the lightswitch, and you get light if the filiments are not broken, or whatnot). But when you get into quantum physics and such, and you start getting into weird paradoxes where things don't behave as they should, it gets to be harder to explain and test and get the result you are expecting.

Anybody care to weigh in?

[Seven Words]

It's pretty straightforward to me. Science deals ONLY with what can be objectively measured, tested, demonstrated. Science inherently allows for the possibility of current teachings to be wrong. Faith is, by definition (at least, the definition held by the vast majority of people) belief in the absence of proof or objective evidence. I personally believe in *some* higher being/s. I have no genuine proof, merely belief based on admittedly subjective experiences.

I think of it as science deals with "what", religion deals with the "why".

[Cagliostro]

Well, let me say that I'm being a little cheeky by bringing up this topic initially. But as science isn't perfect, and most scientists come up with a theory which they then test and can be compromised by how much in love with their theory they are. I'm admittedly loosely translating faith, but I see as much blind faith in science from some than I do from the True Believers.
Also, I must say that I disagree with the "what" and "why" distinction. Both are trying explain what we don't understand. A silly example:

Science: Why did the dinosaurs die off? As near as we can tell some great rock from the sky fell and wiped them out.

Religion: What dinosaurs?

And as for me personally, I'd like to believe in a supreme being(s) of some sort that is guiding us all and we'll eventually get to meet. I have a lot of questions. And I have no proof, but I'm not discounting the possibility either. There are things that occur that I just don't think science can explain.

[wayfriend]

Science is not religion.

Science and religion fill the same niche - they answer our big questions, they fulfill our needs for understanding. As such, they have parallels. But they are competitors, and that must never be forgotten.

This does not mean that they are not both valuable, or that they are not both valid. I think everyone needs to believe in both, and to resolve this Donaldsonian-like paradox for themselves.

[Cagliostro]

Why are they competitors? And if so, explain Christian scientists.

[Seven Words]

Well, let me say that I'm being a little cheeky by bringing up this topic initially. But as science isn't perfect, and most scientists come up with a theory which they then test and can be compromised by how much in love with their theory they are. I'm admittedly loosely translating faith, but I see as much blind faith in science from some than I do from the True Believers.
Also, I must say that I disagree with the "what" and "why" distinction. Both are trying explain what we don't understand. A silly example:

Science: Why did the dinosaurs die off? As near as we can tell some great rock from the sky fell and wiped them out.

Religion: What dinosaurs?

And as for me personally, I'd like to believe in a supreme being(s) of some sort that is guiding us all and we'll eventually get to meet. I have a lot of questions. And I have no proof, but I'm not discounting the possibility either. There are things that occur that I just don't think science can explain.

OK, semantic differences. How life began is a matter of science, i.e., the exact (hopefully eventually anyways) conditions and reactions that led to life. Like, the Big Bang...Science explains exactly what happened (ideally...the explanation has been getting more detailed and accurate over the years), but what CAUSED the entirety of the Universe to go BANG? That is where I believe the divine comes in. Proof of this divine? None whatsoever. It's just faith.

[rusmeister]

One rather obvious thing that gets left out of such discussions is people's attitudes toward science. It is typical to anthropomorphize the concept and speak of it impersonally and describe what science and religion are in theory (Science does this, science does that, science grows fat in middle age...). But a rather obvious fact is that science is conducted by human beings, who begin their inquiries with a certain world view, and certain dogmas which they do not question. So while the concept of science may be impartial, there actually is an element of partiality, even on the part of scientists, from the very beginning. But most significant is the attitude of the general populace toward science, and in our age I think we can say that it is a religious attitude. "If scientists say it, it must be true" can be heard at least as often as "if priests say it, it must be true" in the Middle Ages. An unquestioning faith in science as something both revealing absolute truth and as a cure for our ills is rather the hallmark of our day, as a general trend.


Another remarkable abandonment in our time is that of philosophy. In the age of science, philosophy is something that is not taught in school at all, and is treated as a smorgasbord of opinion rather than a serious search for truth and identification of what IS; something that religions tend to include as part of the package.

The idea that religion and science are competitors is wishful thinking on the part of people who reject/deny God, and totally false (speaking most especially as regards traditional Christianity). It tends to be based on an inadequate knowledge of religion in history, most specifically philosophy and theology of religion, and relies heavily on the presence of religious extremists and modern movements that have broken with any long-standing or ancient tradition, whose ideas actually do contradict science.

