Should science be considered a religion?

[gnomon]

Most definitions of science make it a religion. Obviously it's not a theistic religion, but it's a set of beliefs about the nature, cause, and metaphysics of the universe. I think it's probably a good idea to think of it as a religion. A single belief is not a religion because a religion is a set of inter-referential beliefs.

Also, please keep in mind that science and religion are two of the language's hardest words to define adequately. So there is a large variety of valid opinion on this subject... because the question is quite vague.

For instance, the scientific method isn't a religion, but a method. But many people confuse scientific method with science, when they are not the same. In the same way, many confuse Christianity with religion. They are not the same thing.

The Purple Knight

I don't agree. Science is the categorization of observations, or facts. Then one can apply a form of reason to pursue a hypothetical. A method of experimentation is then applied to validate or invalidate the line of reasoning.

That is nothing like religion or spirituality. It's not even philosophy for most people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't agree. Science is the categorization of observations, or facts. ... That is nothing like religion or spirituality. It's not even philosophy for most people.

That impresses me as overly simplistic. Science is both the quest for knowledge and a quest methodology. And if religion can be defined as "the impulse for coherence and meaning" [Yi-Fu Tuan], then the two are not that distant from one another.

 

[lilithu]

Hi Jay, nice to see you around again.

That impresses me as overly simplistic. Science is both the quest for knowledge and a quest methodology. And if religion can be defined as "the impulse for coherence and meaning" [Yi-Fu Tuan], then the two are not that distant from one another.

Science is certainly coherent, much more so than religions generally are. But science, being objective, has no "meaning" in the sense that is usually thought of in religion. Granted that there is a wide variety of proffered definitions for religion, but I think that all religions seek in some way to address the question of "What is the purpose of my life?" Science does not attempt to offer an answer to this. Science offers no speculations on morality.

Some people have interpreted meaning from science and attempted to insert meaning into science, but that is no longer science. That is what some of us call "scientism," which could be considered a religion.

 

[Prometheus]

:shout Oh, dear Science, please bless the sick that they might be healed...

Oh, you are? Why, thank you, Science!

:shout Dear Science, please find a way to make more food so that more people can be fed...

Oh, you have? Why, thank you, Science!

:shout Dear Science, please give me shelter, a warm bed, clothing and maybe some kind of automobile so I can get to work...

Oh, you have? Why, thank you, Science!

If Science is my god, it's doing more than any other god has done for me, that's for sure.

 

[gnomon]

That impresses me as overly simplistic. Science is both the quest for knowledge and a quest methodology. And if religion can be defined as "the impulse for coherence and meaning" [Yi-Fu Tuan], then the two are not that distant from one another.

Yes, science is a quest for knowledge but this is a euphamism and not a definition. Hacking into someone else's computer is a quest for knowledge as well.

I find that there is no wisdom to be gained in equating the two.

Chevalier Violet defined science as a set of beliefs. That is not the meaning of science. It is not a collection of beliefs.

edit: Science and religion are both connected with philosophy. I shouldn't have said in my previous post that it's not philosophy for most lpeople.

 

[lilithu]

:shout Oh, dear Science, please bless the sick that they might be healed...

Oh, you are? Why, thank you, Science!

:shout Dear Science, please find a way to make more food so that more people can be fed...

Oh, you have? Why, thank you, Science!

:shout Dear Science, please give me shelter, a warm bed, clothing and maybe some kind of automobile so I can get to work...

Oh, you have? Why, thank you, Science!

If Science is my god, it's doing more than any other god has done for me, that's for sure.

Um, that's not Science that does that. It's people. Just as it was not Science that dropped the bombs on Japan. It was not Science that "gave" 19 men the four airplanes that killed thousands. It is not Science that is causing global warming/climate change. It's all people.

So we went from "Is science a religion?" to "Is science a god?"

Science be praised. :areyoucra

 

[Prometheus]

Um, that's not Science that does that. It's people. Just as it was not Science that dropped the bombs on Japan. It was not Science that "gave" 19 men the four airplanes that killed thousands. It is not Science that is causing global warming/climate change. It's all people.

So we went from "Is science a religion?" to "Is science a god?"

Science be praised. :areyoucra

Well, it's satire. So meh.

Besides, can you show me a bomb or airplane that was invented without using scientific principles? That's my point, really.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I don't agree. Science is the categorization of observations, or facts. Then one can apply a form of reason to pursue a hypothetical. A method of experimentation is then applied to validate or invalidate the line of reasoning.

