Could science be considered a religion?

[ravergirl]

Since this was off-topic in another thread I decided to make it a thread of it's own.

By definition of Science, what is and is not posted here (since scientists know their own creeds better than we could) and by definition of Religion what is and is not posted here. Could science be considered a religion

I do realize that most religions deal with the supernatural, but not all of them deal with a higher power.

Religious Tolerance

This site lists all of the Religions that are in practice these days.

There are several that do not deal in the supernatural.

Here is the Wiki definition of Science

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.

Lavoisier says, "... the impossibility of separating the nomenclature of a science from the science itself is owing to this, that every branch of physical science must consist of three things: the series of facts which are the objects of the science, the ideas which represent these facts and the words by which these ideas are expressed."[1]

Here is the prescibed method of having an experiment

Hypothisis

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur.

Experiment

In scientific inquiry, an experiment (Latin: ex- periri, "to try out") is a method of investigating particular types of research questions or solving particular types of problems. The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the world and is used in both natural sciences as well as in social sciences. An experiment is defined, in science, as a method of investigating less known fields, solving practical problems and proving theoretical assumptions.

Theory

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. Broadly speaking we can say that a theory is some kind of belief or claim that (supposedly) explains, asserts, or consolidates some class of claims. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite. However, In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

Fact

The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[4]

The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[5] Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found for instance in the phrase Matter of fact,[6] and in "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[7][8]

Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[9] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[10]

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[11] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[12]

and here is the Wiki definition of Religion

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

In the frame of western religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

I know thats a lot of reading there, but There it is. I just want to know if anyone besides me think that science could be considered a religion even though there is no worship practice per se.

Edited November 20, 2008 by ravergirl

[Lt_Ripley]

science changes ..... sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly , but it changes as facts present themselves. Religion doesn't unless you pull it along kicking and screaming and only then it changes because it has too to remain relevant to the culture or fall to the wayside. ( it's the reason we don't have slaves or stone adulterers here for example) .

how could one be offended when someone who feels threatened by science refers to it as a religion ? that says more about them and their own insecurities than science.

I find it funny however that things like creationism is trying to call itself science. lol. might as well shop from ...

Edited November 20, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[ravergirl]

science changes ..... sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly , but it changes as facts present themselves. Religion doesn't unless you pull it along kicking and screaming and only then it changes because it has too to remain relevant to the culture or fall to the wayside. ( it's the reason we don't have slaves or stone adulterers here for example) .

That isn't a reason that Science can't be considered a religion. Unless you are taking 'Religion' to mean one particular religion. Progressive religions are on that list of religions in the link I posted for world religions. I only mean that by definition of the words, could science be considered a religion....I noticed you didn't vote. Will you later? Or not at all?

how could one be offended when someone who feels threatened by science refers to it as a religion ? that says more about them and their own insecurities than science.

Because very religious people might see science being called a religion offensive, and it takes all kinds. I just wanted to know.

I find it funny however that things like creationism is trying to call itself science. lol. might as well shop from ...

Creationism isn't sentient, it isn't calling itself science. I'm glad you find humor in it, but there are people that are pulling their hair out trying to make sense of life. Like me. **shrugs** but ok.

[karl 12]

Science deals with cold,hard,rational,reasonable,lucid,tangible,cogent,objective,impartial,

analytical fact.

Religion is basicaly opinion based on speculation,conjecture,heresay,rumour and guesswork.

Faith is not fact.

If a thing was a fact,a person would not need to have faith in it.

Edited November 20, 2008 by karl 12

[ravergirl]

Science deals with cold,hard,rational,reasonable,lucid,tangible,cogent,objective,impartial,

analytical fact.

Religion is basicaly opinion based on speculation,conjecture,heresay,rumour and guesswork.

Faith is not fact.

If a thing was a fact,a person would not need to have faith in it.

I'm not talking about faith. You obviously didn't bother to read the original post. But thank you for your input.

[AlexG]

I'm not talking about faith. You obviously didn't bother to read the original post. But thank you for your input.

If you're talking about religion, you're talking about faith.

considered a religion even though there is no worship

Taking the Wiki definitions of something and saying, 'don't they look the same' is fairly silly.

[BlindMessiah]

It isn't a religion, but for some people, it can be treated as such.

[ravergirl]

If you're talking about religion, you're talking about faith.

Taking the Wiki definitions of something and saying, 'don't they look the same' is fairly silly.

Ok fine, but I am not talking about faith in supernatural things. You have faith in science. don't you?

comparison is silly?

so putting an ape next to a man and saying, 'hmmmm, these are similar lets take a closer look and see if they are related is silly?

classification is silly to you? Some scientist you are then.

