Religion of Science: A Brief History

In summary, the conversation discusses the history of science and its evolution over time. It mentions key figures such as Issiac Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger who made groundbreaking discoveries in physics, leading to the Great Reformation of Science. The conversation also touches on the importance of Quantum Physics and the goal of finding a Grand Unified Theory and a Theory of Everything. The structure of the scientific community is also discussed, with pure mathematicians being seen as the highest and most mysterious of scientists, followed by pure research scientists, and then applied scientists and engineers.
  • #1
Royce
1,539
0
Science as we know it and think of it began 3-400 years ago and progressed steadily until around the turn of the last century. Science had a number of greats but probably none greater than Issiac Newton who discovered gravity by as the legend goes having an apple hit him in the head. Presumably apples didn’t fall from trees prior to Newton’s discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier.
By the 1900 physicist especially considered their work nearly done. They knew everything that they needed to know and would therefore soon know everything. Then along came a number of heretics. Foremost among them was Einstein who discovered first Special and then General Relativity by proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton’s work. About the same time came Schrodinger who invented or discovered Quantum mechanics by putting a cat in a box with a “diabolical device’ and then totally baffled all of his colleagues by telling them that there was no way that they could know whether the cat was dead or alive. These two great heretics brought about the Great Reformation of Science. All science prior to that time was forever deemed Classical Physics and all after was called Modern Physics.
The Great Reformation invalidated and did away with all of the centuries of work, inventions and discoveries of all whom proceeded it. Einstein Theories of relativity were so esoteric and complicated that is was said that only three men completely understood it, Einstein himself of course and someone named Eddington. No one, especially Eddington, knew who the third man was. Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong. He also did away with Newton’s gravity by showing that space was bent, twisted and deformed by matter and everything tended to run down hill as a result.
The importance of Quantum Physics cannot be understated because it revolutionized modern science by coming up with the uncertainty principle, hence Schrodinger’s cat. The uncertainty principle stated that we do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything. Particles are not really particles unless we are looking at them but when we are not looking they turn into waves that can be two different places at the same time and interfere with itself, just like little boys.
The Holy Grail of modern science is GUT, Grand Unified Theory in which all natural forces are united and described by one formula. They have done very well to date and have all of the forces unified except for that pesky demon gravity that Newton let out of the bottle and even Einstein could not get back in. Personally I think a good healthy dose of laxative would help all of them and do away with their GUT problems.
If Gut is their Holy Grail then their ultimate goal, their Nirvana is TOE; and, we occidentals think the Buddhist inscrutable for contemplating their navels. TOE is the Theory Of Everything.
Notice how they love acronyms, more about that later. Once more they think they are on the verge of knowing everything. Is this déjà vu all over again or what.
Now a bit about the structure of Science. One cannot become a scientist unless one devotes a considerable portion of their lives studying at one of their temples. The highest most holly of high priests of science are the pure mathematicians. They may be likened to our Zen Buddhist monk who do nothing but sit around all day meditating. Pure mathematicians work with runes and arcane symbols that originated in ancient Greece and Arabia and are for the most part incomprehensible to most people. They spend their day writing down and manipulating these arcane symbols and runes that have no know meaning and no relationship with anything at all in the real world. In short they dedicate their life doing that which no one understands and that which has no use whatsoever.
The next group in the priesthood of science hierarchy is the pure research scientists. They of course feel that they should be the highest and most holly of high priest as the pure mathematicians are not technically scientists at all. They have a point mainly because their research budgets exceed those of many small undeveloped countries. However if the criteria is how few understand what they are doing and how useless their work is then the pure mathematician wins hand down. The pure research scientist’s main goal in life is to spend more and more money building bigger and bigger devices in order to find smaller and smaller particles by making them go as fast as they can them smashing them into one another and count the pieces left over much like little boys with their toy cars, trucks and trains. Their other most important mission is to publish more books, and papers faster than others.
The next group down the line is the applied scientist. This is the first group who is actually do anything worth while as they work to apply the work of those above them to the real world and do or make something actually useful. This of course diminishes their reputation and stature in the society of scientist. One can usually tell the stature and rank of a scientist by counting the number of acronyms behind his name
Then there are engineers who are not even considered scientist because they actually do things in the real world. They are often supervised by applied scientists who may on occasion if no one is looking actually do something themselves blurring the division between scientist and engineer. The engineers main job is to take the product, theories, of applied scientist and change them however necessary so that they might actually work and make drawing and diagrams of machines or devises or things.
The lowest level is the lay level of technicians, who are not scientist at all but they may be engineers, who are essentially necessary to the whole process by building what the engineers design then make changes until it actually works and performs their proper function. On very rare occasions the changes made all along the way have actually made there way back up the system forcing the pure scientist to change their theories. Rather than dismay and embarrass them this causes the scientist immense delight as that gives them an excuse to spend more money and write more books.
As real religions have been around for as long as mankind, at least ten thousand years and has been proven to be true by the testimony of millions and science has only been around for a few hundred years and is supported by the testimony of only a relative few who no one but their acolytes pretend to understand; and, even they or their interpreters admit that they do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything, thus painting themselves into a corner; I feel that the Religion of Science is just another inexplicable fad and will soon go the way of all fads fading away into history just as the Pythagoreans did, thank God.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Despite any similarities they might have, science is not a religion. You can make a religion out of science, just as you can make a religion out of pac-man if you want, but science itself is not a religion. Religions all worship a God or Divinity, in other words:



The religious do it with worship.

While

Scientists do it with objectivity.

Think I'll design a T-Shirt.
 
  • #3
Enjoyable reading Royce !
But, like Wu Li said; science is not a religion. Though with the way some people carry on you would think it was

Think I'll design a T-Shirt.
I’d like one of those with philosophers in it that you hit me with in another thread, haha.
 
  • #4
Yeah. The topic title makes the post not worth reading. Looks good but, should have chosen another topic.
 
  • #5
One more difference between science and religion:

Science is pretty much defined by a method of inquiry, plus a constant test of all assumptions made.

Onthe other hand, religion (by its very essense), is based on the idea that "absolute truth" has been revealed by some absolute entity (god, nature, the universe, math, etc.), which implies that it does not make sense to question it. Rather, the logical think to do is to find out a way to make human thinking compatible with revealed truth.
 
  • #6
There's no point in comparing religion to science. They have zero in common. It's like comparing time and bananas. It's pointless.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Royce
Presumably apples didn't fall from trees prior to Newton's discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier.

Newton's contribution did not consist on noticing that apples fall. Instead, he realized that the falling of apples and the orbit of planets' satellites were governed by the same physical interaction, and correctly described them. He put on the same foot the falling of bodies and the movement of the planets, and showed how Kepler's laws were a corollary of one simple interaction.

It is hard to emphasize enough the fact that, while doing so, he showed that the behavior of heavenly objects was the same as that of earthly objects.

proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton's work.

Classical mechanics was not "done away with". Einstein successfully described the deviations that exist wrt Newtonian predictions when high speeds are involved and when experimental precision is far better than that used in most engineering applications (even today)

The Great Reformation invalidated and did away with all of the centuries of work, inventions and discoveries of all whom proceeded it.

GR and QM did not invalidate CM. They are refinements, but a physical theory is a predictive model, and CM is still as valid as always for many applications. Nobody on his rigth mind would design a desk using a quantum field theory description of every quark used for it. The adequate model for this would be CM and maybe thermodynamics.

Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window

The gist is that, even if you look out a window, you can only say how fast you go with respect to an object you choose.

and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong.

The point is not that all are wrong, but that there's no "universal correct time" to decide if any clock is right or wrong.

The uncertainty principle stated that we do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything.

This is so general a statement that it is true regardless of QM!
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Royce
Now a bit about the structure of Science. One cannot become a scientist unless one devotes a considerable portion of their lives studying at one of their temples.

As you'll read later, I disagree with some of the statements you make, however, there is a way in which I agree with what you are saying. I wrote about this at some point on PF2, I think.

In the middle ages (and much before), wizards, alchemists, druids and others were organized in brotherhoods. They did their best to find how to harness the powers hidden in nature. They found many of those secrets and, out of necessity, invented ways to describe them, with words and symbols that were only meaningful to the initiated.

They chose apprentices and tought them what they learned. After many generations, much knowledge started to pile up, and they found what they were looking for: ways to control and use the forces of nature.

I sometimes think of science not as a religion, but as the legacy of wizards. Magic. Real magic.
 