For an intelligent consideration of the question and refutation of said idea:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/sciencessavages.htm

Ditto on philosophy:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

[Loredoctor]

One rather obvious thing that gets left out of such discussions is people's attitudes toward science. It is typical to anthropomorphize the concept and speak of it impersonally and describe what science and religion are in theory (Science does this, science does that, science grows fat in middle age...). But a rather obvious fact is that science is conducted by human beings, who begin their inquiries with a certain world view, and certain dogmas which they do not question. So while the concept of science may be impartial, there actually is an element of partiality, even on the part of scientists, from the very beginning. But most significant is the attitude of the general populace toward science, and in our age I think we can say that it is a religious attitude. "If scientists say it, it must be true" can be heard at least as often as "if priests say it, it must be true" in the Middle Ages. An unquestioning faith in science as something both revealing absolute truth and as a cure for our ills is rather the hallmark of our day, as a general trend.


Another remarkable abandonment in our time is that of philosophy. In the age of science, philosophy is something that is not taught in school at all, and is treated as a smorgasbord of opinion rather than a serious search for truth and identification of what IS; something that religions tend to include as part of the package.

The idea that religion and science are competitors is wishful thinking on the part of people who reject/deny God, and totally false (speaking most especially as regards traditional Christianity). It tends to be based on an inadequate knowledge of religion in history, most specifically philosophy and theology of religion, and relies heavily on the presence of religious extremists and modern movements that have broken with any long-standing or ancient tradition, whose ideas actually do contradict science.

For an intelligent consideration of the question and refutation of said idea:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/sciencessavages.htm

Ditto on philosophy:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

What you are arguing is that people who believe science is the answer to everything. I do not deny that there are people who do that. However, science itself is a process for testing theories. One's attitude towards it, or one's belief of science, is largely irrelevant to science. Science only cares for experimental falsifiability, reliability, and concurrent validity. The body of scientists, or the 'establishment' is meant to focus on test-retest of data, experimental methodologies (including criticism), and peer review.

For a very good exploration of the scientific process, I recommend you read Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Test and Measurement. 5th Edition. I also suggest you read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Fist and Faith]

I've often said that people should not attempt science to answer why things happen. Its job is to examine how things happen. How does water get into the sky so that rain can fall? How can two things that are very different in weight fall at the same rate? Etc, etc, etc...

OTOH, religion should not attempt to answer how things happen. Its job is to answer why. Why does the universe exist? Why am I alive? Etc, etc, etc...

Some people are more concerned with they Why's, and some are more concerned with the How's. To each their own.

In the sense that Loremaster said, science is certainly not a religion. Science very often thinks it has found an answer to this or that. However, it always questions. It always doubts. It always examines past answers in the light of new knowledge. Bad scientists - the kind who hope to use science to disprove religious beliefs - may refuse to accept such things. In fact, some have falsified data, or even manufactured fake evidence to support their ideas. But science eventually figures it out. The lies cannot stand forever in the face of the real facts of the universe.

Will science ever answer every (How) question? I don't know. But I don't know if there will ever be an end to the questions, either.

[Loredoctor]

Great post, as usual, Fist.

[Fist and Faith]

Aw, shucks.

Heh. Thanks.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, loremaster reminds me of the problem when talking about religion, many talk about what they've seen believers in said religion and base what the religion is on that view, instead of studying the religion itself. The same can be said of science - separate what science is from how some view it. Of course, like religion, what these things are can be debatable.

Which speaks to rus' point, that humans define these things, each possibly having a different definition.

EDIT: And I would say science deals w/natural, excluding that there is a supernatural, therefore, there is a natural explanation for everything we know/experience/see. In my mind, religion deals w/supernatural, which doesn't discount that natural forces are at work (altho I'm sure there are some religions that would say everything is a supernatural event). Granted, today, religion could mean a bit more, I think the celebrity worship is a type of religion. So religion would be a bit harder to define than science.

[Cagliostro]

EDIT: And I would say science deals w/natural, excluding that there is a supernatural, therefore, there is a natural explanation for everything we know/experience/see. In my mind, religion deals w/supernatural, which doesn't discount that natural forces are at work (altho I'm sure there are some religions that would say everything is a supernatural event).

I think that is a fair distinction, and probably the best difference between the two. Although there are some areas of science that try to explain the supernatural (ghost hunters anyone?), but I wonder how many are professional hoaxters.

