Is Science a Religion?

[China Cat Sunflower]

That seems very familiar to me Chris, is it a quote?

David

Not a direct quote, but along the lines of something I read in Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes, by Jacques Ellul. He says that the great foundational myths of modern society are: Science, History, Progress, Work, Nation, Youth, and the Hero. From these, he says, come the shared presuppositions that man's aim in life is happiness, that man is naturally good, that history develops in endless progress, and that everything is matter.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Flowperson, and welcome to CR!

Well, I'll try to make some cogent comments, but you all have done a pretty good job of identifying the details in the comparison.

Thank you for the validation. Thomas Kuhn wasn't so far off after all, yes?

 

[path_of_one]

Juan and I and a few others have discussed this point before but I think it has always been buried in other threads. The question is Is Science a Religion? I think we need to look at a few different questions as we examine this.

1. What defines a religion the way we are using it here?

2. How does science fit these criteria?

3. Do you think that many people view science as a religion competing with other religions?

Of course all other comment is welcome, whether or not you wish to address these questions.

For a great starting point I recommend Okie In Exile's excellent essay on this subject, found here:
Science, the Religion

lunamoth

Well, I am coming a bit late to the conversation, and much of what I would say has been said! So I'll just answer the questions, briefly.

1. Religion: human transformation in response to a perceived ultimacy.

2. It could fit the criteria, but rarely really does. Science generally does not transform individuals, nor is it in response to a perceived ultimacy (God, karmic cycles, spirits, whatever). Science is really more a system of techniques/tools by which to generate theories about observable phenomena. Religion is a system that generates theories about how to transcend ordinary life in response to perceived, but not verifiable ultimate reality/realities. I tend to think religion has a lot to do with transcendence. Science generally does not. But...

3. There are two issues here to me. The first is the very blurred boundary between science and religion, which has generally been the case in most human cultures and throughout human history. It is only very recent in human history, and pretty much only in the first world, that science and religion have come to be separate categories of inquiry. Consider that in most traditional societies, ecology, medicine, and other "scientific" areas of inquiry and application are wrapped up in religious systems. So we get various folk sciences such as feng-shui that arise from the melding of observable and even experiment-based inquiry, with ideological explanation/theory. The thing that is interesting is that this melding of science and religion is generally very beneficial. The science part of it allows for practical application. The religious explanations allow for the motivation of people.

This motivation issue is very important. Consider that most Americans know the scientific reasons why it's a bad idea to build in a flood plain or at the base of a steep hill. Then consider that no one cares, and we have homes buried in mud each year in southern California during the rainy season. Then consider that in traditional China, though the theory was religious (and obviously incorrect from a Western science perspective)- dragons and tigers lived in the hills and would get angry and shake, for example, if you "cut their pulse" to build on top of them- this motivated people to not build in inappropriate places. Anthropologists find that people typically are motivated more by religious systems than purely "scientific" ones. So, for most of human history and most cultures... it's a bit of a non-issue. Science and religion and magic all go hand in hand. They don't compete, they cooperate- the result being motivating people to behave in ways that ensure group survival and wise use of resources.

I think we are gradually moving back to this traditional, time-tested model of inquiry into our world after a strange hiatus of separating science and religion into dichotomous categories. But we are moving back with a new paradigm. Consider the cutting-edge scientific theories going on in physics and you see parallels to philosophy and religion. What string theorists are just beginning to mathmatically prove has been discussed by shamans and mystics for ages.

Unfortunately, I think a significant number of people still buy into the (false) dichotomy and put themselves in one "camp" or the other, much to the detriment of both science and religion. Open mindedness, and a humble attitude about one's own perspectives and knowledge, can lead to amazing revolutions in thought. Consider Einstein... And Darwin... I think Darwin would be chagrined to find he is held up in some circles as the poster child for an atheistic science (and it isn't the scientific circles who do this). I think it is pop culture stereotypes and a general lack of education in the history and contemporary practice of science that allow people to continue to think that science and religion are oppositional categories of inquiry. Any serious investigation of the history of these fields in human cultures, and their history in many individual scientists (as well as traditional religious pracitioners like shamans), would find that the boundaries between the two are fuzzy at best, and sometimes entirely the result of our own cultural imagination.

 

[lunamoth]

Well, I am coming a bit late to the conversation, and much of what I would say has been said! So I'll just answer the questions, briefly.

1. Religion: human transformation in response to a perceived ultimacy.

2. It could fit the criteria, but rarely really does. Science generally does not transform individuals, nor is it in response to a perceived ultimacy (God, karmic cycles, spirits, whatever). Science is really more a system of techniques/tools by which to generate theories about observable phenomena. Religion is a system that generates theories about how to transcend ordinary life in response to perceived, but not verifiable ultimate reality/realities. I tend to think religion has a lot to do with transcendence. Science generally does not. But...

