Could science be considered a religion?

[AlexG]

So the earth being the center of the universe because God put it there was "built upon." I see.

Earth as the center of the universe because God put it there was a religious concept, not a scientific one.

As more data becomes known, theories change. From cycles to epicycles to orbits. It's all built upon what's come before, both for that which is known to be and that which is known not to be.

[aquatus1]

So, if scientists at one time bowed to the church for funding and support doesn't it stand to reason to consider that scientists are still bowing to someone for funding and support?

Yes. I've already answered this.

And if when scientists were indebted to the church their findings either supported the church or were conveniently obfuscated, doesn't it stand to reason that we should be a bit skeptical about the answers we're getting unless we have complete clarity about where funding is coming from and what that funding is dependent on?

No, it doesn't, and I've already explained this as well.

[Copasetic]

And just to be a good sport

Law, Fact (scientific), Hypothesis, Theory

In order of importance these all go in cycle to me? It is only when something is finite does it change the level of importance. If there is a continual cycle then all could matter.

For example a fact, could lead to a hypothesis, which then becomes a theory and then finally a law.

Then that law could lead to a fact and then a hypothesis which then becomes a theory.

To me, in science, all are equally important.

Ahh, but they aren't.

In science we rank them

1. Theory

2. Law

3. Hypothesis

4. Fact

Theories are the most powerful type of idea in science because theories explain. They never become laws -Which are blanket, yet truthful statements about our world.

Let's look at an example, Are you familiar with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

Newton's law from Wikipedia;

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

Great, but what does that tell us about our world? I know, you may say "Well Copasetic, that tells us that for masses attract each other and the force of attraction is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two masses," but what does that mean? What is it saying about our world?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It only says we have a really accurate way to describe how two masses interact, but it doesn't tell us why they do. For what reasons the they do.

To do that we need a theory from this fella named Einstein. Who comes along and tells us that the reason these masses are attracted to each other, is because space-time is curved by these masses. The more massive an object, the more it distorts the curvature of space-time. Einsteins theories explain rather than just dictate behavior. And this is above all else, the most important thing in science. That is what we do with science, we explain the world around us. Not just summarize it like a procrastinated book report, but to actually find meaning, dare I even say -A degree of truth, to our world.

So for something to become a theory, is a big deal. Because a theory has to be logically true (what I was talking about in the post above) as well as be empirically verified. Because of this, theories are not easily overturned and even when they are it is can be they are incorporated into a newer theory.

Now hypothesis, we demolish, construct, create, throw away all the time. Hypotheses are a dime a dozen and facts by themselves are nothing to science. Any one can have facts, but like laws they lack meaning. Fact; the sky is blue. So what? What does that mean? What does that say about our world? Nothing by itself.

Got it?

So on too your original questions:

A theory that is generally accepted will continue to be accepted unless it is challenged otherwise?

True and false. A theory which has withstood the test of time will be accepted unless evidence contrary to the theory's ability to explain is found. This is not to say that people don't try to falsify time-tested theories.

And in order to challenge a theory a fledgling scientist needs funding. No scientist is going to get that funding if he or she is trying to over turn an accepted theory.

I've never heard of a scientist not get funding because what he is researching may challenge a theory. You get funding when your work looks promising -Having work that may potentially provide new insight into a theory or even over turn parts of it or build upon it are pretty promising.

When scientists become scientists, that is during their PhD they are required to do something called a dissertation, which is a culmination of their work and research. These often retest old ideas or offer new directions to take in studying old ideas.

[thewrathofvoight]

Alex G this is exactly what I mean about the white wash of science. Think about what you just said? Is that true? Did the church build up this theory? Or did the scientists? Because from what I understand the scientists built up this theory long before the church every existed. They influenced the church to believe this was so and thus the church took it as confirmation of the Bible and wanted to keep it that way.

This is why I keep asking you where you got the idea that Science has been this pristine image of logic, reason, facts and proof? For a long time, what defined science is what people wanted who had money and influence. So I have to suspect that if this is how science developed there is a natural acceptance of this sort of thing throughout its existence. Only recently has science broken from the influence of the church. And that is a fact. So for all you uninformed people believing the myth that science is a discipline dependent upon facts, logic reason, that it is the "anti religion" I suggest you crack open a few history books and do a bit of research. I always thought this was common knowledge.