  • #9
Is there a difference between science and religion? ...

Science represents the outer Masculine form, or shell, derived from the Feminine inner essence or "spirit" -- i.e., Religion. Of course if the "life within," religion itself, dies, then it would all have kind of a hollow ringing inside now wouldn't it? Hmm ...

While I guess without science or religion, then we would all be a bunch of monkeys now wouldn't we?
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between science and religion? ...

Science represents the outer Masculine form, or shell, derived from the Feminine inner essence or "spirit" -- i.e., Religion. Of course if the "life within," religion itself, dies, then it would all have kind of a hollow ringing inside now wouldn't it? Hmm ...

While I guess without science or religion, then we would all be a bunch of monkeys now wouldn't we?

Humans did not separate them from their apes fellow because they started science or religion, but because they practiced labour and the use of tools.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by heusdens
Humans did not separate them from their apes fellow because they started science or religion, but because they practiced labour and the use of tools.
Do you mean as God commanded Adam to work by the sweat of his brow? (Genesis 3:19).
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean as God commanded Adam to work by the sweat of his brow? (Genesis 3:19).

No, I mean the http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1876-Hands/" [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between science and religion?

Yes. Science = facts, religion = no facts and even CONTRARY to facts.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by ahrkron
...plus a constant test of all assumptions made.
Please enlarge the font, make it move across the
screen and post it again ! Because some people
here just don't get it and thus provide a reason
to other people to start threads on subjects
such as this one. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #15
Wouldn't do any good. They are so busy denying everything anybody else thinks, knows or believes they will never get it. Getting it lends credence to someone else and that's impossible for them.

"People who think that they know everything are a consant irritant to those of us who do."
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Royce
Wouldn't do any good. They are so busy denying everything
anybody else thinks, knows or believes they will never get it. Getting it lends credence to someone else and that's
impossible for them.
And yet, their views do not reflect the perspective
of the majority of scientists or indeed of science
itself.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #17
Yes. Basicly when you don't question/test anything then you create a religion. If you question and test everything then you create a science.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Alexander
Yes. Basicly when you don't question/test anything then you create a religion. If you question and test everything then you create a science.

Another gross over-simplification that denies the fundamental distinctions. This is most certainly not a scientific statement, but a misleading emotional one. Again:

The religious do it with worship,

While

Scientists do it objectively.
 
  • #19
Another one who does not see the difference between science (fact) and religion (myth).
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Alexander
Another one who does not see the difference between science (fact) and religion (myth).

Science is not fact and myth is not religion. Thus we have words to distinguish them which scientists acknowledge and use properly.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by wuliheron
Another gross over-simplification that denies the fundamental distinctions. This is most certainly not a scientific statement, but a misleading emotional one. Again:

The religious do it with worship,

While

Scientists do it objectively.

What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science?
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Zero
What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science?

Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal. Among other things, they help pay for and otherwise support the sciences. Some of them, in fact, Are scientists.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by wuliheron
Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal. Among other things, they help pay for and otherwise support the sciences. Some of them, in fact, Are scientists.

But what does their religion have to do with it?!?
 
  • #24
Part of religion or better spirituality is living and a way of life that strives to be virtuous and productive as well as worship. My son once said; "My whole life is a prayer." He had been exposed to religion (organized) but not raised particularly religiously. It was simply a way of life for us. Not going to chuch all the time, we hardly ever went to church, but of trying to live a good honest produtive spiritual life. It wasn't a big deal. It just was.
We accepted it as a part of our life.
 
  • #25
What I am sayingis that a scientist goes out and does research, gathers information, and performs experiments. Religious people pray. One of those two methods provides concrete answers to specific questions, while the other provides a warm fuzzy feling and nothing else.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Royce
Part of religion or better spirituality is living and a way of life that strives to be virtuous and productive as well as worship. My son once said; "My whole life is a prayer." He had been exposed to religion (organized) but not raised particularly religiously. It was simply a way of life for us. Not going to chuch all the time, we hardly ever went to church, but of trying to live a good honest produtive spiritual life. It wasn't a big deal. It just was.
We accepted it as a part of our life.

Well, it can also be done without the religious aspect, so religion doesn't seem to be the variable that causes the productive way of life.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Zero
But what does their religion have to do with it?!?