That is nothing like religion or spirituality. It's not even philosophy for most people.

I'm not surprised. Again, science is one of the most ill-defined words in the English language, as is religion.

I have found that science is incredibly complex and multi-faceted.

I see science as "rhetoric of knowledge", "a materialistic world-view," a set of blinders about what sorts of questions can and should be answered, science is a "faith" in a certain methodology. Science is a specific cultural movement, and has a cultural aspect with symbols, images, a way of speaking and interacting with the world.

People seem to think of science as objective and non-teleological, but most philosophers of science disagree. I don't think it's difficult to say that there is an underlying utopian vision behind scientific endeavors: betterment of mankind through technology, and end to superstition and speculation.

It is a faith of the doubting, a worldly faith (nothing wrong with that).

I don't know. I am suspicious of people who see science as divorced from the Western culture that created it, and "acultural." I think it is fairly clear that science is a humanistic faith. And bless it, I like science. But I do think there is a lot of merit in the metaphor of calling science a religion. It is a metaphor, because most people don't think of science as literally a religion.

But I see a lot of merit in this.

Again, saying "is science a religion" is like saying is Hemophaguphadarelion an Anthropod. Since both terms are left vague, as is common in "thought" these days, I think their equivalency largely depends on the infinite variety of personal definitions for these terms. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think you view science as a method. Which is a valid part of science.

CV

 

[Ernesto]

Is philosophy a religion? No. It's too broad. And so is science. Science is but the systematic development of theories based upon observable evidence. There is no faith involved. Religion is the belief that - no matter, the circumstances, one's own arrogance will always triumph.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jay, nice to see you around again.

Science is certainly coherent, much more so than religions generally are. But science, being objective, has no "meaning" in the sense that is usually thought of in religion.

Science is both quest and methodology, enquiry and result.

... and it's always nice to find onself in a place occasionaly characterized by people such as you!

 

[gnomon]

Science is both quest and methodology, enquiry and result.

... and it's always nice to find onself in a place occasionaly characterized by people such as you!

But don't you think religion projects a result prior to enquiry. Or at the least, based off enquiry that doesn't adjust well to new discovery?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But don't you think religion projects a result prior to enquiry.

Not necessarily - although religions often do.

 

[Quiddity]

But don't you think religion projects a result prior to enquiry. Or at the least, based off enquiry that doesn't adjust well to new discovery?

It depends....The more absolutist leaning religions tend to struggle more in this regard. But the more relative/pluralistic tend to do much better.

 

[gnomon]

I guess I should adjust my statements to state that the definition of religion is far more open to interpretation whereas science is closed to the limits of deductive and inductive reasoning. However, where one takes what one learns from science and applies it to philosohpy or religion is another matter.

I consider science a closed system in regards to the human intellect which is fallible. Religion predicates otherwise and remains an open system among the human imagination (no offense intended) which must not adhere to logic. It is a significant distinction to me.

Perhaps I should adjust my definition of science to emphasize the nature of methodology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I guess I should adjust my statements to state that the definition of religion is far more open to interpretation whereas science is closed to the limits of deductive and inductive reasoning.

Actually, abduction ...

 

[Aqualung]

From my skeptic nature, I will say that nothing can ever be known. Therefore, science and religion are both a matter of faith (in a skeptical sense). Whichever we deem as having more justification based on our experiences in a subjective world is generally the one we choose, but we don't choose on knowledge, but on belief.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From my skeptic nature, I will say that nothing can ever be known. Therefore, science and religion are both a matter of faith (in a skeptical sense).

The difference being that postulated of the former are intersubjectively verifiable and, in my opinion thereby possess greater ontological warrant.

 

[logician]

While thinking tonight I satrted to think if science should be considered a religion. Many use it to disprove God, so it is as though Athiesm or it's own religion. And if it's a religion should it be taught in school? I would like for people to tell me their opinions on this subject.

Science and religion are opposites, one is based upon making theories and testing those theories with evidence. The other is based in faith, and cannot and does not want to be proven or disproven. Science is NOT a private matter, in fact it is very public, and anyone can debunk anyone else's theory if they come up with counter-evidence. Religion IS a private matter, and their own private beliefs generally can't be debunked since they are based upon faith. That's why science is taught in public schools, and religion is not.

 

[lilithu]

Religion IS a private matter...

No, it's not. Conscience is a private matter. They're not the same.

 

[Aqualung]

The difference being that postulated of the former are intersubjectively verifiable and, in my opinion thereby possess greater ontological warrant.

Great point!