science as a religion

[jenny]

this one is a shout-out to Blockhead, specifically, who has made reference to science as an implicit religion, or to anyone else who can explain this concept carefully. i'm very curious about this, and would love to see it explicated out in rigourous and detailed way.

 

i googled, of course, and even tried it out at a real library, but i can't find the kind of succint, framed, and referenced, explanation i'm looking for. i did find one interesting article that claimed our faith in science wavered after Hiroshima, but was regained with DNA, but no real histories of the concept itself. (i am sure i will hear hear anger and judgments as well, but first i want to simply understand the idea and the origins of that idea. )

 

i'm a huge fan of CSI at the moment, and i think it might fall under this idea of science as a religion. it's kind of a cheesy show, but the science is gorgeous. they are forever repeating how humans lie, are fallible, but science and evidence will show us the truth and render justice. in the show, science seems divine. it's limitations are usually only human limitations; those are gifted with it are held in higher esteem than those who don't understand it; and it, well, beautiful. i know that sounds strange, but they really have a terrific heartbeat aesthetic going on there.

 

could this work as an example of this idea? are there other, better examples?

[CaterpillarGirl]

Jenny,

 

I think the comparison arises from the appearance that both science and faith draw from certain tenets that can be accepted or rejected based on individual beliefs, i.e. "God is omnipotent" or "Physical processes that occur today must have occurred similarly in the past."

 

I found these few articles online:

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_17/philosophy_questions_17123.html

http://freethoughts.org/archives/000060.html

http://www.philosophy.stir.ac.uk/students_ug/courses/71G5.html

 

-CG

[Darkangelism]

Some science is like religion, because it is theoretical. But a lot of sciece is stuff you can touch and feel, things that are repeatable, religion doesnt have that.

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

But a lot of science is stuff you can touch and feel, things that are repeatable, religion doesnt have that.

 

Yes, but it is your perception of touch and feeling that is feeding your belief. I may feel loved, does that prove that love exists? I may perceive an underlying rhythm to the universe, that is repeatable. Is this faith or fact? Can you touch gravity? Can you see nuclear cohesion? Must all the senses perceive the object? Must all people agree on the perception? At some point, you take things on faith. I've never witnessed a supernova, but I believe they can occur.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by CaterpillarGirl

Yes, but it is your perception of touch and feeling that is feeding your belief. I may feel loved, does that prove that love exists? I may perceive an underlying rhythm to the universe, that is repeatable. Is this faith or fact? Can you touch gravity? Can you see nuclear cohesion? Must all the senses perceive the object? Must all people agree on the perception? At some point, you take things on faith. I've never witnessed a supernova, but I believe they can occur.

 

Watch out, somebody just got a hold of "Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy", by Rene Descartes

 

Lord that book made my head hurt.

 

Science as religion. Blah...now flyfishing as religion...hmmmmmmm

[Darkangelism]

With science people have seen supernovas, or pictures of them.

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

With science people have seen supernovas, or pictures of them.

 

Yeah, well people have claimed to see Mary appear, or Jesus raised from the dead. Some people even have pictures of Mary in a bowl of soup!

 

Pretty fuzzy line... Why should I believe science people more than religious people?

[moimeme]

It would be my contention that scientism, rather than science, is the 'religion'

 

Scientism is more often used to mean the acceptance of scientific theory and scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the world, including morality/ethics/art/religion/etc

 

In this use of the word, scientism is "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." (Source: Michael Shermer, The Shamans of Scientism, Scientific American, 2002)

 

For much more: http://www.fact-index.com/s/sc/scientism.html

 

For a discussion of scientism, Christianity, and mysticism

http://www.ldolphin.org/olkhov.html

[Errol]

Descartes = bad bad bad! Made my head hurt too!

 

Before you can discuss science as a religion you have to have a thorough understanding of, and agreement with, the definition of religion, faith, and science.

 

Now, I don't know -- but I'll bet that if you ask 20 people to define religion and define science you will come up with some same, similar, and nothing-at-all-alike responses!

 

For me, science breaks down to provable mathematic equazations. 1 +1 will always equal 2. However, there are some new-maths that say 1+1 will Usually equal 2, but the answer is open for debate and there are all sorts of other things thrown into the mix that will prove - even mathematically - that 1+1 equals something other than 2. For example - one man + one pregnant woman = 3 because the baby is considered as one.