[Lt_Ripley]

That isn't a reason that Science can't be considered a religion. Unless you are taking 'Religion' to mean one particular religion. Progressive religions are on that list of religions in the link I posted for world religions. I only mean that by definition of the words, could science be considered a religion....I noticed you didn't vote. Will you later? Or not at all?

Because very religious people might see science being called a religion offensive, and it takes all kinds. I just wanted to know.

Creationism isn't sentient, it isn't calling itself science. I'm glad you find humor in it, but there are people that are pulling their hair out trying to make sense of life. Like me. **shrugs** but ok.

I did vote . I was the first vote. lol.

Progressive religions tend not to have a problem with science . Most scientists are not atheists as some would have you believe. But their work consists on evidence and facts and the search thereof. Plenty of times something in science has been listed as fact only to change later - Hawkins work on black holes for example was considered fact by most until even he acquired more evidence and changed his view.

I think religion sees science as offensive because it pressures them to come from a state of belief with no evidence to one of a state with evidence. and they can't . Personal opinion , feelings , beliefs are not fact or even evidence suggesting so. It's hearsay.

as for creationism not calling itself science ? it's opened it's own museum ! is in some schools being taught as a science !

Edited November 21, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[AlexG]

Ok fine, but I am not talking about faith in supernatural things. You have faith in science. don't you?

Religion is about the supernatural.

No, I don't have faith in science. Faith is the belief in things unseen for which there is no evidence. I've seen, and I've seen the evidence. I know, or at least have a pretty good idea.

comparison is silly?

What's silly is comparing superficial definitions from Wiki.

[IamsSon]

Although I don't think that science follows enough characteristics to be considered a Religion, I do believe that there are people who pervert science and turn it into their religion. What they consider science is not really science, it is a religion based on science.

[thewrathofvoight]

I don't think science in and of itself could be a religion. However I do think people's treatment of science as the answer to the unanswerables can be a religion. So can people turn things into a religion? Yes. People have turned all sorts of things into a religion.

When someone believes in something its usually a religious experience. So when a person doesn't do the research and just takes on faith someone elses explanation that's a sort of given in relying on those more knowledgable than we are. However if someone gets angry when other people question that perspective that is going against science. Science likes questions in order to keep the wheels going on the machine. To keep the changes coming. When people begin to not want the changes to come and then begin to resist any sort of questioning, then to me its no different than a rock solid faith that gets volitile when logically challenged.

[Papagiorgio]

Science does fit in the broad definition of the word religion. There are tenets and practices in science, and it is centered upon claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature.

[aquatus1]

Based on the provided definition of religion, then no, science would not be considered a religion.

A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Science certainly does have its tenets and practices, however these are based on the polar opposite of supernatural and moral claims. The practices of science are based on empirical or logical data. The tenets are based on the removal of as much personal bias as possible.

Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction

.

Again, we see an almost polar opposite between science and religion. Where religious rituals are based on the passing on of beliefs and traditions, scientific rituals are based on the questioning and re-defining of previously held beliefs and traditions.

In the frame of western religious thought,[1] religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane.[2] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

In this, there may well be common ground between science and religion, and that is as a "way of life". In the same way that a religious person can go about their daily life perceving the world through their particular religious filter, so can a scientist view the world through a scientific filter.

That said, however, there is no reason why a religious person cannot view the world scientifically, and a scientist view the world in a religious way. A soccer fanatic can view the world as one big soccer match, A master of the Tea Ceremony through his rituals, and a martial artist through his particular jutsu. There are many different ways to go through life, and science and religion are merely two of them.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[3] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

The closest that science comes to "Organized religion" is grants. Scientists do not work for free, and they cannot research for free. Someone has to pick up the tab, and that person usually has a vested interest in seeing their investment grow. Organized religion has, as it's purpose, the support, both financial and political, of it's particular belief. Grant have, as their purpose, the support of a particular belief (the belief that the research will be successful), insofar as that belief is supported. Unlike organized religion, if the belief of the grant is shown to be wrong or unreliable, the grant is abandoned.

[ravergirl]

I did vote . I was the first vote. lol.

Progressive religions tend not to have a problem with science . Most scientists are not atheists as some would have you believe. But their work consists on evidence and facts and the search thereof. Plenty of times something in science has been listed as fact only to change later - Hawkins work on black holes for example was considered fact by most until even he acquired more evidence and changed his view.