Apparently not.

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

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

And Copesic as much as you seem to want to flex your science muscles, and as much as I'd like to latch on to that, you are arguing something else entirely.

I've put to the table that science has always and largely been influenced by religion since its inception. Also that science has been funded and supported throughout history by the rich and influential.

I've asked you to prove that science is about facts, logic, reason and proof. You can talk about your scientific studies and experiments but you can not change the fact that through history science was indeed very much controlled and influenced by the church and were obedient servants.

Please disprove this argument before venturing elsewhere. I thought that was frowned upon on this site?

Edited November 21, 2008 by thewrathofvoight

[IamsSon]

Yes. I've already answered this.

No, it doesn't, and I've already explained this as well.

Aquatus, I get this feeling that you're taking this personally and there is really no reason for you to do so, I'm not questioning your credibility. Your explanation is good overall, but you can't guarantee that in no case at no time science is not being compromised by some scientist somewhere in order to insure he gets to keep his funding. I would also doubt that you or anyone can guarantee that the peer-review method hasn't at some point been corrupted to allow something to be accepted or hidden. The peer-review method is a human institution and as history shows over and over, humans and human institutions can be corrupted.

[S2F]

I'll add my two cents here, saying science is a religion is like saying the bible is a religion. The bible in and of itself isn't religion, but people's understanding and interpretation is. Science can be viewed the same way, and I agree that some people go to great lengths to defend science and even try to push it on others as a belief system. While there are some similarities, personally I don't think science by itself is a religion.

[thewrathofvoight]

Redundant never mind.

Edited November 21, 2008 by thewrathofvoight

[Copasetic]

Alex G this is exactly what I mean about the white wash of science. Think about what you just said? Is that true? Did the church build up this theory? Or did the scientists? Because from what I understand the scientists built up this theory long before the church every existed. They influenced the church to believe this was so and thus the church took it as confirmation of the Bible and wanted to keep it that way.

This is why I keep asking you where you got the idea that Science has been this pristine image of logic, reason, facts and proof? For a long time, what defined science is what people wanted who had money and influence. So I have to suspect that if this is how science developed there is a natural acceptance of this sort of thing throughout its existence. Only recently has science broken from the influence of the church. And that is a fact. So for all you uninformed people believing the myth that science is a discipline dependent upon facts, logic reason, that it is the "anti religion" I suggest you crack open a few history books and do a bit of research. I always thought this was common knowledge.

Apparently not.

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

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

And Copesic as much as you seem to want to flex your science muscles, and as much as I'd like to latch on to that, you are arguing something else entirely.

I've put to the table that science has always and largely been influenced by religion since its inception. Also that science has been funded and supported throughout history by the rich and influential.

I've asked you to prove that science is about facts, logic, reason and proof. You can talk about your scientific studies and experiments but you can not change the fact that through history science was indeed very much controlled and influenced by the church and were obedient servants.

Please disprove this argument before venturing elsewhere. I thought that was frowned upon on this site?

I thought I explained facts, logic, reason and proof in science already. Maybe you missed the post? Or maybe I was not clear?

I think people get confused about logic, facts and truth. They can be kind of tedious concepts.

Religion certainly can use logical truths, but logical truths mean nothing without an application to the real world.

For instance,

All cats are all black, Garfield is not all black, therefore Garfield is not a cat.

That is a logical truth, consequence of the logical statement: "all cats are all black", means anything not all black cannot be a cat.

But what is this logical truth without real world application?

We know Garfield is a cat, because without even thinking it -We test the idea, that is find empirical truth. If Garfield is a cat, then he should /look/ like a cat. Having seen cats before our brains make the connection. We could even apply more strict rule sets to testing this. We could do this by constructing sets of traits for cats and those for Garfield -and then seeing how much they overlap, we can see our prediction that Garfield is indeed a cat, is true.

What we have done with all that, is what science does.

That is the difference between science and religion -Or more specifically faith and science.