3. There are two issues here to me. The first is the very blurred boundary between science and religion, which has generally been the case in most human cultures and throughout human history. It is only very recent in human history, and pretty much only in the first world, that science and religion have come to be separate categories of inquiry. Consider that in most traditional societies, ecology, medicine, and other "scientific" areas of inquiry and application are wrapped up in religious systems. So we get various folk sciences such as feng-shui that arise from the melding of observable and even experiment-based inquiry, with ideological explanation/theory. The thing that is interesting is that this melding of science and religion is generally very beneficial. The science part of it allows for practical application. The religious explanations allow for the motivation of people.

This motivation issue is very important. Consider that most Americans know the scientific reasons why it's a bad idea to build in a flood plain or at the base of a steep hill. Then consider that no one cares, and we have homes buried in mud each year in southern California during the rainy season. Then consider that in traditional China, though the theory was religious (and obviously incorrect from a Western science perspective)- dragons and tigers lived in the hills and would get angry and shake, for example, if you "cut their pulse" to build on top of them- this motivated people to not build in inappropriate places. Anthropologists find that people typically are motivated more by religious systems than purely "scientific" ones. So, for most of human history and most cultures... it's a bit of a non-issue. Science and religion and magic all go hand in hand. They don't compete, they cooperate- the result being motivating people to behave in ways that ensure group survival and wise use of resources.

I think we are gradually moving back to this traditional, time-tested model of inquiry into our world after a strange hiatus of separating science and religion into dichotomous categories. But we are moving back with a new paradigm. Consider the cutting-edge scientific theories going on in physics and you see parallels to philosophy and religion. What string theorists are just beginning to mathmatically prove has been discussed by shamans and mystics for ages.

Unfortunately, I think a significant number of people still buy into the (false) dichotomy and put themselves in one "camp" or the other, much to the detriment of both science and religion. Open mindedness, and a humble attitude about one's own perspectives and knowledge, can lead to amazing revolutions in thought. Consider Einstein... And Darwin... I think Darwin would be chagrined to find he is held up in some circles as the poster child for an atheistic science (and it isn't the scientific circles who do this). I think it is pop culture stereotypes and a general lack of education in the history and contemporary practice of science that allow people to continue to think that science and religion are oppositional categories of inquiry. Any serious investigation of the history of these fields in human cultures, and their history in many individual scientists (as well as traditional religious pracitioners like shamans), would find that the boundaries between the two are fuzzy at best, and sometimes entirely the result of our own cultural imagination.

Thank you for that perspective Path, I think it adds an important nuance to the discussion, and one that I agree with. Science is not a competing religion, and I would not label it a religion at all, but scientific inquiry is on a continuum of the human quest for truth that includes scientific knowledge and divine revelation/spiritual awakening.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

The one professional article that I formally published on this stuff was in the seminar group's journal. In that article I posed the argument that science and technology is a set of activities in the present, based on facual past proofs, that increasingly creates the future, good or bad. While religions are a set of activities in the present that constantly reflect past beliefs, and that works as a sort of governor, a retarding factor, on the engines of science and technology to help us to get into new futures with minimal damage to the great systemic experiment of G-d known as human civilization.

No one screamed that I was wrong, nor claimed that I must have had an Einsteinian brain transplant. But over time my life, such as it was, came apart. Evidently someone, somewhere, who was very powerful, did not like what I had to say, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't G-d. In fact I'd say that G-d has had a lot to do with the fact that I'm still able to write and talk about what I know and think, to a certain extent.

Hi flow, that's a pretty interesting experience you've described. I hope you feel that your life has taken the course it's meant to, and that when this particular set of doors started to close you found another set opening.

Haha--I can imagine how well it went over having the topic of religion as a mitigating factor brought up openly in a scientific journal. I think there is a great deal of respect on an individual level for scientists who are known to be adhering to their religious principles when it comes to ethics in science, as there is respect for anyone who is putting ethics and integrity above ego and money (but a lot of times the good guy finishes last...). But, I can see that where there would be less tolerance for promoting religion in general as governing factor for science. The first question would certainly be...well, whose religion?

Thanks,
lunamoth

 

[Tao_Equus]

Reading these great posts does broaden out the picture. Looking at the evolution of science and technology it cannot be denied that much of the progress was made by religious men, or at least those educated in a religious background. Without education there can be little scientific progress and throughout the world and throughout history, and until very recently, educational provision was a monopoly of the organised religions. Science for most of its history was almost exclusively a monastic pursuit.