I'm laying my cards out on the table now and say that I really was playing with semantics, for the most part. But I think rusmeister caught on to what I was trying to say, and later loremaster. I figured if I flailed around enough I'd eventually get across my point. I realize that I frequently muddy up what I'm trying to say by trying to be clever. But I wanted to see what conversations started as a result of being a bit more...sensational.
An ex-girlfriend of mine was the first I encountered who called science a religion. It's mainly a criticism of those that feel science can explain everything and don't question what science frequently teaches, which is to question everything and keep testing it. "Givens" during certain periods in history have proved to be "disproved theories" in later years in the world of science, and I think it is good to keep this in mind.

I think it is a lot more fair to call both a belief system (B.S., to steal from Robert Anton Wilson a bit here), and the more you believe in this B.S., the more unlikely you are to see the full picture, in my opinion. There are a lot of gray areas in science though, such as light being both a wave and a particle, and maybe one day science will explain what that is about. I think of the difference kind of like between numbers and letters. You cannot explain a beautiful sunset in numbers just like you can't explain amounts accurately without numbers.

Maybe I'm getting a bit too philosophical...

[rusmeister]

One rather obvious thing that gets left out of such discussions is people's attitudes toward science. It is typical to anthropomorphize the concept and speak of it impersonally and describe what science and religion are in theory (Science does this, science does that, science grows fat in middle age...). But a rather obvious fact is that science is conducted by human beings, who begin their inquiries with a certain world view, and certain dogmas which they do not question. So while the concept of science may be impartial, there actually is an element of partiality, even on the part of scientists, from the very beginning. But most significant is the attitude of the general populace toward science, and in our age I think we can say that it is a religious attitude. "If scientists say it, it must be true" can be heard at least as often as "if priests say it, it must be true" in the Middle Ages. An unquestioning faith in science as something both revealing absolute truth and as a cure for our ills is rather the hallmark of our day, as a general trend.


Another remarkable abandonment in our time is that of philosophy. In the age of science, philosophy is something that is not taught in school at all, and is treated as a smorgasbord of opinion rather than a serious search for truth and identification of what IS; something that religions tend to include as part of the package.

The idea that religion and science are competitors is wishful thinking on the part of people who reject/deny God, and totally false (speaking most especially as regards traditional Christianity). It tends to be based on an inadequate knowledge of religion in history, most specifically philosophy and theology of religion, and relies heavily on the presence of religious extremists and modern movements that have broken with any long-standing or ancient tradition, whose ideas actually do contradict science.

For an intelligent consideration of the question and refutation of said idea:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/sciencessavages.htm

Ditto on philosophy:
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

What you are arguing is that people who believe science is the answer to everything. I do not deny that there are people who do that. However, science itself is a process for testing theories. One's attitude towards it, or one's belief of science, is largely irrelevant to science. Science only cares for experimental falsifiability, reliability, and concurrent validity. The body of scientists, or the 'establishment' is meant to focus on test-retest of data, experimental methodologies (including criticism), and peer review.

For a very good exploration of the scientific process, I recommend you read Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Test and Measurement. 5th Edition. I also suggest you read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Hi LM!
No, that is actually not what I am arguing about at all. I agree that the scientific method is very scientific.
I'm saying that since absolutely everything is interpreted by one's worldview, this goes for the most scientific scientist as well. (If you had perused the links I provided - which I did not provide idly - you would have realized that.) There's no point in my even summarizing the essays for you here - they are so brief that they are but a few minutes each to read.

This brings me to a larger thought - that when we gather, be it online or in life, we always bring our opinions to the table, regardless of how well informed or thought-out they are. I find it far more edifying if we find thought superior to our own, and offer that, as something to force everyone to think. If everyone merely comes from their own knowledge, or lack thereof, then no one can really learn very much on a grand scale.

[stonemaybe]

Hey Rus is back!

A timely topic. There was a 'stink' here a week or two ago when a judge in an employment tribunal recognised 'green' beliefs as being equal to religious beliefs.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-122496 ... liefs.html

Tim Nicholson, 42, had claimed his desire to prevent climate change was protected under laws to prevent workplace discrimination on the grounds of belief. His employer argued that green views were simply a lifestyle choice.
Yesterday, Sir Michael Burton ruled at the Employment Appeal Tribunal that Mr Nicholson's green views qualified as a 'philosophical belief' under the Religion and Belief Regulations 2003.
This opens the way for the married father of one, from Oxford, to claim he was sacked because of his green principles, in the first case of its kind at an employment tribunal.
If he wins he could be entitled to an unlimited compensation payout.
Mr Nicholson was dismissed from his job as head of sustainability at Grainger, the UK's biggest residential landlord, which manages 27,000 properties worth £3billion.
He claims he was unfairly made redundant in July 2008, after two years' service, for criticising senior management.

