Is Science Becoming a Religion?

  • #1
reasonmclucus
197
0
There appears to be a human need for some type of a set of religious beliefs. These beliefs are truths that are generally expected to be accepted without question. Religion typically has dealt with two basic issues: defining accepted behaviors and defining the relationship of individuals to humanity in general and humanity to the cosmos. Religion has often involved some form of diety or intelligence, but doesn't have to. A belief that dieties cannot exist is just as much a religious belief as a belief in a diety.

Religion provides definite answers. Science provides possible answers and asks questions. Empirical science relies on continued experimentation and obsevation to verify concepts called theories and suggest possible new theories. Science encourages checking on previously accepted theories because it recognizes that if the theory is valid if will hold up to any new challenge.

I'm going to provide examples of science as a religion in separate posts to simply the reply process.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I think you would get replies if you actually stated how science is becoming a religion now instead of later.
 
  • #3
reasonmclucus
197
0
One of the best examples of science as a religion is discussion of the origin of the universe and the origin of biological life. Both subjects have been traditionally dealt with by religion. There seems to be a human need to determine where humans came from.

Neither subject can be verified through experimentation or observation because they occurred in the distant past under conditions that are unlikely to exist today. Yet, many "scientists" believe that they can state with absolute certainty exactly how each happened. These "scientists" believe that even though their is no scientific verification of life developing through slow gradual changes that the subject should be closed to any serious challenge.

The process of change through gradual changes is appealing because it is the process humans use to produce everything from technology to literary works to computer programs. Whether very complex biological life could develop through this process without the intervention of some intelligence is very much open to question as is the claim by those with an opposing view that the God of Abraham zapped all species into existence fully developed.

I am not interested here in how life developed, but in the idea that our still relatively limited knowledge of biological life doesn't provide sufficient data to make absolute statements about how life developed.

The complexity and size of the genetic code would argue against development of the original features of complex animals, including appropriate placement of body parts through random changes. How would the legs be placed where they could support the body through random changes if inappropriate placement would leave the animal unable to move? Only a diety would seem to be able to develop animals through gradual changes, but suspect a diety would find a more sophisticated procedure.

LIke in political debates members of the two main beliefs, evolution and creatonism, argue that people have to accept one of the other instead of developing an explanation that sounds more plausible.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I'll let someone else point out the glaring and quick mistake you made and ill predict that this thread will reach about 200 posts of arguments.
 
  • #5
reasonmclucus
197
0
Another example involves embryonic research. some "scientists" decided in the past that embryonic cells provided the "most promising" means of developing new cells to replace damaged cells in humans. This belief grew out of the belief, since discredited, that various parts of the body were unable to generate new cells. They believed that the brain, for example, once developed didn't add new cells.

Research during the last 20 years has gradually demonstrated that humans do produce new cells from stem cells, including brain cells. Researcher also are using a patient's own stem cells to treat various disorders.

Embryonic researchers have yet to demonstrate that they can use embryonic cells to treat anything, but they still claim embryonic research is the "most promising." Science is supposed to be pragmatic. The "most promising" research in science should be the one that produces the best results.

Logically scientists should expect that human bodies capable of surviving 100 years or more would have the ability to produce new cells over a long period of time. The most long lived would likely have the best genes for producing such new cells.
 
  • #6
reasonmclucus
197
0
Climate research played a major role in development of the math/science of chaos theory. Chaos deals with complex systems in which outcomes involve the interaction of many factors.

Yet, many climatologists claim that climate is primarily determined by the amoung of a very minor atmospheric gas, Carbon Dioxide(CO2). They believe they can determine future climate simply by knowing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

They don't have to worry about factors such as changes in solar energy output, variations in the Earth's orbit and random events such as volcanic eruptions. They also believe they can ignore human related factors such as the amount of heat generated by human activity and changes in land use such as replacing plants that convert solar radiation into organic molecules with buildings and pavement that convert solar radiation into heat.

Research has shown that urban heat islands can be 5 C warmer than the surrounding countryside which would be unlikely to be the result of CO2 emissions.