It is interesting to note then that it only truly flourished when unshackled from having to accord with any doctrine. And its worth pondering on how much truly life changing revolutionary science is now ignored because it would upset the balance sheets of our capatalist Gods. The more I think on it the more I see science can never be equated with religion. In that it can be considered an intelectual tool is its only common ground with religion. And in that role either can be used for good or bad.

David

 

[Tao_Equus]

Not a direct quote, but along the lines of something I read in Propaganda, The Formation of Men's Attitudes, by Jacques Ellul. He says that the great foundational myths of modern society are: Science, History, Progress, Work, Nation, Youth, and the Hero. From these, he says, come the shared presuppositions that man's aim in life is happiness, that man is naturally good, that history develops in endless progress, and that everything is matter.

Chris

Thats great, thanks Chris, never read it......and dont think I want to

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thats great, thanks Chris, never read it......and dont think I want to

I don't blame you, it's a pretty stiff read! But, I gotta say it's about the scariest book I've ever read in my life because it dissolves the idea that anyone is immune to propaganda. It really made me think about just how much programming I've swallowed and never knew it. Makes me question whether I actually know anything.

Chris

 

[lunamoth]

I don't blame you, it's a pretty stiff read! But, I gotta say it's about the scariest book I've ever read in my life because it dissolves the idea that anyone is immune to propaganda. It really made me think about just how much programming I've swallowed and never knew it. Makes me question whether I actually know anything.

Chris

I wouldn't worry about it too much China Cat. I think we build all of our reality from illusion. That's why I think it's better to choose positive/life-affirming/compassionate beliefs.

I don't know about you, but I was born lacking the God-gene allele. I have to think about it, and choose.

lunamoth

 

[flowperson]

Hi flow, that's a pretty interesting experience you've described. I hope you feel that your life has taken the course it's meant to, and that when this particular set of doors started to close you found another set opening.

Haha--I can imagine how well it went over having the topic of religion as a mitigating factor brought up openly in a scientific journal. I think there is a great deal of respect on an individual level for scientists who are known to be adhering to their religious principles when it comes to ethics in science, as there is respect for anyone who is putting ethics and integrity above ego and money (but a lot of times the good guy finishes last...). But, I can see that where there would be less tolerance for promoting religion in general as governing factor for science. The first question would certainly be...well, whose religion?

Thanks,
lunamoth

Hi Luna:

Hmmm, well doors keep opening, closing, and sometimes slamming for me. But seriously, we confront the darkness, do our best to discern its purpose, and cleave to the light as much as possible. That's the only way I've been able to get this far along in life.

The fears within those who confront and oppose you though is the most unsettling thing to me. I just can't imagine the levels of fear and loathing it takes to attack others for what they do or do not believe, or even for their appearance or country of origin. But, stuff happens, and things change I guess. Intolerance and hypocrisy are the real enemies, not necessarily the people who espouse them.

The journal I published in was one that accepted articles having to do with the interactions of science and religion. I doubt if a scientific journal would have touched what I wrote. The journal is no longer published I believe. Thanks for your response.

flow....

 

[littlemissattitude]

I haven't read everything in this thread (because I want to respond to the issue raised without being swayed by other responses), so forgive me if I am revisiting ideas that have already been covered.

It makes me uncomfortable to put science and religion in exactly the same category. I would much rather say that science and religions have in common that they present us with structured ways of looking at the world and the universe. Various religions and science are, then, all belief systems. When someone chooses a religion or science and uses the paradigms of the system they have chosen in order to make sense of things, then there are certain assumptions that they have to accept. Science makes assumptions about how the universe works just as the various religions do, and those assumptions must be taken on faith by the layperson in science just as in a religion, simply because the layperson does not have the knowledge and facilities to investigate each bit of data that the topics science looks at are built upon, so he or she must take on faith that the conclusions that science has come to through the work of scientists are correct. In the same way, most of us do not have direct knowledge of God or the gods and must take the statements leaders in the various religions have made and the conclusions that they have come to about things like the nature of god or the gods on faith.

The difference comes here, I think: there are, in science, objective ways of coming to conclusions about how the universe works. Experiments can be conducted to work out the principles of physics or chemistry, for example. This is not true, as far as I can tell, in religions. It is true that some religions (at least the religion I was once associated with) consider prayer as a sort of experimental method in that one is told that if they pray about a principle, it will be confirmed by some good feeling in the person doing the prayer/experiment. The problems with that are 1) such a "good feeling" is extremely subjective, and 2) if the prayer/experimenter does not get the answer considered "correct" by the religion, it is usually explained by saying that the person praying did not pray earnestly enough or had sinned or in some other way was not open to receiving the "correct" answer. This is enough of a problem that I cannot consider this religious analog of experiment to be an objective source of information in the same ways that science can objectively conform or disconfirm facts.

