Is Science a Religion?

[Resha Caner]

There is also the closely related converse question: Is Religion a Science? But, let's put that aside.

I'm sure this has been discussed many times before, but I just thought I would poke the beast again. To start with, I always thought Dawkin's comments on such subjects are just a straw man.

Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?

So, I was greatly relieved to see that even some atheists agree with me on that:

Is Richard Dawkins Really That Naive?

I guess we would need to start with some definitions of "science" and "religion." We would then need to determine how much correspondence there would need to be in order to answer yes or no.

For example, Dawkins concedes that both science and religion seek explanation. But that would be a bit thin as a reason for saying science is a religion. So what other properties do they share and what distinguishes them?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what other properties do they share and what distinguishes them?

I believe they both share the properties of faith: science puts its faith in nature, and religion puts its faith in god.

Aside from that, the key word in discussing whether or not science is a religion -- (to me, anyway) -- is "usurp."

When science usurps God, and replaces Him with nature as the highest source of cause-and-effect, then science has become a religion.

 

[Michael]

There is also the closely related converse question: Is Religion a Science? But, let's put that aside.

I'm sure this has been discussed many times before, but I just thought I would poke the beast again. To start with, I always thought Dawkin's comments on such subjects are just a straw man.

Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?

So, I was greatly relieved to see that even some atheists agree with me on that:

Is Richard Dawkins Really That Naive?

I guess we would need to start with some definitions of "science" and "religion." We would then need to determine how much correspondence there would need to be in order to answer yes or no.

For example, Dawkins concedes that both science and religion seek explanation. But that would be a bit thin as a reason for saying science is a religion. So what other properties do they share and what distinguishes them?

I would say that anything that requires "faith in the unseen" is not a "science", it's a "religion" of sorts. Some branches of "science" do not require "faith in the unseen" in terms of cause/effect relationships. Some do. It depends on how one PRACTICES theory "faith" I suppose.

For instance, electromagnetic theory is pretty much a 'product oriented' field of science so there are many consumer products on the market that use EM technology such as your computer and cell phone. You don't have to have much "faith" that the technology works.

On the other hand, when has consumer product contained 'dark energy' or 'dark matter'?

 

[Resha Caner]

When science usurps God, and replaces Him with nature as the highest source of cause-and-effect, then science has become a religion.

An intriguing thought. "Usurp" might be a word of contention as an atheist might claim there is nothing to usurp. Further, I suppose I should amend the question to: Can someone use science as a religion?

The issue, then, would be what view would not usurp God's place. I would think an instrumentalist like myself who uses science as a tool, but still believes in God would not. But many views of science would.

If, as you say, the ultimate cause is attributed to nature, that would seem to be a very religious statement. Even to say there is no ultimate cause would seem religious.

In the end, the only non-believer position that might escape is the more agnostic one - it is unknown if an ultimate cause exists.

 

[Resha Caner]

It depends on how one PRACTICES theory "faith" I suppose.

For instance, electromagnetic theory is pretty much a 'product oriented' field of science so there are many consumer products on the market that use EM technology such as your computer and cell phone. You don't have to have much "faith" that the technology works.

On the other hand, when has consumer product contained 'dark energy' or 'dark matter'?

Another good point.

 

[Belk]

There is also the closely related converse question: Is Religion a Science? But, let's put that aside.

I'm sure this has been discussed many times before, but I just thought I would poke the beast again. To start with, I always thought Dawkin's comments on such subjects are just a straw man.

Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?

So, I was greatly relieved to see that even some atheists agree with me on that:

Is Richard Dawkins Really That Naive?

I guess we would need to start with some definitions of "science" and "religion." We would then need to determine how much correspondence there would need to be in order to answer yes or no.

For example, Dawkins concedes that both science and religion seek explanation. But that would be a bit thin as a reason for saying science is a religion. So what other properties do they share and what distinguishes them?

Fair enough, what do you think of these?

Religion : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Science : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Taken from Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

 

[Farinata]

No. The way I always saw the divide between science and religion is as follows: Science is concerned with falsifiable empirical facts while religion is concerned with propositional claims that can't be challenged. Certain assumptions go into the operation of science but those assumptions are discarded if ever proved invalid or superfluous.

 

[AV1611VET]

An intriguing thought.

Thank you.

"Usurp" might be a word of contention as an atheist might claim there is nothing to usurp.

Atheism brings blasphemy to science.