The desire for a simple explanation is common in religion as is the tendency to view things as good or evil. Treating CO2 as an "evil" gas that must be gotten rid of is consistent with religion.

Science indicates that CO2 and other natural occurring molecules can have both positive and negative impacts. CO2 is necessary for plant growth, but too much in a small area can adversely affect human health. Water has the same situation. It is necessary for the human body but too much water in the human body can kill it.


The idea that humans are responsible for any adverse changes is common in religion. Adverse conditions have often been seen by leaders in various religions as an indcation that people are being punished by the god or gods. If the volcano becomes active it means the island residents should throw in a virgin to placate the volcano god.

Even though significant climatic changes have occurred in the past, many believe that warming that has occurred in some places(Kansas has actually had cooler summer the last 15 years than the preceding 15 years) must result from some type of human activity and humans must stop this activity to return the situation to normal. The possibility that these changes may result from factors beyond the control of humans isn't considered because the possiblity that humans cannot control the physical scares some people.
 
  • #7
Canute
1,559
0
I'm not sure that the arguments you make establish that science is religion, although I agree that it is not easy to see what makes them particulalry different from each other. However, religion is about absolute truths and certain knowledge, science is not, and this seems to be one difference.

Still, science is increasingly mathematics, and physicist John Barrow has remarked that, if a religion is defined to be a system of thought which requires belief in unprovable truths, then mathematics is the only religion that can prove it is a religion.

I wouldn't agree with this definition of religion, unless by 'unprovable' he means undemonstrable rather than unverifiable, but it's an interesting comment.
 
  • #8
cragwolf
169
0
How's Kansas in the 21st century? Coping alright?
 
  • #9
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
841
15
ReasonMcClucus...you forgot one important and crucial detail that sets religion apart from science-FAITH. Every human who considers themselves religious has faith in the same thing, in the scientific community, your education, knowledge, and experience with what you are studying can vary from other people, thus you have more or less understanding of the specific scientific process. With religion, everyone is on the same level of ground in knowing if "god" is real or not (provided the definition of "god" is consistent with everyone).

For those people who have less education and knowledge of science in general or for specific areas of it, they do have a certain amount of faith that those conducting observations and experiments are doing so as objectively as possible. This is the *ideal* setting for science to be successful, however, money, power and politics can play a role in swaying details and specific results.

There can also be a certain amount of arrogance in science, giving a somewhat "absolute" answer to why things are they way they are. We do have some absolute answers to many questions, but not all. There might be a small percentage of scientists so wrapped up in their own gratification of achievment that they forget-science is a work in progress.
 
  • #10
reasonmclucus
197
0
Canute said:
I'm not sure that the arguments you make establish that science is religion, although I agree that it is not easy to see what makes them particulalry different from each other. However, religion is about absolute truths and certain knowledge, science is not, and this seems to be one difference.

Still, science is increasingly mathematics, and physicist John Barrow has remarked that, if a religion is defined to be a system of thought which requires belief in unprovable truths, then mathematics is the only religion that can prove it is a religion.

I wouldn't agree with this definition of religion, unless by 'unprovable' he means undemonstrable rather than unverifiable, but it's an interesting comment.

Science in general is not a religion yet, but it is moving in that direction. Many scientists treat concepts as "absolute truths and certain knowledge" rather than approximations of reality.

Evolutionists and advocates of greenhouse gas "theory" are convinced that there is no way they could be wrong. Evolutionists don't believe any students should be exposed to questions about evolution. Those who support greenhouse gas theory argue it should be accepted because of the number of climatologists who support it instead of providing scientific evidence showing that it is possible.

Math is playing a greater role in science because math deals with methods of evaluating and organizing information. Chaos theory is showing that mathematical relationships are present in many phenomena that previously seemed to be random.
 
  • #11
reasonmclucus
197
0
cragwolf said:
How's Kansas in the 21st century? Coping alright?