I think religion sees science as offensive because it pressures them to come from a state of belief with no evidence to one of a state with evidence. and they can't . Personal opinion , feelings , beliefs are not fact or even evidence suggesting so. It's hearsay.

Oh.LOL I thought I was....i never made a poll before.

I just think that science is a religion whether other religions would accept it as such

It requires faith enough that some people dedicate their lives to it.

It has followers, and leaders.

Follows strict guidelines.

Has morality implications (good and bad depending whose hands it is in)

Hell it even has 'temples.'

Has it's own secret societies, and at one point all scientists were considered pagans, or witches and killed.

Code of ethics.

a Uniform <--see

It holds fellowship meetings.

Recieves Donations.

and certain sects have dedicated themselves to helping mankind, no matter their financial sacrfice personally.

I think science has always been a religion, and 'religion' is used out of context.

[aquatus1]

Religion is about the supernatural.

Well...not necessarily, While the supernatural is indeed the most common focus of religion, a religion can be anything, including logical or secular arguments, around which traditions and rituals are codified in a formal manner. The Bushido system of the samurai was very much a religion, based on their concept of honor. Ayn Rand's following was all but a cult, with morning readings, loyal followers, and even the occasional fatwa against the unlucky individual who dared question the author.

[thewrathofvoight]

I'm curious about something maybe aquatus could answer. For a long time science relied on the superstition that the solar system was earth centered. Now this is what science said as influenced by the church. So here is one example of this supposedly pristine "science" that never is influenced by superstition, actually for years promoting an illogical concept that turned out to be false. And this certainly isn't the first time nor will it be the last. Science is very often motivated by who is paying the bills. So. Where did this notion come from that with science its "just the facts ma'm" I don't think any of us have ever seen in our lifetime that scenario when it comes to science at all? After all scientists are only human right? So where did this idea of scientific integrity come from? Anyone know who first pushed science in this direction? Like since when is science motivated only by the facts?

[aquatus1]

Now concerning "Faith"...

Some clarification of terms is needed here. In religion, Faith is a capitalized word. Faith in religion is everything that the religion is founded on. Indeed, more than one religion encourages the concept that, in case of a conflict between faith and reality, choose faith.

Faith in religion is the mental state in which one accepts the tenets of a given religion and absorbs them as part of the conscious morality of a person. One willingly submits oneself to them, and in return the faith is used to bolster one's spiritual growth.

That is religious faith. Faith, in science, is something far less impressive.

In science, faith is nothing more than a simple way of saying "probability". Basically, in science Faith is nothing more than playing the odds. Throughout all of human history, the sun has risen in the East and settled in the West. Scientists have faith that it will do so again tomorrow. A ball is allowed to roll off a table. The scientist has faith that the ball will hit the floor.

There is nothing personal about the faith in science. If a given theory is working to explain a certain phenomena, then a scientist has faith that it will continue to do so. This is not because the scientists considers the theory to be any sort of "truth" or any sort of moral compass. The theory does nothing to his spiritual growth (it could, certainly, but then pretty much anything can be used for spiritual growth. The Japanese can do it with flower arrangement). A scientist's faith in a theory only endures until the theory is shown to be wrong. At that point, it is either discarded or modified, in the same way that a calculator that no longer works is either discarded or replaced..

In science faith is nothing more than trust. In religion, Faith is absolutely everything.

[Papagiorgio]

Science certainly does have its tenets and practices, however these are based on the polar opposite of supernatural and moral claims. The practices of science are based on empirical or logical data. The tenets are based on the removal of as much personal bias as possible.

The definition of religion provided by the OP does not state that a religion MUST be based on supernatural and moral claims, just that it OFTEN does.

Again, we see an almost polar opposite between science and religion. Where religious rituals are based on the passing on of beliefs and traditions, scientific rituals are based on the questioning and re-defining of previously held beliefs and traditions.

But many of those beliefs and traditions have not changed, or they are products of continued study on early scientists theories. So in order to redefine and question a particular belief it must have been passed down.

In this, there may well be common ground between science and religion, and that is as a "way of life". In the same way that a religious person can go about their daily life perceving the world through their particular religious filter, so can a scientist view the world through a scientific filter.

Seems to me science and religion have a lot in common.

I think what the OP failed to realize when she posted this thread is that scientists and religous fanatics have been at each others throats so long that likening one to the other is going to draw some hostility.

Keep in mind ravergirl is not comparing Science to Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Wicca, or any other specific religion for that matter. She is merely pointing out that Science fits in the broad definition of religion she posted.

[thewrathofvoight]

Um I don't think so. What Faith is required in buddhism aquatus? What Faith is required in Paganism? I'm not sure you aren't confusing your generalization of Chrisitan faith with all faiths.