Religions construct logically true statements that need taken on faith, or another popular method for acquiring truth in religion is by divine revelation; Such as God revealing the Koran to Muhammad or Joesph Smith's theophany. Which we again take on faith that the revealer of this divine truth is being honest with us.

Going back to the example above;

All cats are all black, Garfield is not all black, therefore Garfield is not a cat.

In religion we can take this logical truth on faith. In contrast to religion science cannot. That is where religion and science part ways, logical truths in science must be taken to the real world to be verified. We cannot accept it on logic alone. Do our statements match real observations? Real world data?

Logical truth, in light of empirical truth is a very powerful method for understanding our world. But even then, we don't prove a truth as an absolute. Proof requires a truth is absolute, that it is a certainty. In science we always have to be ready to accept new evidence which can be logically true and verified against real world observations.

Religions can and do accept truths based on faith as absolute. Again, they differ.

To steal a quote from one of my favorite anthropologists:

"Science begins where bigotry and absolute certainty end. The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof."

-Ashley Montagu

Does that make sense?

[thewrathofvoight]

Again I said the field. We're talking about the field of science, not the experiments and research. I think that's where we're going off the rails. A science experiment is going to be about logic, reason, proof and facts. But the field of science is not. And yet it is always presented as such when in fact for years science has indeed beeni influenced by the rich and powerful and also the church.

This is my statement. Do you deny this?

[Copasetic]

Aquatus, I get this feeling that you're taking this personally and there is really no reason for you to do so, I'm not questioning your credibility. Your explanation is good overall, but you can't guarantee that in no case at no time science is not being compromised by some scientist somewhere in order to insure he gets to keep his funding. I would also doubt that you or anyone can guarantee that the peer-review method hasn't at some point been corrupted to allow something to be accepted or hidden. The peer-review method is a human institution and as history shows over and over, humans and human institutions can be corrupted.

I agree here Mr. Son, but what is that saying? What do you make of that? We should disregard peer-review? We should disregard science?

Because that I would not agree with.

If you mean to say we should be skeptical of scientific truths, then I would agree. In fact, I would say every other scientist I know agrees. That is an integral part of the scientific process, as Aquatus mentioned earlier -Retesting.

Do you have a problem with the retesting of ideas? Do you think there is another way we can verify work and if so what?

[Copasetic]

Again I said the field. We're talking about the field of science, not the experiments and research. I think that's where we're going off the rails. A science experiment is going to be about logic, reason, proof and facts. But the field of science is not. And yet it is always presented as such when in fact for years science has indeed beeni influenced by the rich and powerful and also the church.

This is my statement. Do you deny this?

That's not true. A field of science has a core set of knowledge. Generally, in this core group are scientific theories. Scientific theories as I said earlier are very powerful ideas in science. And how we arrive at them is by logical truth (something must be logically true for it to be science) and most importantly, empirical verification.

Science itself, is a methodology for knowing. The methodology has no influential power -the knowledge gained from science is what has been, in the past, molded by those seeking to support their ideals. I wouldn't say science was influenced by the church, but I would say the presentation and storage of knowledge gained by science was.

[thewrathofvoight]

I thought of something that might make more sense so I had to run back out of bed to post it.

You said this

All cats are all black, Garfield is not all black, therefore Garfield is not a cat.

That is a logical truth, consequence of the logical statement: "all cats are all black", means anything not all black cannot be a cat.

But what is this logical truth without real world application?

We know Garfield is a cat, because without even thinking it -We test the idea, that is find empirical truth. If Garfield is a cat, then he should /look/ like a cat. Having seen cats before our brains make the connection. We could even apply more strict rule sets to testing this. We could do this by constructing sets of traits for cats and those for Garfield -and then seeing how much they overlap, we can see our prediction that Garfield is indeed a cat, is true.

It reminds me of this sentiment.

All religions are biased and rely on faith. Science is not a religion. Therefore Science is not biased and doesn't rely on faith.

People make this statement all the time. Look through the thread to see a few. But like you I see a real world application. I can tell just by looking at the field of science that it has a history of being biased. I've seen how the church oppressed certain theories and how funding influenced the fields studied. I have seen incidents of unethical behavior. I can also apply my real world understanding that scientists are humans that are motivated by the same passions as any one else. I also have seem some scientists wax positively poetic about their passion for the field. I've also seen very angry and antagonistic scientists defend at all costs their ideas only to be proven wrong by other scientists as well.