I'm not sure Kansas is in the 21st Century yet. The politicians of 40 years ago had better vision than the ones today.

The state is considering allowing discussion of Intelligent Design in public schools. I.D. is the closest thing to a scientific approach to the issue of the origin of life although it isn't an explanation. As Mr. Spock might say there are insufficient data to explain the origin of life.
 
  • #12
reasonmclucus
197
0
Kerrie said:
ReasonMcClucus...you forgot one important and crucial detail that sets religion apart from science-FAITH. Every human who considers themselves religious has faith in the same thing, in the scientific community, your education, knowledge, and experience with what you are studying can vary from other people, thus you have more or less understanding of the specific scientific process. With religion, everyone is on the same level of ground in knowing if "god" is real or not (provided the definition of "god" is consistent with everyone).

For those people who have less education and knowledge of science in general or for specific areas of it, they do have a certain amount of faith that those conducting observations and experiments are doing so as objectively as possible. This is the *ideal* setting for science to be successful, however, money, power and politics can play a role in swaying details and specific results.

There can also be a certain amount of arrogance in science, giving a somewhat "absolute" answer to why things are they way they are. We do have some absolute answers to many questions, but not all. There might be a small percentage of scientists so wrapped up in their own gratification of achievment that they forget-science is a work in progress.

Evolutionists say that evolution should be accepted on faith, as do those biologists would support the creationists explanation. Evolutionists don't want to allow any discussion of how life developed that would be inconsistent with the idea that it just happened rather than being developed by some form of Intelligence or brought here by some E.T.

Greenhouse gas advocates expect their idea to be accepted on faith. They provide no empirical evidence that it is possible for low energy IR to heat the atmosphere.

Advocates of embryonic cells as "the most promising" way to treat all types of diseases including Alzheimer's(which probably cannot be treated with any type of stem cells) rely on faith because of the lack of evidence that embryonic cells can be used to treat human disorders. Research into how cells develop indicates a potential problem in using embryonic cells in that the development process involves modifications to the initial DNA through such processes as the insertion of retrotransposons between sections of coding DNA.

A scientific approach to embryonic research would first seek to understand how cells change during the embryonic stage before making a statement about whether it is possible in complex slow developing species like humans to go from embryonic cells to fully operational specialized cells.
 
  • #13
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Evolutionists say that evolution should be accepted on faith, as do those biologists would support the creationists explanation. Evolutionists don't want to allow any discussion of how life developed that would be inconsistent with the idea that it just happened rather than being developed by some form of Intelligence or brought here by some E.T.

Absolutely not true. Evoltuionists have tons of evidence for evolution including controlled loaboratory experiments with bacteria and many observed instances of speciation. You can only support non-evolutionary schemes by ignoring this evidence.



see http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
  • #14
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,426
4
Given your line of reasoning, reasonmculus, no new research would ever be done and all of science would go to waste. if we didn't speculate and prefer certain methods over others then we would never make advances.

i know of no scientist unprepared to attempt to rebut criticisim if the criticism is well founded. if they cannot rebut it then their theory is not sound. having said that i know plenty of scientists who will not even bother to rebut stupid criticism.

such is the nature of scientists that they will often appear to defend and believe their theories are better than the current evidence may suggest, but they have come to that position usually after careful consideration and in the belief that as more evidence appears it will exonerate them.

would you trust someone unable to passionately and intelligently defend their opinions? sometimes you hve to accept the intuition of those better informed than you. since they are attempting to create reproducible results, or models that predict with accuracy, ultimately the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. if we aren't prepared to take risks then we will miss out on some important discoveries; not everything is immediately obvious.
 
  • #15
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
You should also consider what the alternatives actually are, reasonmcculus:
Jumping straight into believing in the fuzzy ideas from religious fantasy-land, perhaps?
This is NEVER a scientifically acceptable option.
From the scientific point of view, these sort of droolings is just that: spittle to be wiped off without further consideration.

That is the PROPER scientific attitude towards creationism.
 
  • #16
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,391
1,628
no threads on religion.
 