[Ketzer]

Science is based on logic, facts and proof.

Religion is based on faith.

Big difference.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Almighty89

[IamsSon]

Now concerning "Faith"...

Some clarification of terms is needed here. In religion, Faith is a capitalized word. Faith in religion is everything that the religion is founded on. Indeed, more than one religion encourages the concept that, in case of a conflict between faith and reality, choose faith.

Faith in religion is the mental state in which one accepts the tenets of a given religion and absorbs them as part of the conscious morality of a person. One willingly submits oneself to them, and in return the faith is used to bolster one's spiritual growth.

That is religious faith. Faith, in science, is something far less impressive.

In science, faith is nothing more than a simple way of saying "probability". Basically, in science Faith is nothing more than playing the odds. Throughout all of human history, the sun has risen in the East and settled in the West. Scientists have faith that it will do so again tomorrow. A ball is allowed to roll off a table. The scientist has faith that the ball will hit the floor.

There is nothing personal about the faith in science. If a given theory is working to explain a certain phenomena, then a scientist has faith that it will continue to do so. This is not because the scientists considers the theory to be any sort of "truth" or any sort of moral compass. The theory does nothing to his spiritual growth (it could, certainly, but then pretty much anything can be used for spiritual growth. The Japanese can do it with flower arrangement). A scientist's faith in a theory only endures until the theory is shown to be wrong. At that point, it is either discarded or modified, in the same way that a calculator that no longer works is either discarded or replaced..

In science faith is nothing more than trust. In religion, Faith is absolutely everything.

Isn't there a deeper faith in science also though? Science is based on certain assumptions. These assumptions by their very nature cannot be proven, they are accepted as being steadfast and inviolable, but we don't and can't prove that this is true, it is taken on pure faith that they are, right?

Edited November 21, 2008 by IamsSon

[thewrathofvoight]

Science is based on logic, facts and proof.

Religion is based on faith.

Big difference.

Who's logic facts and proof? Science has long been influenced by the church. So I'm still not sure where this idea that its just logic facts and proof? Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

The Greek Aristarchus of Samos, in the 3rd century BC, was the first known person to speculate that the Earth revolves around a stationary sun. It was not until 1,800 years later, however, in the 16th century, that the Polish mathematician and astronomer Copernicus presented a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system, which was later elaborated and expanded by Johannes Kepler.

So for 1800 years who exactly was it that repressed the facts logic and proof? This was scientific theory influenced by the powers that be to present a false theory in order to continue getting funding. I'm sure in this day and age this would never happen.

But what I'm curious about is who defined science as logic, proof and facts? Its certainly not ever been that way that I know of?

Edited November 21, 2008 by thewrathofvoight

[ravergirl]

I think what the OP failed to realize when she posted this thread is that scientists and religous fanatics have been at each others throats so long that likening one to the other is going to draw some hostility.

Keep in mind ravergirl is not comparing Science to Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Wicca, or any other specific religion for that matter. She is merely pointing out that Science fits in the broad definition of religion she posted.

She realized.

and thanks.

Science is based on logic, facts and proof.

Religion is based on faith or beliefs.

Big difference.

Religion is not based on faith or beliefs. Religions usually use their faith and beliefs as thier central focus.

Buddhism, Confucianism,Taoism, and most of the neo-pagan religions use either self or community as the central focus of their religions.. You guys have got to read more about the religions out there.

The largest Religion isn't the same

Science uses logic, facts, and truth as their central focus.

Religion uses logic, facts, and truth as their central focus.

It is just a different paradigm. Same concept different values, different ethics, and different central focus.

[eight bits]

I voted no on both questions. The second is easier to explain. Statements can be offensive, and statements can sometimes masquerade as questions, but real questions? No. They do not offend me. I sensed you asked a real question, sincerely.

As to the first, and title, question: Dictionary definitions are nice, but I go by how words are used.

What people mean by a religion, and what people mean by science don't much overlap, not as far as I can see.

People do use science as a weapon or debating stance against religion. We see that here at UM all the time. But people use logic, or history, or civic virtue as weapons or debating stances against religion, too. Such uses don't make any of those things into a religion.

Not much overlap in meaning, nothing really "religious" about the "antagonism" between them..

Can't think of any other way science could be a religion. Not on short notice anyway.

You have faith in science. don't you?

No, I don't. Evidence and argument convince or they don't. I don't have "faith" in history or mathematics. each, however, has persuaded me of some things.

Edited November 21, 2008 by eight bits