Western religions have incorporated the same fundamentalism of the sciences. The same black and white, good and bad, true and false, etc. dualistic worldviews--just with different twists. Not everybody can be a scientist or even comprehend much about the work of scientists, but by having some fundamental similarities in worldviews they become capable of supporting their work.

Most of the religious surveyed, for example, don't agree with a number of scientific discoveries such as Darwin's evolution. Still, they support the sciences as a practical matter and have some grasp of what it is that scientists do. Similarly, western religions formed the foundations for moral and ethical codes of conduct that have supported the sciences, again, because the two share the same fundamentalist roots.

Ironically, without religious fundamentalism the sciences might have much more difficulty garnering as much support as they do. Likewise, that same religious fundamentalism is based on the discoveries of the sciences and philosophies. If instead we had a plethora of magical shamanistic beliefs without a common and consistent set of ethics it would be very difficult indeed to organize society much less the sciences.
 
  • #28
I think you are extremely confused as to the nature of fundamentalist religion in relation to science...you are rational and pro-science, but I don't think you represent fundamentalism in any way, shape, or form.
 
  • #29
To answer your question, Zero. Religion has nothing to do with it. I am religous or if you prefer spiritual. I do not deny that science exists or that it is not valid. Nor do I say anyone who believes in science is a fool ignorant or stupid. I do not deny that matter exist. I have found a way in my mind and heart to reconcile the two.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I originally wrote and posted this piece as a parody of the manical and fanatical insistance of exclusive materialistic science atheist that there belief in science was just as much an act of faith, just as much based on unknowns and unprovables as that of any person who believes in God and/or the Creator. The deny the history and culture of mankind and the swore testimony of millions because of the word God or religion is involved but accept with whole hearted conviction the word of a very few scientist who admit that they don't really know anything as absolute simply because the word science is associated with them. "That's a joke, son. You know humor."
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Royce
To answer your question, Zero. Religion has nothing to do with it. I am religous or if you prefer spiritual. I do not deny that science exists or that it is not valid. Nor do I say anyone who believes in science is a fool ignorant or stupid. I do not deny that matter exist. I have found a way in my mind and heart to reconcile the two.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I originally wrote and posted this piece as a parody of the manical and fanatical insistance of exclusive materialistic science atheist that there belief in science was just as much an act of faith, just as much based on unknowns and unprovables as that of any person who believes in God and/or the Creator. The deny the history and culture of mankind and the swore testimony of millions because of the word God or religion is involved but accept with whole hearted conviction the word of a very few scientist who admit that they don't really know anything as absolute simply because the word science is associated with them. "That's a joke, son. You know humor."

Well...you compare apples and oranges.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Zero
I think you are extremely confused as to the nature of fundamentalist religion in relation to science...you are rational and pro-science, but I don't think you represent fundamentalism in any way, shape, or form.

Modern western fundamentalism, both of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, owe their origins to Aristotelian logic. In turn, Aristotelian logic owes its origins to earlier fundamentalist religions and became the foundation of western sciences still largely in use to this day. It is precisely this kind of modern scientific and religious fundamentalism that distinguishes the west from the east. Some of this fundamentalism, notably the Golden Rule, did make its way to asia, however many of the more important aspects for development of the modern sciences did not make the transistion.

Politics, as they say, makes strange bed fellows and fundamentalist western science and religion are perhaps more strange than most. A distinct love/hate relationship that has advanced the sciences and civilization. That such fundamentalism still shapes the sciences, even among Atheist scientists, is obvious. No doubt science could proceed without it, but not until someone invents a better system to organize around.
 
  • #32
Again, apples and oranges...I don't see how religious fundamentalism is comparable to science.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Zero
What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science?
One of those two methods provides concrete answers to specific questions, while the other provides a warm fuzzy feling and nothing else.
Asked and answered. Sometimes people need the warm fuzzy feeling. In addition religion gives a moral code to people who can't find one on their own.

Regardles, you are right - religion doesn't belong in the same sentence as science. They are completely different and wholly incompatible worldviews.
 