 

I guess my belief that 1+1 will always equal 2 is a faith of sorts and having faith in something may tie out to science as a religion. Also believing that there exist provable mathematical solutions for the problems we know and face now, and those we have yet to encounter, but we simply have not discovered those answers or have not progressed enough as an intellectual species, might also tie out to science as a religion.

 

Unlike theology, I believe the answers lie within ourselves and our species and our scientific progress and not in an entity that is outside of this world.

 

 

Faith in science - to what? I have faith in science to........ ???? Faith that science exits? Back to the definition of science then.

 

After hiroshima people wavered on the use and application of the science used to create the A bomb. But that the intelligence to create and use such an item was never questioned - it was proven by the testimoney of the witnessess and the evidence collected afterward and the volumes of research that went into the creation of the bomb. I have faith that it existed even though I did not see it myself. Ten thousand years from now someone may think that the history books and the photographs, etc. were rigged or fiction or something because they are so far removed from it. We know that is incorrect - but the person 10,000 years from now won't know it. Kind of how I feel about God and Jesus. I'm too far removed from the actual even and the only 'proof' is the word of witnesses passed down through generations. Even if photographs existed of Jesus - would I believe he was the messiah? No. So it might be the same for sciences.

 

There is a flat-earth society that exists today and they still believe/preach that the earth is flat (although I think most of them know that the earth is not flat, but like being different -- however, maybe I'm wrong. I believe in the science that tells me that the earth is round.)

 

 

I think that after DNA and the way only the positive aspects of the use of this knowledge were/are broadcast, people began believing in the good that can come out of such things and not the bad. I think its more an emotional reaction to how humans will use the science we develop/discover and not so much the science itself.

 

Although I know some folks who believe the whole space exploration and moon landings were fake because they do not believe the science exists that will support such things -- but they believe the science to fake photos, etc. does exist.

 

Why did I jump on the merry-go-round?

[Darkangelism]

Originally posted by CaterpillarGirl

 

 

Yeah, well people have claimed to see Mary appear, or Jesus raised from the dead. Some people even have pictures of Mary in a bowl of soup!

 

Pretty fuzzy line... Why should I believe science people more than religious people?

 

 

Because anybody can see what science shows. If you wanted to see a supernova you could, now if you want to see jesus then well...

[moimeme]

Show me a picture of love, DA, so I can believe it exists. Show me a picture of gravity.

[Darkangelism]

I never saidu have to se it, you can feel, hear, touch it, and im sure you can feel gravity, love is not science.

[moimeme]

love is not science

 

Then why believe in it?

 

you can feel, hear, touch it

 

Still can't hear, feel, or touch love - or gravity.

 

im sure you can feel gravity

 

Um, no.

[jenny]

thanks all for responding. thanks for the links, caterpillargirl. i'm still going through them, and the related links to positivism in the first link, and the cites to popper, kuhn, lakatos, hacking, van fraassen and feyerabend in the third. i really liked the elegance of this distinction: (from first link again)

 

Third, it is pointed out that "scientists are not creators but discoverers". But the comparison of science to religion normally proposes to compare scientists to priests and not gods.What takes the place of gods in the science religion is not any being, but the whole of reality as viewed scientifically, with scientists as merely the priests entrusted with the task of interpreting it

 

the only added point is that i have had, and i think many atheists and agnostics have an (even if undiscussed) emotional 'trust' response to science - much like the one i should, and sometimes have, felt towards g-d. not towards technology - and i do mind carefully about the distinction, but about 'pure' science.

 

that is, we believe that DNA will sort out the bad guys; that science will help heal the bad guys and the victims; that we should not do anything wrong because science will get us; that science will help rid the world of disease, and that it's netural and ultimately beneficial. i also feel that i don't need to understand all of astrophysics or all of chemistry to trust that the laws in those field always work. it's point for point how i should feel about g-d, but i find my faith to be lacking compared to this feeling.

 

i'm aware of the contradition in the idea of an emotional response to science, but i think it does exist among the followers, even if not among the priests, of the discipline.

 

this is all very sketchy, sorry. i'll read up on those names and try to return more coherently.

