What is 'Science' and can it be the 'next religion'?

Remove all ads!

Yet another topic spawned from the Homosexuality and Religion thread. The statement was made that science could become the next big religion after as a response to another comment saying that religion would eventually die out and be replaced by a world that demands hard answers rather than taking everything on matters of faith.

Frankly I can't see science becoming a religion since it has none of the workings of religion in the first place. There is no mythology, dogma or ceremony surrounding any of the scientific disciplines. Nothing is taken on faith, any theory or scientific law has a basis and even proof with reguards to it being proveable, possible and most likely highly probable.

Then there's the question of simply, what is science? I think it's too broad a topic to summarise but I know that mathmatics, physics, chemistry, biology, geometry and even economics are all sciences simply due to the nature at which they are studied, proven and applied.

So what is science? And can it become the next religion? Since it's been argued that one day it will replace religion.

 

Personal definition? Science is what we call our attempt to discover/understand the natural world. Can it become "the next religion"? Isn't there already a "Scientology Church" or some such out there? I'm not religious myself (am Catholic, believe in God, don't give a crap about the Church) so it's immaterial to me. If people want to um.. worship science as their God(?), let 'em. Live and let live.

 

Way to read my post, champ. Let's relive those wonderful memories, shall we?

So, yeah. I DID actually back up my point. I was trying to close the topic because that particular thread wasn't about the definition of "religion".

And now I'm done with this thread.

 

Heh, didn't even read that thread, but maybe I should, I think I was missing out on some action

Although this would be the LOGICAL thing to follow, I disagree. Some people need to believe that there's something "bigger" than them. I guess it doesn't matter whether it's aliens for some or a supreme being for others but many people have some sort of need that is fulfilled by the belief in the unknown and unexplainable.

For the Christian faith, I'd say poor people in particular. If I were poor, I'd sure like to think that because of the crap life I'm having now, I will get to drink unlimited beer and all that jazz at Jesus' pad when I die (provided I was a good boy).

 

science is understanding, something religion is very uncomfortable with

 

as to the math NOG so nicely said there isn't any theories or experiments in. thats wrong, experiments no, you cant really do experiments on numbers. but theories pops up all the time, for instance the theory on primes are much debated (i think thge word are prime, its a number only divideble by it self or 1, into a number with no decimals) the first positive prime is 1.

Mathematics havent found a way yet to find out wether or not prime numbers continue into infinity or if there is an end to them. and research and theories in that subject is an ungowing debate. Since this is importent to know in incrypting and so forth.

Secondly as other areas expand, quantum physics and so forth, new mathematic laws and theories regarding that area evolves.

so math is just as much a science as physics.

as for science replacing religion, i doubt it. while science does produce some answers to uncertenties in life, it dosn't provide them all. science has currently no answer as what happends when you die, and some people need something to believe in there, to give them a hope for something to continue after death, religion gives them that and thats good for does people.
I see nothing harmfull in religion, as long as it dosn't try to affect scientific research with its dogmas, and while i hope religion will go more into the background and the personal, i dont hope or think it will disappear.

 

In Pratchett's words...Science is a method of finding more and more ways in which theories CANT be wrong...

Of course, I'm paraphrasing from his novel, "The Science of Discworld"...but this reflects my sentiments perfectly.

Science is the process of continual research and testing of established fact with the aim of better understanding the universe and everything in it.

Having said that, it CAN be a religion, in the way an atheist is religious by virtue of his vehement disbelief in any form of God...because reason and scientific logic often replaces most religious dogma...

 

Interesting thread and of course I have a few thoughts on the topic.

IMO science is a religion for some people. ie: Medicine. How many people really question their doctor.

Science is always in a state of change but so is religion which is why we have so many sub-religions.

Once upon a time and actually not that long ago in the history of humans religion and science were one. Science grew out of religion. Did it out-grow religion? I think it just freed its self from the strictures of Religion.

I doubt science will ever replace religion. I just hope that Religions (note the capital R) get a little more tolerant of each other.

edit: I have not read the thread that spawned this one and hope I maintain sufficent strength of will to not read it.

 

i contest that, according to science, if you are dead you have no Consciousness therefore nothing happens after you die because there is no evidence to the contrary, you die and decompose

 

Believe me; science and scientology do not come into contact at any point.

I'm not following you. Atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps it to hobbies. Even vehemently not collecting stamps is not a hobby...

