Could Science Be Considered A Religion?

Post Reply New Topic

Tell folks that you saw the face of Christopher Hitchens in a loaf of bread (like some folks see the virgin Mary in strange places) and it reaffirmed your lack of faith! And that you started talking in tongues.

Great idea! Of course, people I know think that speaking in tongues is actually demon possession, so it’ll circle back around to science=bad; religion=good.

I could talk about being overwhelmed with emotion when reading science textbooks and struggling with feelings of unworthiness. How could I possibly be good enough to be a true atheist when I’m such a flawed human being? Then I could deal with an arduous internal battle as I struggle to come to terms with my new belief system, including many sleepless nights. Finally, I could avoid talking and spending time with nonatheists who won’t convert.That sounds about right.

No.

You could tell them that thousands of atheists stood in line outside of your house for days to see your "miracle loaf of bread". But then things got ugly because some of the atheists got into fisticuffs with others in line because "my atheism is better than your atheism", and all out religious war almost broke out!

People with a better understanding of the scientific data behind the Big Bang and evolution would look down on those who just “feel” that it’s right. Then there’d be all out persecution on both sides and different atheists would look up to different scientists and would follow them in their own atheist sects.

Since this stuff isn’t happening, it’s probably safe to say that it isn’t a religion although people can get hooked on theories that seem to be supported by some evidence without rationally considering all of the evidence that’s available. Science still has a degree of confirmation bias to it, but eventually, outliers are disproven or aren’t seen as credible in the first place by the majority of scientists or any as new evidence comes to light.

Scientists often lack creative thought which prevents many from being innovative. Nicola Tesla was one of the greatest inventors of the modern era and he was not a Oxford/Cambridge type man (these "cookie cutter" type graduates are also churned out of the Ivy league universities in the US). Tesla's major inventions were a product of deep insular reflection and (what he claimed) was communication with extra-terrestrial beings. Without his "belief" the world would not have electrical grids or power plants or electricity powering out computers right now. He also invented the telephone before Marconi but did not get financial backing for his idea.



In science we do not operate on proof (this is more appropriate to law or mathematics). We provide evidence to support existing theories or develop new theories using new evidence. Science is an approach so doesn't have bias. If there is confirmation bias it exists when a scientist has a theory they invested a lot of time and effort/money and so it's in their interest to search for evidence to back up their theory and they may be prone to ignore contradictory evidence.

Hail Hitchens, full of wit,
the logic is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst infidels...

While science requires confirmation based on valid empirical evidence. For example: One does not ‘believe’ that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, one proves it.

The main problem I see with science is that it closes people's minds.

Science carefully codes ideas with disclaimers like , "hypothesis," theory", "law", however, people seem willing to accept these ideas as TRUTH.

Like, "The theory of gravity". Theories may change over time.

History of Gravity

Blind faith in scientific findings is a sort of religion. Science itself is simply the accumulation of knowledge about the natural world using observations and/or experimentation. One of its central tenents is that it is self-correcting.

@OP

No, it's a method of inquiry.

I generally find that the people who want to turn it into a religion are politically outraged in one way or another and their effect on science and the scientific community is pernicious.

Actually a central tenant of the scientific approach is to use a combination of inductive reasoning to formulate a hypothesis or prediction to either support existing theory or propose a new one. They then use deductive reasoning when testing the theory in the real world to determine if there is i) evidence the principle works in the real world and by default ii) support for the theory.

Anyone who uses the scientific approach properly is neither closed minded not reliant on blind faith?

An example of blind faith and closed mindedness are Trump supporters who lack the ability to think scientifically or apply critical thought.

Any member of the public can be scientifically literate if they apply critical thought and deductive reasoning to test assumptions put forward using whatever available evidence they have access to.