Let's Assume Science is a Religion

[The Neo Nerd]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion.

I haven't seen anyone get past the assertion that science is a religion to finish the train of thought.

So finish it off for us, where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

 

[Fraleyight]

Science and religion are two different things under what circumstances could you put the two in the same category? Maybe I don't understand the question...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

From what I can tell, the next step is to say that all religions are methods of attaining knowledge about reality.

Then, compare.

 

[Student of X]

Science spawns a religion - scientism. The line of reasoning leads to the realization that science has been corrupted.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Science spawns a religion - scientism. The line of reasoning leads to the realization that science has been corrupted.

Candles spawn house fires, therefore candles are corrupt. Mothers have children who become politicians, therefore mothers are corrupt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion. ..., where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

It leads to much the same places as does pretending that science is a salad dressing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More seriously, unlike science, religion is not constrained by the requirement of intersubjective verifiability. To paint science as religion does a disservice to both.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion.

I haven't seen anyone get past the assertion that science is a religion to finish the train of thought.

So finish it off for us, where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

I can't really do much with this as it is stated ("let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion"). However, if it doesn't change your intented purposes too much, I can try and pretend that science is as much a product of faith as religion, and that scientific theories are no more "valid" than religious tenets. Under that assumption, then any explanation or model of any aspect of "reality" (perceived or sensed or whatever) is equally valid, as the assumption entails that theories resulting from empirical observation and logic are (for whatever reason) as much a product of faith and human experience as any religious belief, and as valid.

This kind of critique of science isn't new. In particular, within the 20th century the scientific method came under attack from two main (and related) groups: radical philosophers of science who rejected methods (like those of Popper and Lakatos) of dealing with the problems of 19th century positivism (the most troublesome critiques came from the works of Kuhn, Quine, & Feyerabend), and socio-cultural critiques (neo-marxian,feminist, post-colonial, etc.) which held that "science" is simply one "way of knowing" and also (often) seeks to reinforce male dominence or some other elite. Margarita Levin wrote a paper "Caring New World" (The American Scholar, 1988) which specifically addressed certain feminist critiques of science (in particular, the work of Sandra Harding) and "feminine epistomologies" (which see scientific theories as flawed because they are seen through a male lense, which is why evolution is "survival of the fittest" and is all about "competition"). She quotes Harding's comment about Newton's Laws: "[Why] is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's Laws as "Newton's Rape Manual" as it is to call them "Newton's Mechanics?" (p. 102).

I mention this article not because it is the only response to such critiques of the scientific method or science, but because I like Levin's quip:"The promissory notes address only the more morally elevated attitudes that feminist scientists would, presumably, have and the applications of scientific results they would make (or refrain from making). One still wants to know whether feminists' airplaines would stay airborne for feminist engineers" (p. 104).

This doesn't merely apply to feminist critiques, but to pretty much all radical criticisms of science and the scientific method. Newton may have spent more time on biblical scholarship than science, and modern science itself may have spent most of its time as more or less just "philosophy", but the idea that the world obeys certain "laws", that these laws can be discovered through models, empirical observations, and tests, and that the results of these can further our understanding of reality has so far resulted in an incredible amount of technological advancement. I've had over a dozen major surgeries, three skin graphs, three major broken bones (I'm not counting ribs or fingers), and more sutures than I care to remember (so many that I now have my own suture kit, as this way I only need to go to the ER if I require internal stitches again). All of this has been successfully treated by modern medicine, not faith healing. When some other method is developed for understanding the fabric of the cosmos which can also repair a severed nerve and use small blood vessels from my hand to insulate (protect) the nerve by wrapping them around the nerve, then I'll worry about whether science offers nothing more than religion.

 

[Skwim]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion.

I haven't seen anyone get past the assertion that science is a religion to finish the train of thought.

So finish it off for us, where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

Well, there has to be a godhead, maybe even two or more. I think Plato and Aristotle would be good choices---both ancient enough that all kinds of stuff can safely be made up about them.

I then suggest the adoption of some kind of dogma. My candidate is Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. A tough read in the original, but if we get plenty of translators to go at it we could get enough different translations to satisfy just about everyone.

Rituals might include Bunsen Burner Baptism. The Circumlocution of the Tongue (females only at age 13). and Holy Reunion, wherein Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are symbolically united by the solemn sharing of oil and water.

