"Science is a religion"

[Mycroft]

There are plenty of God fearing/God loving scientists in the world. There is no inherent contradiction in turning to religion in matters of "ought" and science for matters of "is". (For those who claim that nutrition, economics, or well-being psychology, answers "ought", I think you miss the basic assumptions involved there. There is certainly good guidance, but the primary aims in each of these things is not something that I believe ought to be "objectively" calculated.)

I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.

 

[KDude]

I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.

They were never meant to be explanations at all. Not in the modern sense. They're just stories for ancient people, to give them a sense of narrative and place in the world, and that the gods had a purpose for them. It is always more about the people themselves, rather than the cosmos as a whole. They didn't gather around fires or sacred sites to "hear an explantion". It was meant to be more personal or tribal. This is something that both modern religion and science don't get. We all want to define or understand things through a larger global or cosmic lens. Rather than a cultural lens. And then we judge or use the ancient world by this larger standard too. As if they cared just as equally, and were proposing "serious" explanations and science.

 

[ygolo]

I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.

I think this reflects the choosing-to-end-thought stereotype that people have of religion. Some of it is fair, especially given some of the effects of religion in the last two decades. But religious thought hasn't always been this way. Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger and others had deep spiritual sides in addition to their accomplishments in science (I would even say that their spirituality contributed to their motivation to ask the questions they did).

The "God of the Gaps" and "vague deism" aren't the only options. For me, spirituality has nothing to do with explanations or predictions or things of this sort, but is rather a guide in processing other aspects of life (admittedly difficult for me to put into words). For lack of better words, I think of spirituality as a form of processing and creating "meaning." There are plenty of articulate and deep writers on spiritual matters (from my tradition there are Gandhi, Vivekanda, and Krishnamrti to name a few). I think you would be hard pressed to say that the core of their messages are disputed by science.

 

[Antimony]

Based on the definition of religion, I'm not sure I agree.

 

[Mycroft]

I think this reflects the choosing-to-end-thought stereotype that people have of religion. Some of it is fair, especially given some of the effects of religion in the last two decades. But religious thought hasn't always been this way. Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger and others had deep spiritual sides in addition to their accomplishments in science (I would even say that their spirituality contributed to their motivation to ask the questions they did).

The "God of the Gaps" and "vague deism" aren't the only options. For me, spirituality has nothing to do with explanations or predictions or things of this sort, but is rather a guide in processing other aspects of life (admittedly difficult for me to put into words). For lack of better words, I think of spirituality as a form of processing and creating "meaning." There are plenty of articulate and deep writers on spiritual matters (from my tradition there are Gandhi, Vivekanda, and Krishnamrti to name a few). I think you would be hard pressed to say that the core of their messages are disputed by science.

I mean, sure, I can't prove it's not true. If that's sufficient for you, all the more power to you. That will endear you to most people.

 

[Mole]

Voodoo you do, do so well

They were never meant to be explanations at all. Not in the modern sense. They're just stories for ancient people, to give them a sense of narrative and place in the world, and that the gods had a purpose for them. It is always more about the people themselves, rather than the cosmos as a whole. They didn't gather around fires or sacred sites to "hear an explantion". It was meant to be more personal or tribal. This is something that both modern religion and science don't get. We all want to define or understand things through a larger global or cosmic lens. Rather than a cultural lens. And then we judge or use the ancient world by this larger standard too. As if they cared just as equally, and were proposing "serious" explanations and science.

In Voodoo we become the god. We don't just pray to the god, we actually become the god.

And Voodoo is the religion of Haiti, the first Black Republic. The first Republic of freed Black slaves.

And naturally the Americans hated the first slaves to free themselves and form a Republic and so they demonised the religion of Haiti, called Voodoo, and called the practitioners of Voodoo, Zombies. And even today the Americans demonise the religion of the free slaves in a whole genre of books and movies, and call them the, "Living Dead".

I myself am influenced by Voodoo when, instead of admiring a tree, or writing a poem about a tree, I become a tree.

And so we love the Voodoo you do, do so well.

 

[ygolo]

I mean, sure, I can't prove it's not true. If that's sufficient for you, all the more power to you. That will endear you to most people.

Prove what is not true? If you are still seeing religion as merely a belief system, I think you missed my point.

Yes, it is true that our view of what is true or false shapes what we do. But this is not the only factor in decision making.

What should shape our desires? What ought our life long goals be? Why should we respect our fellow human beings? What ought we value? Are we to follow only our moment to moment impulses, or should we reflect on what ought to be done? If we are to reflect, what informs our reflection?

You may claim that science informs these questions, and I would agree. But if you claim that science alone informs these things, I would disagree.

Perhaps this joke will illustrate my point:
Before assigning a punishment, a judge asked a convicted prisoner why she poisoned her husband. She said, "Because I put some poison in his food." The judge persisted, "Yes. Why did you put poison in his food?" She replies, "Because poison would kill him."

Judge: Yes. Why did you want to kill him?
Convict:Because then he would be dead.
Judge:Why did you want him dead?!
Convict:Because he'd no longer be living.
Judge:Why?!!!
Convict:Because that's what happens when someone is poissoned.
Judge:<sigh>

Science, in many ways, answers the questions I mentioned in a manner similar to how the convict answered the judge in that joke. They are true answers, and relevant to the facts of the situation, but altogether unsatisfying.

Religious thinkers from those of the caliber of Thomas Aquinas, to local pastors address the questions I mentioned in more direct and satisfying ways. There are many writers from many traditions (incuding atheistic ones) who address these concerns. The approaches offered through scientific training, although informative, are ill-equipped for spiritual matters. To call what religion offers in such matters a "God of the Gaps" is to completely miss the point(and I don't believe this is what Dr. Tyson was implying either).