So, yes, science and religions are both belief systems. But, no, I don't think that science and religion are species of the same genus.

 

[Quahom1]

I haven't read everything in this thread (because I want to respond to the issue raised without being swayed by other responses), so forgive me if I am revisiting ideas that have already been covered.

It makes me uncomfortable to put science and religion in exactly the same category. I would much rather say that science and religions have in common that they present us with structured ways of looking at the world and the universe. Various religions and science are, then, all belief systems. When someone chooses a religion or science and uses the paradigms of the system they have chosen in order to make sense of things, then there are certain assumptions that they have to accept. Science makes assumptions about how the universe works just as the various religions do, and those assumptions must be taken on faith by the layperson in science just as in a religion, simply because the layperson does not have the knowledge and facilities to investigate each bit of data that the topics science looks at are built upon, so he or she must take on faith that the conclusions that science has come to through the work of scientists are correct. In the same way, most of us do not have direct knowledge of God or the gods and must take the statements leaders in the various religions have made and the conclusions that they have come to about things like the nature of god or the gods on faith.

The difference comes here, I think: there are, in science, objective ways of coming to conclusions about how the universe works. Experiments can be conducted to work out the principles of physics or chemistry, for example. This is not true, as far as I can tell, in religions. It is true that some religions (at least the religion I was once associated with) consider prayer as a sort of experimental method in that one is told that if they pray about a principle, it will be confirmed by some good feeling in the person doing the prayer/experiment. The problems with that are 1) such a "good feeling" is extremely subjective, and 2) if the prayer/experimenter does not get the answer considered "correct" by the religion, it is usually explained by saying that the person praying did not pray earnestly enough or had sinned or in some other way was not open to receiving the "correct" answer. This is enough of a problem that I cannot consider this religious analog of experiment to be an objective source of information in the same ways that science can objectively conform or disconfirm facts.

So, yes, science and religions are both belief systems. But, no, I don't think that science and religion are species of the same genus.

Interesting perspective Little Miss. I wonder what happens to an experiment if something is left out, however...does the experiment work as well? Or does the colleague inform one that because a step was left out the answer sought will not come to pass...?

(e.g. failure to connect one wire to a battery results in no light bulb illuminating).

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

 

[littlemissattitude]

Quahom...The thing with science is, if something is left out of an experiment, not thought of, or otherwise wrong with it, that will likely be caught, if not in the first instance, then when another scientist replicates the experiment - which is the hallmark of science. A result must be replicable in order to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

I honestly don't see how this is possible in religion, even in the prayer example I gave in my previous post. It isn't possible for one individual to recreate the state of mind of another person in prayer or in contemplating religious or theological issues. It seems to me impossible to equate the experience of two people praying, even when uttering the exact same prayer. I'm not saying that prayer is not a good thing to engage in, but only that I suspect that what one person learns in prayer is probably not applicable generally but is specific to that person only and may be biased toward what they hope to hear. This problem, seeing what one is looking for or what one wants to see is, of course, also possible in any particular running of a scientific experiment, but is also a factor that is easy to weed out in repeated runnings of the experiment by separate researchers. That is why, when a new scientific discovery is made, it is reported in journals in minute detail, including how the experiment was set up, the conditions that were in existence during the experiment, and so on.

An example that may seem rather exotic, but is fairly common in the religion that I used to associate with (I've known people who have played out exactly this scenario): A young man is dating a young woman who he desires to marry. This is serious business, for in that religion marriage is not beleived to be just for this life, but for the rest of eternity, so he prays about it and gets the answer that, yes, she is "the one". He proposes to the young woman, using the answer to his prayer as a sort of extra incentive for her to say yes (in that religion, all male members hold the priesthood, which is seen as a mark of authority). However, the young woman is not as ardently in love with the young man and tells him that she must pray about it before she answers him. She does pray about it and receives the answer that no, he is not the one she is to marry. Accordingly, she turns down his proposal. He protests that he knows the answer to his prayer is true, but she maintains that if God wanted her to marry him, He would have told her as well, not just the young man, priesthood holder or not.