Basically what I see is that the reality of the field often fails to measure up to the ideal. And I get a little cynical when I see scientists swearing up and down that this couldn't possibly happen. That science unlike religion is based on facts, proofs and evidence.

Because I too know a cat when I see one.

[Chauncy]

Never really understood why this comparison is made, I've seen people imply this comparison on this site before. I seen it as nothing more than a ploy.....or a transference of sorts. Kinda like my nephew when he proclaims that "I'am rubber and you are glue, what ever you say bounces off of me sticks to you.....nanananana"

What is intolerably more egregious is when a religious person attempts to slant scientific data in order to uphold their faith, or to use the data to imply to others something that is blatantly erroneous.

More practically though I think that when it comes to honesty, that science maintains a structure as: "This is the evidence, what conclusions can we draw from them?"....diametric to this , religion maintains "This is the conclusion, what evidence can we find to support it?"

Cheers

[Mr Walker]

Sure, science has all the outward trappings of a religion. There is esoteric knowledge and exoteric knowledge. There are high priests and acolytes.There is an absolute belief framework, held by many, that science can answer all questions and solve all problems. Headlines trumpet the miracle cures and discoveries of science. Many famous scientists are given almost god like status particularly within their own communities.

None of this is really of concern. It is simply human nature to create similar forms, functions and belief systems around many different things. The person who attributed a personality to the sun to explain its movements, was, in a way, within his /her knowledge base and social context, doing exactly the same as a scientist does in hypothesising and extrapolating from what he/she knows, to what they do not know and wish to explain/understand.

One of the causes of dynamic tension between scientists without a spiritual element, and those people who see the world through spiritual eyes is that they are often looking at the world through different contextual appreciations, and thus see things., problems, and solutions, in different ways.

It is the gap between science and spirituality, which generates this tension, and yet, in a way, it is an artificial gap because the tension is sort of like a string which runs across and connects the two divergent ends.

All of the string, including both ends and the middle, is actually needed to get an accurate measurement of the nature of human existence, the universe, and the relationship which exists between them.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Copasetic]

I thought of something that might make more sense so I had to run back out of bed to post it.

You said this

It reminds me of this sentiment.

All religions are biased and rely on faith. Science is not a religion. Therefore Science is not biased and doesn't rely on faith.

People make this statement all the time. Look through the thread to see a few. But like you I see a real world application. I can tell just by looking at the field of science that it has a history of being biased. I've seen how the church oppressed certain theories and how funding influenced the fields studied. I have seen incidents of unethical behavior. I can also apply my real world understanding that scientists are humans that are motivated by the same passions as any one else. I also have seem some scientists wax positively poetic about their passion for the field. I've also seen very angry and antagonistic scientists defend at all costs their ideas only to be proven wrong by other scientists as well.

Basically what I see is that the reality of the field often fails to measure up to the ideal. And I get a little cynical when I see scientists swearing up and down that this couldn't possibly happen. That science unlike religion is based on facts, proofs and evidence.

Because I too know a cat when I see one.

Well being overtly simple sure bit me in the *** eh?

The logical statement you have made is certainly a logical truth. However, finding empirical truth is not as easy as I have made it out to be. In the real world it's not as simple as recognizing Garfield looks like a cat. To find empirical truth we have to first phrase it in a way that allows us to test it, then from there we have to control as many variables as possible. Sometimes there are too many variables for current methodologies to control and the how true something is empirically is simply unknown. Maybe an example will help.

Let's look at a logical truth;

Prey that is fast and does not use a straight escape route is better at avoiding predation. Thompson's Gazelle are fast and use a zig-zag method of predator evasion to escape cheetahs, while the impala use a less eratic evasion tactic. Gazelle are better at avoiding cheetah predation than impala.

Okay, so we have something that is logically true. How about empirically?

By my simplistic example form earlier (and yours above) we could simply say "I've seen cheetahs eating those funny little impala on Animal Planet all the time, case closed". Unfortunately that doesn't cut it for empirical truth.