  • #17
neurocomp2003
1,366
3
"Religion provides definite answers" haha does it really?
 
  • #18
Andre
4,509
74
Great thread Reasonmclucus, I'd liked you to show up a bit more in the Earth section.

I'd prefer to call global warming a cult more than a religion. Delicate difference. There are a lot of similarities.

A. (Anthropogenic) Global warming is as impossible to prove as the existence of a deity.
B. Only blind faith in the climate science respective high priest is required to be good.
C. As we all are convinced that it is true, it becomes true.
D. neither climate change nor deity are falsifiable. Climate change has always been true of course.
E. There is a distinct enemy to fight, Lucifer, the satanic gasses, Exxon, the sceptics.
F. having enemies strenghtens the social bonds, which strenghten the determination to defeat them.

Some literature:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html [Broken]
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd040201e.html [Broken]
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
Okay, let's take our science from a science fiction author. Now that puts thing in perspective.
 
  • #20
neurocomp2003
1,366
3
the biggest difference i see is that religion doesn't care about the physicality(mechanics/substance) of things. Which is what science does.
 
  • #21
Andre
4,509
74
let's take our science from a science fiction author.

A Circumstantial ad hominemis is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position.

So what would that change to the value of the lecture?
 
  • #22
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Andre said:
So what would that change to the value of the lecture?

You think maybe Chrichton selected his evidence too narrowly, to support his prejudice, and that maybe a more thorough study of the evidence would disprove his attack?
 
  • #23
Andre
4,509
74
Perhaps not, I formulated a lighthearty observations about global warmers here, without having heard of this speach. Seems to dovetail nicely. I thought about the striking analogies with religion when writing that, but refrained from using it. I did not want to step on more soles. I know the Lomborg story and Crighton is very accurate. I have seen many more similar critique about prediction models from others. So, I see no reason to use ad homs and put in prejudice. Perhaps a little direct critique what is wrong and why?
 
  • #24
reasonmclucus
197
0
arildno said:
You should also consider what the alternatives actually are, reasonmcculus:
Jumping straight into believing in the fuzzy ideas

That is exactly what evolution is, a "fuzzy idea", as is creationism. Darwin suggested the idea of development through gradual change in existing species because that was the only model he was familiar with, he used a similar process to produce his Origin of Species.

Darwin didn't know about the complexities of genetics.

Both creationism and evolution suffer from taking a simplistic approach to a complex issue. The same can be said for the idea of greenhouse gases. It suggests a very simple mechanism for controlling climate.
 
  • #25
reasonmclucus
197
0
neurocomp2003 said:
"Religion provides definite answers" haha does it really?

Yes it does, they may not accurately reflect reality, but they quite often are very definite with no room for alternative views.
 
  • #26
reasonmclucus
197
0
Andre said:
Great thread Reasonmclucus, I'd liked you to show up a bit more in the Earth section.

I'd prefer to call global warming a cult more than a religion. Delicate difference. There are a lot of similarities.

A. (Anthropogenic) Global warming is as impossible to prove as the existence of a deity.
B. Only blind faith in the climate science respective high priest is required to be good.
C. As we all are convinced that it is true, it becomes true.
D. neither climate change nor deity are falsifiable. Climate change has always been true of course.
E. There is a distinct enemy to fight, Lucifer, the satanic gasses, Exxon, the sceptics.
F. having enemies strenghtens the social bonds, which strenghten the determination to defeat them.

Some literature:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html [Broken]
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/pd040201e.html [Broken]
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4139


Thanks. I haven't been able to find enough time for forums lately and have been spending some time in political forums. I have found that starting threads is a good way to have other things come up which prevent me from participating in them.


Your use of the word "cult" might be more accurate considering that cults are often narrowly focused. The disadvantage to the word is that the media tend to use it to refer to organizations like the Branch Davidians that are centered around a strong personality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
reasonmclucus
197
0
mathwonk said:
no threads on religion.

The thread uses religion in a functional sense in terms of how it uses ideas rather than as specific doctrines of different religious organizations.
 