Holidays, of course, would be a must.
I suggest that April 1st be co-opted and designated Creationism, Cranks, & Kooks Day, at which time scientists may publicly laugh at and deride anyone they chose. Diametrically opposite this (calendar-wise) on October 1st, we could have the Season of Reason and Responsibility (need only be a week long) where we all share our most profound scientific thinking of the year. This would be accompanied by attendance at one's local pub where drinking of the Holy Suds and merriment would reign. More somberly, in mid-winter (date to be determined) we could have a service in respect for Our Lady of Perpetual Motion, the doyenne of foolishness---Folly not respected today is folly repeated tomorrow---which would serve to recognize all those who relinquished their mental faculties to the evil of her absurdity.

And all religions need music, so I think Gustav Holst's The Planets, Op. 32 would be perfect, along with Walk the Dinosaur, of course.

[youtube]hWMLQxKFHGo[/youtube]
​

 

[Reptillian]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion.

I haven't seen anyone get past the assertion that science is a religion to finish the train of thought.

So finish it off for us, where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

If science was a religion, then would that make Stephen Hawking like the Pope of Science? He'd at least be a High Priest or something... Getting an MRI or X-Ray akin to acupuncture and aroma therapy. I can imagine public readings from some of the great scientific works.

And lo, the prophet Charles Darwin did say,

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.:angel2:

 

[Erebus]

For the sake of this thread let's pretend science/the scientific method is a religion.

I haven't seen anyone get past the assertion that science is a religion to finish the train of thought.

So finish it off for us, where does this line of reasoning ultimately lead to.

The problem with "science as a religion" isn't with science itself or indeed the majority of scientists. Instead it lies with those people who perhaps have a little knowledge and then proceed to give science a pseudo-religious reverence.

These are the people who will claim that the scientific method is the one true method of determining truth. Trust anything that sounds scientific and dismiss anything that doesn't without investigation into either. Attempt to bully or convert those who disagree with their worldview.

In essence they act and think in the same way as their religious counterparts seemingly without realizing it. So ultimately what you end up with when you take science as religion is a group of obnoxious pseudo-intellectuals.

Conversely, using the scientific method as a means of navigating through life is IMO perfectly fine and probably healthier than relying solely on hunches or feelings. The only time you have to depart from the scientific method is when considering abstract concepts (such as art) but even then a lot of what used to be considered divine or magical can now be explained scientifically. Physical attractiveness largely falls down to mathematics, magic can be successfully performed through psychology and emotion can be described chemically.

 

[Quintessence]

As someone who DOES believe that science is a fundamentally religious pursuit, it leads to understanding that science can play a role in people's lives that is the functional equivalent of religion. It provides an ordered, structured worldview that informs our pursuit of truth and meaning. That's basically what religion does, in a broad sense. I have pursued a career in science because I enjoy probing the mysteries of the universe. This is the same thing religion does, only science limits its toolbox to that which can be measured with a meter stick and tested with statistics. This enables it to intimately understand the mechanics behind our physical universe, but leaves it lacking in other areas. For those other areas, I turn to a mystery religion that encourages direct exploration of the more subtle aspects of reality.

I can understand why many in my culture, however, don't see the parallels between science and religion that I do. People form their ideas about religion form what they're exposed to and it's been my general experience that many Americans lack awareness of the depth and breadth of religion or what it can mean to be religious. They're generally only exposed to a few types of Christianity, especially groups receiving spotlight attention for coming into conflict with science. This understandably leads many to believe that not only is it impossible for science to be religion (or religious), but that they're necessarily in conflict with each other. Perceptual salience. That's a good term for what's going on here. We form our judgements based on our awareness. I exist in this zone of religion+science that in one forum/discussion will bring me accusations of being a "closed-minded scientist" and in another labels like "irrational New Age hippie." I find it very funny.

Personal anecdotes aside, it's why I see strong parallels between science and religion. I can never quite decide, though, if I see them more as A) two circles with considerable (but not total) overlap or, B) religion as a giant circle that the tinier circle of science falls inside of. I'm comfortable shifting between various thought-paradigms, so settling on one or the other - or some option C or D - doesn't particularly bother me.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Thank-you to Quin for his reply, its the kind of response I was looking for.

So are you saying that both science and religion serve to answer the same fundamental questions of life?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As someone who DOES believe that science is a fundamentally religious pursuit, it leads to understanding that science can play a role in people's lives that is the functional equivalent of religion. It provides an ordered, structured worldview that informs our pursuit of truth and meaning.