 

Painting science as a replacement for religion is a bit outdated, isn't it. 100 years ago, in the times of Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, and Nietzsche, science - or rather technology - may have been expected to become the next big religion or ideology.

But today? Apart from the fact that science is lacking all qualities that make up a religion, I think that we're rather on the downward swing again.

People are placing more trust in homeopathy, reiki or traditionial chinese medicin than they are placing in science and reason. Being an advocat for science makes you seem heartless today.

 

Shure, science could be considered religion as much as religion science. If you really want to mix up facts with belief.

IMO, science simply leads to atheism, which is an idealogy. Not science itself. If the religions want to compete, they should compete against atheism (a.k.a pagans and heretics), not the advance of technology.

 

First of all - scientology and science have nothing to do with each other.

And I've noticed a definite trend towards science as a religion. People (especially politicians) shouting how something must be true because a scientist has a theory supporting it, people attacking others for a different view on astrophysics (wikipedia)...

People lacking a grasp on what science means see it as a religion. One to follow or oppose.

 

Blind faith creates problems whether it is science or religion. That is my firm opinion. Please note the word 'blind'.

 

I'm with Nakia and Taza - science can be placed in the role of religion in a person's life.

And in some circles (academicia?), belief in science already HAS become the 'next big religion' (aka belief system) for quite a while.

I don't see it replacing the existing religions, but it's certainly co-existing (a little adversarily, just like its elder peers ).

 

Excuse me while I go pray to the chemicals in my lab and hope my experiments turn out okay. I must commit my entire being to my dynamic scanning calorimeter so that it may notice me and smile down upon me and favor me with good results.

Science is not a religion; however, there are a few scientists who seem to act as if evolution is their religion. Damn annoying.

 

@T2Bruno, Of course science isn't a religion and never will be. No true scientist would consider it as such. Tho I have met a lot of doctors who give the impression that they think they are still priests of whats-his-name and the patients should bow down to them.

No it is the lay-person who treats science as a religion. They read something in a popular science magazine or see it on TV and it becomes 'gospel' to them.

Mustn't continue this because I just came from a discussion and am still a wee bit upset.

 

I think there's been a big misunderstanding here somewhere. When most people, myself included, say that science has become a religion, we mean to the masses that don't understand it. Sure, to the guy with a PhD in Molecular Biology it is cold hard facts, but then you get the interview with the news reporter who doesn't know anything, gets a bunch of stuff wrong, and then makes unsupported claims off of that false knowledge and large portions of the masses say, "I believe! I believe!"

Take evolution, for example. The scientists behind this topic look at tons and tons of evidence gathered from around the world and carefully consider it. Some are convinced it is true, some are convinced it isn't, but all admit there isn't enough proof to claim one way or another absolutely. This isn't a problem. The problem comes when a high-school science teacher who hasn't carefully considered (or even seen) this stuff presents a theory on evolution that is 30 years old and has already been proven flat out wrong to a class of 15-17 year olds who don't know anything and they all raise their hands in the air and say, "I believe! I believe!" And if they don't, they fail. Most of them promptly forget about it, but a large number continue to believe and when the news reports (mostly eroniously) on this proposed Intelligent Design theory being taught, they get all up in arms because, to them, evolution has become an unquestonable issue of faith.

That may not fit the technical definition of a religion, but it is close enough for me. When people start looking to this vague idea of 'the experts' for answers to questions like 'how should I live my life, what happens when I die, why am I here, and the like, they are essentially treating this vague concept as a pantheon, with all the various authors of self-help books and psychological dogma (and some of that really is just that) representing favored deities and said books, web-sites, and interviews being the 'holy texts'.

 

Wrong. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The main research nowadays concentrates on the mechanisms by which it happens; that evolution happens, however, is certain.

 

That's why you have schoolbooks (which are not written bt people who don't know anything about the subject) in high school and follow a curriculum in which the experts who really do know the stuff are heard. If curriculums and school books around there are filled with 30 year old information which is incorrect then the US educational system must really suck. Most teenagers are critical enough (atleast around here) not to take the teachers words for granted and even question them in class.
Also a biology teacher has studied evolution and its scientific base so they have quite adequate competence in the subject. They might not be experts and know everything about it but they most certainly know enough to teach the basics.

The intelligent is not taught in here and I basically view it as complete garbage, not even the Christian community supports it in any way, so it has not even a basis of support to justify even a mention of it. It's basically an artificially forged hypothesis with no scientific ground made up to defend religious views.

[ December 06, 2006, 20:46: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]