  • #34
No I don't. They are both belief systems. Both based on experience and observation. Religion is more subjective than physical science, I agree.
There are, however, hundreds if not thousands of scientifically documented cases where faith and miracles have healed terminal illnesses. They are not all phony. They are documented and doctors and medical scientist have no other explanation for such things. Why doesn't that count as physical evidence that is measureable and documented? The are again hundreds of sworn testemony of near death experiences that are very similar if not identical. Yet that doesn't count. They are all liars or deluded?
Yet you, or perhasps better, they, believe as fact the mouthings of a few scientist that can't even agree with each other. That, by their own definition is Faith whether you or they will admit it or not.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Royce
No I don't. They are both belief systems. Both based on experience and observation. Religion is more subjective than physical science, I agree.
There are, however, hundreds if not thousands of scientifically documented cases where faith and miracles have healed terminal illnesses. They are not all phony. They are documented and doctors and medical scientist have no other explanation for such things. Why doesn't that count as physical evidence that is measureable and documented? The are again hundreds of sworn testemony of near death experiences that are very similar if not identical. Yet that doesn't count. They are all liars or deluded?
Yet you, or perhasps better, they, believe as fact the mouthings of a few scientist that can't even agree with each other. That, by their own definition is Faith whether you or they will admit it or not.

There is NO EVIDENCE of faith healing ever working. You are fooling yourself, or being fools, trust me. They are all either phony or spontaneous remissions, which happen regardless of faith. And, yes, people who think that they have had an OBE are fooling themselves.

And you continue to insist that 'faith' in actual experiments that you are welcome to do yourself, is the same as 'faith' in mystics and superstion. You are wrong. The 'mouthings' of scientists can be documented and duplicated by other scientists. Word of mouth 'evidence' is no evidence at all.
 
<h2>1. What is the main premise of "Religion of Science: A Brief History"? </h2><p>The main premise of "Religion of Science: A Brief History" is to explore the historical and cultural origins of the idea that science is a religion. It delves into the ways in which science has been elevated to a position of authority and reverence in modern society, and how this has led to the belief that science is the ultimate source of truth and meaning.</p><h2>2. How does the book address the relationship between religion and science? </h2><p>The book examines the complex and often contentious relationship between religion and science throughout history. It explores the ways in which religious beliefs and scientific discoveries have influenced and challenged each other, and how this has shaped our understanding of the world.</p><h2>3. Does the book argue for or against the idea of science as a religion? </h2><p>The book presents a balanced and nuanced perspective on the idea of science as a religion. While it does not explicitly argue for or against this concept, it offers a critical examination of the origins and implications of this belief, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.</p><h2>4. What are some of the key historical events and figures discussed in the book? </h2><p>The book covers a wide range of historical events and figures, including the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science. It also explores the contributions of prominent scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Darwin, as well as the role of religion in shaping their work.</p><h2>5. How does the book address the impact of the "religion of science" on society? </h2><p>The book examines the ways in which the belief in science as a religion has influenced and shaped our society, from education and politics to ethics and morality. It also explores the potential consequences of this belief, both positive and negative, on our understanding of the world and our place in it.</p>

1. What is the main premise of "Religion of Science: A Brief History"?

The main premise of "Religion of Science: A Brief History" is to explore the historical and cultural origins of the idea that science is a religion. It delves into the ways in which science has been elevated to a position of authority and reverence in modern society, and how this has led to the belief that science is the ultimate source of truth and meaning.

2. How does the book address the relationship between religion and science?

The book examines the complex and often contentious relationship between religion and science throughout history. It explores the ways in which religious beliefs and scientific discoveries have influenced and challenged each other, and how this has shaped our understanding of the world.

3. Does the book argue for or against the idea of science as a religion?

The book presents a balanced and nuanced perspective on the idea of science as a religion. While it does not explicitly argue for or against this concept, it offers a critical examination of the origins and implications of this belief, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

4. What are some of the key historical events and figures discussed in the book?

The book covers a wide range of historical events and figures, including the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the rise of modern science. It also explores the contributions of prominent scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Darwin, as well as the role of religion in shaping their work.

5. How does the book address the impact of the "religion of science" on society?

The book examines the ways in which the belief in science as a religion has influenced and shaped our society, from education and politics to ethics and morality. It also explores the potential consequences of this belief, both positive and negative, on our understanding of the world and our place in it.

Similar threads

Replies
63
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
94
Views
4K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
4
Views
956
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
618
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
842
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
28
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
1K
Back
Top