[InmannRoshi]

I'm afraid the word "theory" is misunderstood in its everyday practical use in contrast to what it means in the scientific community.

 

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact. ie "I have a theory on who really killed JFK. I think it was the CIA, because.....". But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen tomorrow.

 

This means that in some ways the words fact and theory are interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as a simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that is explained by Newton's theory of gravity. And so on.

 

A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water" by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

 

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

 

This structure of thought is in direct contrast with the structure of thought behind religion.

 

"I believe Jonas was swollowed by a whale."

 

"Why ??"

 

"Cuz the Bible says so"

 

"Oh. Okay. Good enough for me".

[Darkangelism]

Originally posted by moimeme

 

 

im sure you can feel gravity

 

Um, no.

 

Tell me your secret to flying then please.

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by InmannRoshi

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

 

This structure of thought is in direct contrast with the structure of thought behind religion.

 

Actually, I believe you are wrong. Theological principles/theories have been subjected to many challenges. The means to test "religious hypothesis" may not be conducted as physical experiments, but perhaps through equally rigorous testing using philosophical or subjective inquiry methods. Still, others use physical evidence or processes (i.e. ordered structure in the universe, cause and effect relationships) to justify their beliefs. Facts are merely theories which haven't been wholly disproven. As far as I'm aware, no religious "facts" have been wholly disproven, either.

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

Tell me your secret to flying then please.

 

The fact that you are not flying does not neccessitate the existance of gravity. It is perhaps an effect consistent with the predicted outcome of being subjected to gravity's force. Yet, it is also consistent with the theory of a hundred invisible "spirits" gluing you to the ground!

[jenny]

as a side note:

 

in logic proper you cannot disprove religion because of the "from ignorance" fallacy. you also cannot disprove the existence of pixies.

[Darkangelism]

Originally posted by CaterpillarGirl

 

 

The fact that you are not flying does not neccessitate the existance of gravity. It is perhaps an effect consistent with the predicted outcome of being subjected to gravity's force. Yet, it is also consistent with the theory of a hundred invisible "spirits" gluing you to the ground!

 

 

Defintion of gravity: The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

 

 

 

So a hundred spirts would still qualify as gravity.

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by jenny

as a side note:

 

in logic proper you cannot disprove religion because of the "from ignorance" fallacy. you also cannot disprove the existence of pixies.

 

Jenny,

 

Yes! Perhaps I should have pointed out to Inman that argumentum ad ignoratiam which results when hypothesis/theories are not proven false, does not exactly support the validity of the theory itself.

 

And yes, you can't disprove the existence of pixies, but what I was trying to demonstrate is that an effect may result from more than one cause. Thanks for keeping the debate on the up&up!

[CaterpillarGirl]

Originally posted by Darkangelism

Defintion of gravity: The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

 

 

 

So a hundred spirts would still qualify as gravity.

 

Okay, so what if the force of a supernova blast creates a shockwave that is holding you back from flying? That is not a force of attraction, but one of repulsion resulting in a sustained collision between you and the Earth.

[jester]

Science is not religion; religion is not science. Science deals in the realm of the observable or measureable. Religion deals in the realm of the transcendant, the unmeasureable and non-observable.

 

Religion is normative, hortatory. Religion abounds in ethical "oughts" and "shoulds."

 

Religionists "preach it." Scientists "prove it."

 

Religion requires that suspension of reason and that faith-based leap into the absurd.

 

Science does not.

 

I love science, I could never love religion.

[moimeme]

Tell me your secret to flying then please.

 

Irrelevant to both your statement and my response. You say one can 'feel' gravity. I said one cannot. The mechanics of flying is not me 'feeling' gravity and therefore has absolutely nothing to offer in proof of your contention.

 

 

Religion requires that suspension of reason and that faith-based leap into the absurd.

 

So does love. But nobody, EVER, manages to explain how they can believe in love, which is scientifically unprovable, and not in anything else scientifically unprovable. They just avoid the topic or bury it in semantics.

 

Fact is, lots of people believe in things unprovable; they just choose which to believe in. Bottom line is that people believe what they choose to believe and make up rationales afterwards.

[jenny]

having an apple fall on one's head is how gravity feels.