  • #28
reasonmclucus
197
0
selfAdjoint said:
Absolutely not true. Evoltuionists have tons of evidence for evolution including controlled loaboratory experiments with bacteria and many observed instances of speciation. You can only support non-evolutionary schemes by ignoring this evidence.



see http://www.talkorigins.org/

Have any of these controlled experiments result in some biological entity developing a complex feature such as legs, eyes, etc.?

That is the issue in origin of life. How could biological entities develop sophisticated systems like eyes, ears, brains, etc.? Changes in minor characteristics that might lead to becoming separate species aren't the issue.

The debate is too often structured primarily in terms of whether or not some intelligence might have produced biological life rather than in terms of how life developed. A potential problem in this debate is that an intelligence could produce biological life by structuring the physical system so that biological life would automatically develop when appropriate conditions were met and change in response to changes in conditions.

If an intelligence is responsible for biological life it is likely that the intelligence would not produce life by making complex entities fully formed the way creationists believe. The intelligence would be more likely to establish a process for such development. The process suggested by evolutionists would be one possibility but might require too much direct intervention to be attractive.

The only logical possibility I can see for development of life without intervention of an intelligence would be for some type of cell to be able to both acquire DNA, and possibly change it, and store it in a nucleus until it had accumulated a set of DNA capable of developing into complex multicelled organisms. Bacteria are known to be able to acquire DNA across species lines. Some botanists have suggested that some plants may be able to acquire DNA from other plant species -- one of the arguments against genetically altered crops.
 
  • #29
neurocomp2003
1,366
3
explain to me what god/s i made of...or is this unimportant in any religions scheme?
 
  • #30
oldtobor
132
0
Science is similar to religion. It has the same "great expectations" of religions (paradise), it has a form of "prayer" which is "studies, mathematics etc." , it has a somewhat similar look down on common mortals who don't know the high priest art of the scientist. But at least science "kind of works" so it has a much higher practical value.
 
  • #31
Canute
1,559
0
It is more accurate, I think, to say that science is similar to theology, from which it originated, utilising the same methods but altering the underlying asumptions. Religion is something a little different to either, although of course there are no clear boundaries between these three things.
 
  • #32
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,109
18
oldtobor said:
Science is similar to religion. It has the same "great expectations" of religions (paradise), it has a form of "prayer" which is "studies, mathematics etc." , it has a somewhat similar look down on common mortals who don't know the high priest art of the scientist. But at least science "kind of works" so it has a much higher practical value.

Sports is similar to religion. It has the same "great expectations" of religions (paradise), it has a form of "prayer" which is "training, competition etc." , it has a somewhat similar look down on common mortals who don't know the high priest art of the sportsman or woman. But at least sports "kind of works" so it has a much higher practical value.

Art is similar to religion. It has the same "great expectations" of religions (paradise), it has a form of "prayer" which is "studies, expositions etc." , it has a somewhat similar look down on common mortals who don't know the high priest art of the artist. But at least art "kind of works" so it has a much higher practical value.

Politics is similar to religion. It has the same "great expectations" of religions (paradise), it has a form of "prayer" which is "voting, manoeuvering etc." , it has a somewhat similar look down on common mortals who don't know the high priest art of the politician. But at least politics "kind of works" so it has a much higher practical value.

[...]
 
  • #33
Canute
1,559
0
No doubt you are right about the stupidity of George Bush. But the idea he is religious in some way is clearly absurd. Your three bullet points suggest that you must have a strange idea of what religion is. Do you mean Bible-belt creatonist Christianty? If so please don't generalise from such a small and atypical sample.
 
  • #34
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,391
1,628
sorry. late night rash post.
 
  • #35
Andre
4,509
74
Wikipedia has an interesting essay about science and religion.
 

Suggested for: Is Science Becoming a Religion?

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
579
Replies
3
Views
674
Replies
86
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
261
Replies
14
Views
248
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
390
Replies
18
Views
1K
Top