We need to first formulate it in a way that allows it to be testable, something like;

If gazelle use a more erratic escape route then impala, then they will avoid cheetah predation more often than impala.

Now we have a statement (albeit not a very good one, sorry I am tired) we can test.

It would seem we could just observe which animal is eaten by the cheetah more often, but this isn't enough. Because in finding empirical truths we need to be as specific as possible. What variables must we account for then?

Does the animal's size affect incidence of predation? What about eye-sight? Family group size? Herd size? Smell? What kind of terrains do they inhabit, that is - is the predator equally capable on both terrains? What about the cat behavior, are some cheetahs better at catching one type of prey? Coat color of predator and prey? How about the temperatures during observations? Rainy season or dry? Is the animal in a homogeneous herd? Or is the herd composed of other species? How do those species affect the rate of predation? How large are your observational populations? Can statistical significance be found in a population of that size? Are rates constant across geographical distributions? What about the age of the predator? Age of the prey? And many more.

So the trick is to eliminate, control and account for as many variable as possible (I would like to give some props to any wildlife biologists reading, you guys deal with a head-aching amount of variables ) We need to go about plugging all these variables with data as well.

We know there will be observations on both sides of our statement. So with all this in hand we may travel to Tanzania and make some observations and learn that cheetahs are successful in hunting gazelle 45% of the time, while they are successful killing impala 49% of the time. So we can say our empirical evidence supports our hypothesis, and thus our logical truth.

But, lets say a few years later another big cat biologist working in Ghana produces data which shows successful hunts for gazelle 51% of the time, while successful hunts for impala 47% of the time.

So what went wrong? What variables are we missing, what did we fail to see?

Can we statistically align the data?

Etc, etc, etc

As you can see, its not as simple as "I've seen some scientists misbehave, therefore I falsify the logical truth".

What does the statistical data show? Are there anomalies? What variables? Collection methods? How about definitions?

I certainly wouldn't argue that scientists are above bias. If that were not the case, then double-blinded studies would not be necessary. I would argue though, that while bias or self-interest is certainly capable of creeping in from time to time, scientists are particularly good at minimizing/eliminating it. And this not so much because they are scientists, but because of the methodology of science.

Science corrects and if you don't play by the rules -You'll get caught. Once you are caught, your out of the sandbox for life. We may not catch you today, or tomorrow or even in 1 year from now -but someone will catch you eventually. If you forge data, fake results etc, it will be caught. There is simply no way around it. Science is progressive and additive. It is like building a giant brick house, where millions of individuals participate. Sure you may get away with laying a row of bad brick, but eventually someone is going to build on top of those bricks. And when they do, they will check your masonry skills by seeing the bricks you laid. If they are bad, then they are bad and someone will cry foul.

[+Paranoid Android]

I think it's pretty much been said already - Science itself cannot be considered a religion. But there ARE many people in this world that bow to science by Faith to lead their lives and thus these actions resemble those of religious believers.

Fact of the matter is that not everyone has the capacity to know everything about science and the world around us. Many of us don't know enough about science to make truly informed decisions about it, yet still take what is printed about it as true - that is the very definition of Faith, and puts many people who believe in Science in the category of religious believers.

~ Regards,

[IamsSon]

I agree here Mr. Son, but what is that saying? What do you make of that? We should disregard peer-review? We should disregard science?

Not at all! Why do you try to take this stuff to the ridiculous extreme? When you do this it seems as if you are trying to set up a strawman, or are trying to make it easy to ridicule me so that you can dismiss what I'm saying. I don't think you are doing it with that purpose in mind, but it comes across that way.

Because that I would not agree with.

I would not expect you to, I certainly would not agree with that nor did I propose that. Seems like you're forming some sort of strawman argument here.

If you mean to say we should be skeptical of scientific truths, then I would agree. In fact, I would say every other scientist I know agrees. That is an integral part of the scientific process, as Aquatus mentioned earlier -Retesting.