Give me an example of science informing us of meaning.

 

[HerDotness]

Thank-you to Quin for his reply, its the kind of response I was looking for.

If that sort of thing was the type of answer you were seeking, then your leadup and question were much too openended. Please try to be more precise if you ask something of the sort again.

I had no idea that you were asking for Quintessence's type of response.

 

[Quintessence]

Thank-you to Quin for his reply, its the kind of response I was looking for.

So are you saying that both science and religion serve to answer the same fundamental questions of life?

Your welcome!

I think I would observe that they serve to answer the same categorical types of questions, but when it comes down to the details, there are sometimes fundamental differences in the approach or the types of questions asked. There are fundamental differences in approaches and questions between different religions as well, though, so though these distinctions are important, I still think there are useful comparisons to be made by viewing science as religion/religious. Each path will give more weight to certain questions and goals than others and consider some methods more valid than others. Put another way, religions as well as science are ways of knowing and can serve as cornerstones for a person's worldview.

Give me an example of science informing us of meaning.

Although I understand it's not the intent of science itself to make claims about meaningfulness and purposiveness - that does after all dive into making teleological statements that are non-science - in practice people who accept a scientific worldview will inevitably shape how we view purpose and meaning. Some of us do it more consciously than others. I draw meaning from science in a conscious fashion as part of my path, though I recognize that these conclusions I draw are not, in of themselves, science.

So I suppose if you want to split hairs, you can make a fair argument of science not being a religion since ideologically it is not supposed to ask teleological questions and remain objective/impersonal. In functional practice, though, I truly think that science does have a role in people's lives that can be analogous to religion. It inevitably informs our worldview, which in turns shapes how we ask and answer the "big questions" of life (e.g., who we are, what we're doing here, what the right relationship should be to other people or the environment, and so forth). It's no coincidence that many scientists are atheists. Science serves as their religion.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Science serves as their religion.

I would like to be pedantic here and argue this point.

I agree with you that science and religion are ways in which a person can make sense of their world. They of course answer different questions

However to equate science as a religion indicates that you believe that religion is the primary consideration and science is a secondary proposition.

There is a guy called Abraham Maslow, proposed a heirarchy of needs.

In this model each of the needs must be met before the next one up can be considered.

It can be seen that science can help with the 2 most important ones physiology and safety and to a certain degree the 3rd, but all but useless for the last 2. It is not until you get from the 3rd one up that religion can be of any use.

So according to this model i argue that science is more important to the individual than religion.

 

[HerDotness]

Getting into science couldn't help a person be creative, solve problems, and accept facts more readily?

I can see how knowing/learning about science would meet the top two better than the first two, actually.

The first two deal solely with those essential needs being fulfilled before the person can effectively move to building friendships, family relationships or sexual intimacy, not with learning how they are fulfilled or why fulfilling them is necessary.

If you're starving, extremely thirsty, or sleep-deprived, for instance, you won't be good for anything else until those basic needs are satisfied.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I suppose if you want to split hairs, you can make a fair argument of science not being a religion since ideologically it is not supposed to ask teleological questions and remain objective/impersonal. In functional practice, though, I truly think that science does have a role in people's lives that can be analogous to religion. It inevitably informs our worldview, which in turns shapes how we ask and answer the "big questions" of life (e.g., who we are, what we're doing here, what the right relationship should be to other people or the environment, and so forth). It's no coincidence that many scientists are atheists. Science serves as their religion.

In other words (in fact, many, many words): no, science is not religion and the fact that science informs our worldview is simply irrelevant. This is not splitting hairs but differentiating domains.

Parenthetically, Marx once wrote:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."​

Social being is not religion either.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not interested in getting in an argument about which is "more important" because inevitably this boils down to subjective value judgements. My answer would be patently "neither" or "ask an individual, get an individual answer that's right for that individual."

As orienting worldviews, I can see both science and religion being variously applied to any and all of those levels, depending on the person/culture and situation in question. In general, I'm not a fan of Maslow's hierarchy. It's simply not true that the needs of one must be met for anything above to be considered. I'm sorry, but even if you are starving, morality (among other "higher" tier considerations) is probably going to keep you from stabbing your sibling in the heart and cannibalizing her. Some of the general ideas of the pyramid are useful, but we have to be careful if we think that these ideas are truly divided from each other by stark lines and categorically distinct colors. It's a map, not the territory.