His criticisms included accusations that executives failed to live up to their own green policies to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, including driving 'the most polluting cars on the road'.
When Mr Nicholson tried to find out how much CO2 Grainger emitted, executives blocked him.
Mr Nicholson said yesterday: 'I'm delighted with the result. I felt I was obstructed from doing my job properly, and in part that was because of my philosophical beliefs.
'My moral and ethical values are similar to those promoted by many of the world religions.
'The difference is mine are not faith-based or spiritual but grounded in overwhelming scientific evidence.'
However, Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, condemned the ruling.
She said: 'When a country abandons its Christian heritage then what happens is there is no legal and moral framework for decision making.
'In a world of human rights, all kinds of religious and philosophical views compete and it leads to legal and social chaos.

[Fist and Faith]

And I would say science deals w/natural, excluding that there is a supernatural, therefore, there is a natural explanation for everything we know/experience/see. In my mind, religion deals w/supernatural, which doesn't discount that natural forces are at work (altho I'm sure there are some religions that would say everything is a supernatural event).

Of course, if science could deal with the supernatural, it would no longer be supernatural. If a miracle - something that violates a natural law - takes place, just the one time, there's not much of a way to study it. But if the same miracle happens repeatedly, and can be studied, measured, quantified, reproduced, predicted... well, it would just be a regular ol' natural thing.

I think that is a fair distinction, and probably the best difference between the two. Although there are some areas of science that try to explain the supernatural (ghost hunters anyone?), but I wonder how many are professional hoaxters.

Every single one of them.

[High Lord Tolkien]

[rusmeister]

Thanks, HLT,
An excellent example of a view held dogmatically, without any willingness to discover new evidence or modify your theory.

Again, I am not talking about the scientific method. I'm talking about the fallible humans who employ it, as well as those who do not. This "presentation" of what faith is is totally inconsistent with that with which serious and intelligent practitioners come to and practice it.

Just as genuine scientists resent false presentations of pseudo-science, we could resent your false presentation of how it is that we believe. It is the very opposite of an actual scientific approach. to the issue.

Point goes to the 'science as religion' crowd.

[rdhopeca]

I find it far more edifying if we find thought superior to our own, and offer that, as something to force everyone to think. If everyone merely comes from their own knowledge, or lack thereof, then no one can really learn very much on a grand scale.

Welcome back Rus. Hope the kids are doing well.

I find it difficult to imagine us agreeing on who the "thought superior to our own" belongs to, based on our conversations in the past. I would find us more likely to learn more if we all came together as equals and listened to each other (there's a thread on this in the Tank, about people changing their thoughts based on heated debate) without someone bringing in a "higher authority" to speak for themselves.

That's just my .02.

[rusmeister]

Hey Rus is back!

Hi Stonemaybe!
Yeah, I'm back.
I think it's the fact that I live in Russia and feel starved for intellectual discussions in English of this sort. Maybe I haven't learned my lesson well enough, so am back for further punishment. But a hopeful sign would be, not that everyone agrees, but that they see that what I would communicate shows a view of the Christian faith that is bigger, more serious and sensible than they have previously known of it. If that's really not possible to communicate (if they have ears to hear but will not hear) then I do need to leave for good.

The thing I would oppose is a slavish adherence to mindless media cant.
An excerpt from Chesterton's "The Thing":

It is no longer a question of liberty from kings and captains
and inquisitors. It is a question of liberty from catchwords
and headlines and hypnotic repetitions and all the plutocratic
platitudes imposed on us by advertisement and journalism.

It is strictly true to say that the average reader of the DAILY MAIL
and the "Outline of History" is inhibited from these intellectual acts.
It is true to say that he CANNOT think that Abraham Lincoln
was a failure. It is true to say that he CANNOT think that a
Republic should have refused to expand as it has expanded.
He cannot move his mind to such a position, even experimentally;
it means moving it out of too deep a rut, worn too smooth by
the swift traffic of modern talk and journalism, all perpetually
moving one way.

These modern people mean by mental activity simply an express train
going faster and faster along the same rails to the same station;
or having more and more railway carriages hooked on to it to be taken
to the same place. The one notion that has vanished from their
minds is the notion of voluntary movement even to the same end.
They have fixed not only the ends, but the means.
They have imposed not only the doctrines, but the words.
They are bound not merely in religion, which is avowedly binding,
but in everything else as well. There are formal praises
of free thought; but even the praises are in a fixed form.
Thousands who have never learned to think at all are urged to think
whatever may take their fancy about Jesus Christ. But they are,
in fact, forbidden to think in any way but one about Abraham Lincoln.