 

[Mole]

Religious thinkers from those of the caliber of Thomas Aquinas.

Please, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that heretics should be killed. And they were.

And Saint Thomas Aquinas told us that he was looking forward to heaven, because there he could look down and enjoy the suffering of the souls in hell.

 

[ygolo]

Please, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that heretics should be killed. And they were.

And Saint Thomas Aquinas told us that he was looking forward to heaven, because there he could look down and enjoy the suffering of the souls in hell.

Well, I wasn't saying I agreed with any particular tradition. I pointed to Aquinas because of his degree of influence. Besides, it was a minor point. My main point is that there are a set of questions for which science is not well equipped.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I think science has, from a certain point of view, become largely like a religion. It's followers have pretty unbending beliefs as to how the world got here, what makes it work, and to figure out this stuff, they walk through every step of the scientific method, almost as if following a religious ritual, to arrive at an answer.

 

[Mole]

I think science has, from a certain point of view, become largely like a religion.

Religion proceeds from the certainty of revelation, while science proceeds from the scepticism of the scientific method.

So religion gives us the comfort of certainty, while science gives us the surprises of scepticism.

 

[jcloudz]

bitch, you dont mean science. you mean scientism!

 

[nonsequitur]

As a scientist looking to leave science because it's become a fraudulent and farcical enterprise, this thread makes me lulz. :hi:

hello patent law and money!

 

[prplchknz]

I think what is being said not the science=religion, but rather that people can depend too much on science just like they can on religion. Just my interpretation don't shoot.

 

[nonsequitur]

For those who think that the peer-review process of publication and funding actually works:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfre...-shuts-down-whistleblower-site-science-fraud/

For those who think that "scientific method" is adhered to, and high-profile publications = important publications:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634

For simple/editorial-style summaries of what is going on in general:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/solution-scientific-fraud-replication

As someone who's seen how rotten the system is from the inside and how self-deluding salesman scientists are... I'm just glad to be getting out. There IS good science, don't get me wrong. There are loads of individuals I know who are in science and who have impeccable ethics and would never let their ambition get in the way of scientific progress. But these individuals are building their findings on a house of cards because their peers around them do not have the same level of integrity. Science is not a religion. Neither is it a process. In the modern world, science is just like any business, except that some believe it to be more prestigious than others. The most ruthless and the ones with the least consideration of what is "right" play the political game to get to the top, continue to believe their own lies and destroy/defame those who disagree. That is "science" from my perspective. Science deserves no more or less respect than any other industry.

 

[prplchknz]

my mom's a scientist. She does research is figuring out how enviroment and nutrition effect neuro cognitive development from infant to age 4. But she also did research on osteoporosis

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Science is a method. No religion I've known of really has any method, no less is a method.

Actually, I would suggest that every ideology and theology are methods. There are fundamental differences between the methods of science and religion. Buddhism is a method that explores perception and the internal world. All forms of meditation are a method. Faith-based religions are methods for establishing and maintaining faith and so tend to be closed systems. When the mind wanders outside its boundaries, there are thought stopping methods using various mantras that people are instructed to recite or think. Religions tend to establish methods for creating and maintaining social structures and solidifying individual perception.

The main difference with science is that it is an open system of inquiry and is a method intended to continually build upon itself, disprove itself, and reform assumptions rather than solidifying assumptions.

Religions have plenty of methods. Unfortunately, they don't lead to much due to lack of any correspondence with reality. The main exception is meditation techniques, but those don't require actual belief in a deity to work.

Human inquiry has its roots in religion and occultism, since that was the main way of attempting to satify the desire to know and understand. But it is religion without science that is lame, or more accurately, we are lame if all we have is religion. Science can stand on its own two feet, and support us along with it.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion lies. Because the scientific method is fairly new, it is difficult for people to get their heads around. There are traces of faith-based reasoning that intermingle with our scientific processes. In this way science can be a religion for some people because they are still using the inner constructs and thought processes established by religion, but they just fill those inner containers with scientific lingo. Also people who have never learned science will interpret what they see based on their own thought processes without realizing that it is possible to have approaches fundamentally different from their own.

I was almost never taught good science growing up, and only had one 8th grade class that had moments of sharing scientific inquiry. Also, Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" program and Mr. Spock's logic from Star Trek were about the only glimpses I had into a non-faith-based approach. Because of this I had trouble seeing the difference between religious faith and scientific assumptions until I was an adult. I always had an inner drive for clarity of thought and those crumbs of reasoning I encountered are something I readily consumed. I surrounded myself with logical, reasoned people, and after several years was able to comprehend more deeply what the scientific method was and why clear reasoning that can be externally validated is fundamentally important to humanity.

 

[Lark]

As I understand religion it provides an ethical framework and object of devotion, I'm not sure if science actually qualifies as religion given that criteria.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

As I understand religion it provides an ethical framework and object of devotion, I'm not sure if science actually qualifies as religion given that criteria.

By that definition I would say neither science nor religion apply, as neither is necessary to or inherently creates an ethical framework.

Actually, I would suggest that every ideology and theology are methods. There are fundamental differences between the methods of science and religion. Buddhism is a method that explores perception and the internal world. All forms of meditation are a method. Faith-based religions are methods for establishing and maintaining faith and so tend to be closed systems. When the mind wanders outside its boundaries, there are thought stopping methods using various mantras that people are instructed to recite or think. Religions tend to establish methods for creating and maintaining social structures and solidifying individual perception.

Well here's a question: Can you qualify as part of a religion without having a particular cosmological and ethical belief?

 

[Lark]

By that definition I would say neither science nor religion apply, as neither is necessary to or inherently creates an ethical framework.

It is not the first time we disagree.