The dilemma here is, how can it be determined who received the correct answer - if indeed there is a "correct" answer here. There really is no way to do so. He got his answer, she got hers, but I can see no way to determine exactly how much his desires and her desires (or lack of same) played into the answer they received. Were either of them really hearing the voice of God, or were both of them getting the answer they wanted because that was all they were prepared to hear? It does no good to go to a third party and ask him or her to pray about it, because there is no way to tell to what extent that person might be inclined to favor either the young man's claim (that, as a priesthood holder, he has the authority to receive an answer for the young woman as well) or the young woman's claim (that surely God would tell her if He wanted her to marry the young man).

In short (yeah, after all that), there is no way for a third party to exactly replicate the "experiment" of a prayer, as there are ways to replicate a scientific experiment.

 

[Quahom1]

Quahom...The thing with science is, if something is left out of an experiment, not thought of, or otherwise wrong with it, that will likely be caught, if not in the first instance, then when another scientist replicates the experiment - which is the hallmark of science. A result must be replicable in order to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

I honestly don't see how this is possible in religion, even in the prayer example I gave in my previous post. It isn't possible for one individual to recreate the state of mind of another person in prayer or in contemplating religious or theological issues. It seems to me impossible to equate the experience of two people praying, even when uttering the exact same prayer. I'm not saying that prayer is not a good thing to engage in, but only that I suspect that what one person learns in prayer is probably not applicable generally but is specific to that person only and may be biased toward what they hope to hear. This problem, seeing what one is looking for or what one wants to see is, of course, also possible in any particular running of a scientific experiment, but is also a factor that is easy to weed out in repeated runnings of the experiment by separate researchers. That is why, when a new scientific discovery is made, it is reported in journals in minute detail, including how the experiment was set up, the conditions that were in existence during the experiment, and so on.

An example that may seem rather exotic, but is fairly common in the religion that I used to associate with (I've known people who have played out exactly this scenario): A young man is dating a young woman who he desires to marry. This is serious business, for in that religion marriage is not beleived to be just for this life, but for the rest of eternity, so he prays about it and gets the answer that, yes, she is "the one". He proposes to the young woman, using the answer to his prayer as a sort of extra incentive for her to say yes (in that religion, all male members hold the priesthood, which is seen as a mark of authority). However, the young woman is not as ardently in love with the young man and tells him that she must pray about it before she answers him. She does pray about it and receives the answer that no, he is not the one she is to marry. Accordingly, she turns down his proposal. He protests that he knows the answer to his prayer is true, but she maintains that if God wanted her to marry him, He would have told her as well, not just the young man, priesthood holder or not.

The dilemma here is, how can it be determined who received the correct answer - if indeed there is a "correct" answer here. There really is no way to do so. He got his answer, she got hers, but I can see no way to determine exactly how much his desires and her desires (or lack of same) played into the answer they received. Were either of them really hearing the voice of God, or were both of them getting the answer they wanted because that was all they were prepared to hear? It does no good to go to a third party and ask him or her to pray about it, because there is no way to tell to what extent that person might be inclined to favor either the young man's claim (that, as a priesthood holder, he has the authority to receive an answer for the young woman as well) or the young woman's claim (that surely God would tell her if He wanted her to marry the young man).

In short (yeah, after all that), there is no way for a third party to exactly replicate the "experiment" of a prayer, as there are ways to replicate a scientific experiment.

In that light you are absolutely correct. Unlike an experiment, the "prayor" wanted a specific answer (to his liking). That isn't how prayer works either. Just like experiments don't do what we want, only what they're supposed to do.

Religion is like science in that, both parties "hope" for a favorable outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

That was my point.

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Little Miss!

It's great to see you back around! Did you ever make it to Italy?

 

[littlemissattitude]

Kindest Regards, Little Miss!

It's great to see you back around! Did you ever make it to Italy?

Nah, juantoo3, I'm still here. Only I'm living much closer to McLane High School now. I was actually on campus once last summer, visiting my best friend, who teaches history there during the summer. I get over here to the boards once in awhile, but not as much as I'd like.

Quahom...The thing is, with science, if a researcher is pulling for one outcome of an experiment over another, he or she is not really doing science correctly. Of course, this does happen, probably rather more often than scientists would like the layperson to believe. This has a lot to do, I think, with the fact that scientists are human (something some of them sometimes seem reluctant to admit). However, the ideal in science is still objectivity, and it usually is accomplished over the long haul as researchers with all different ways of looking at things replicate a particular experiment and evidence accumulates one way or another for the confirmation or disconfirmation of the hypothesis being tested.

Objectivity is hardly ever the standard in prayer, from my experience. In the tradition I used to associate with, investigators into the religion were not told, read these scriptures and then pray to see if they are true or false. Instead, they are told, if you read these scriptures and pray about them, you will be given a witness that they are true. There is a big difference between the two positions, and there is no real objectivity in that there is only one answer that is acceptable to the believer.