Actually I'm saying we should be skeptical of those who take the stance that science has the answers to everything and must be trusted implicitly. Are those people scientists? In most cases I would wager to say that they are not, although there are, I'm sure, some scientists who do fall into this group. I am saying that given the fallibility of humans and human-designed and human-staffed organizations (yes, most definitely including organized religion) to assume that science, scientists, and scientific processes, including the peer-review process, are to be implicitly trusted and considered infallible is foolish and dangerous. I am not saying you or Aquatus or anyone in this discussion currently has made this statement, but you can read threads on UM where although this statement is never made, it is very obviously implied.

Do you have a problem with the retesting of ideas? Do you think there is another way we can verify work and if so what?

Of course I do not have a problem with the retesting of ideas, I think it is a fine and proper process.

I am not attacking science, the scientific process or any specific scientists, I am saying that like all humans and all human-developed ventures, science and scientists are fallible and capable of being unduly influenced, and so implicit trust in them should be discouraged and considered as a sign of religiosity.

[+Paranoid Android]

If you mean to say we should be skeptical of scientific truths, then I would agree. In fact, I would say every other scientist I know agrees.

But what about the non-scientific population? Those who don't have scientific degrees and those that don't have training or in-depth understanding of how science works? When you refer to scientists here you are speaking of an Elite group that the vast majority of human beings do not belong.

This is where the issue of "Faith" and "religion" come into it, as I see it - for the social majority with little-to-no understanding of science (I classify myself in this group - I am not a scientist nor claim any great knowledge in the area).

Just a thought,

[Guest]

Science has a tendency to Dogma which makes it appear quasi-religious. It seems to have one hard and fast dogma "if it can't be measured it can't be". This is useful functionally, but self limiting and creates a conceptual framework as limiting as any religion in IMO.

Br Cornelius

[Cadetak]

Science isn't a religion for all the same reasons math isn't a religion or for the same reasons History isn't a political party.

[mewtwo]

I think mathematics can be a religion.

It is a language of measure and order with which can simplify reality into something we can understand.

The difference is that you can actually use mathematics.

[theSOURCE]

I like my science religion. The little pills my pharmacist gives me (developed by medical scientists and not some god fearing quacks) make me feel much better than the tasteless wafers that I used to take when I was a child during Catholic mass.

All joking aside, I'm both amazed and repulsed that anyone would have the need to confuse science with religion. Science deals with reality (as in trying to understand the universe around us through provable means) while religion deals with sheer fantasy (belief in deities that resemble characters from comic books).

My apologies to my friends on this forum who have their various religious beliefs for my crass comments, but science and religion go together like oil and water. They are two very separate and different things.

[preacherman76]

I havent read this thread, so if my opinion has already been covered I apologize.

To me science, in pure form, cant be considered religion.

However,, when science gets in the way of free thinking, then yes it becomes a religion.

[preacherman76]

I am not attacking science, the scientific process or any specific scientists, I am saying that like all humans and all human-developed ventures, science and scientists are fallible and capable of being unduly influenced, and so implicit trust in them should be discouraged and considered as a sign of religiosity.

I couldnt agree more brother. Take evolution for example. (im not trying to start a agrument on whether or not all things taught about evolution are true) I dont know how many times Ive debated people on evolution, that have very little understanding of what they even believe. But hold on to it without even knowing really why, cause they believe with all their heart that what they have been told is truth. Now whether evolution is true or not isnt the point. The point is they havent even studied enough to hold a honest opinion of it, and will defend to the death proclaiming its absolutly true. That is faith, that is religion.

Edited November 21, 2008 by preacherman76

[IamsSon]

I couldnt agree more brother. Take evolution for example. (im not trying to start a agrument on whether or not all things taught about evolution are true) I dont know how many times Ive debated people on evolution, that have very little understanding of what they even believe. But hold on to it without even knowing really why, cause they believe with all their heart that what they have been told is truth. Now whether evolution is true or not isnt the point. The point is they havent even studied enough to hold a honest opinion of it, and will defend to the death proclaiming its absolutly true. That is faith, that is religion.

Exactly, and a perfect example of that (which may also serve to diffuse any big fights ) is how many "Christians" there are out there who have never cracked open a Bible and past what they've heard during the two or three church services they attend annually know absolutely nothing about what it is the "believe." Perfect example of religiosity.