Further, I suppose I should amend the question to: Can someone use science as a religion?

The Antichrist comes to mind here.

The issue, then, would be what view would not usurp God's place.

Theistic evolution -- but I believe theistic evolution is blasphemy as well, and moreso than atheistic evolution.

At least atheists don't acknowledge the God they are blaspheming -- theistic evolutionists do acknowledge God, but probably don't realize how a non-TE could see the blasphemy, and therefore would adamantly disagree.

Again, in my opinion.

I would think an instrumentalist like myself who uses science as a tool, but still believes in God would not. But many views of science would.

Atheistic evolution is like saying I use Black & Decker tools, but I don't believe Duncan Black or Alonzo Decker ever existed.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you.

Atheism brings blasphemy to science.

Religion brings blasphemy to science.

 

[Resha Caner]

Atheistic evolution is like saying I use Black & Decker tools, but I don't believe Duncan Black or Alonzo Decker ever existed.

I don't know if this was directed at me or only intended as a general comment. I was speaking of science in general, not specifically evolution. The tool I use is mechanics (of a Newtonian nature). I'm not a theistic evolutionist (nor YEC).

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion brings blasphemy to science.

Good --

 

[Resha Caner]

No. The way I always saw the divide between science and religion is as follows: Science is concerned with falsifiable empirical facts while religion is concerned with propositional claims that can't be challenged. Certain assumptions go into the operation of science but those assumptions are discarded if ever proved invalid or superfluous.

Those statements might be true of some people, but they are not generally true. Some things in science (namely, assumptions) are not falsifiable. And not all people reject a challenge to their religious claims.

 

[Resha Caner]

Fair enough, what do you think of these?

Hmm. Those both seem rather circular to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know if this was directed at me or only intended as a general comment.

That was a general comment.

I was speaking of science in general, not specifically evolution.

-- sorry.

 

[Farinata]

Those statements might be true of some people, but they are not generally true. Some things in science (namely, assumptions) are not falsifiable. And not all people reject a challenge to their religious claims.

Ah let me clarify a bit by what I meant. Science is not in principle committed to materialism or even something as simple as causality. Those principles do seem ubiquitous enough in the world that we regard them as 'true' but if something were to arise that casts doubt on them (e.g. DCQE for causality in one interpretation) then we investigate further and discard if necessary. Whereas, in religion at some point one is reduced to a fact such as "God exists" that can't be reduced further. To discard this propositional claim is to discard the religion while in science claims and assumptions can come and go without requiring a scrapping of the system.

 

[Cabal]

I don't worship anything, or claim that there is definitively anything knowable beyond the natural.

So, no, IMO science is not a religion.

 

[Belk]

An intriguing thought. "Usurp" might be a word of contention as an atheist might claim there is nothing to usurp. Further, I suppose I should amend the question to: Can someone use science as a religion?

The issue, then, would be what view would not usurp God's place. I would think an instrumentalist like myself who uses science as a tool, but still believes in God would not. But many views of science would.

If, as you say, the ultimate cause is attributed to nature, that would seem to be a very religious statement. Even to say there is no ultimate cause would seem religious.

In the end, the only non-believer position that might escape is the more agnostic one - it is unknown if an ultimate cause exists.

How do you see that as religious? If I do not think there is a guiding cause behind the universe then to me nature just is. I do not worship nature I just see it as the end of the line, so to speak.

 

[Belk]

Hmm. Those both seem rather circular to me.

How can we change them so they are not circular?

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah let me clarify a bit by what I meant. Science is not in principle committed to materialism or even something as simple as causality. Those principles do seem ubiquitous enough in the world that we regard them as 'true' but if something were to arise that casts doubt on them (e.g. DCQE for causality in one interpretation) then we investigate further and discard if necessary. Whereas, in religion at some point one is reduced to a fact such as "God exists" that can't be reduced further. To discard this propositional claim is to discard the religion while in science claims and assumptions can come and go without requiring a scrapping of the system.

Again, I disagree. IMO dismissing causality just becomes a bait and switch. Even if one makes no claim about the cause of an event, science expects it to be repeatable. That is something that cannot be discarded without "scrapping the system." The theory, "I do X and have no idea what follows" would be a bit difficult to publish.

Likewise with materialism (or physicalism as I would call it). Even if you're not going to assume a physical nature for the phenomena you're studying, at the very least you assume the phenomena can be measured in a way we can perceive (i.e. something physical manifests from the event). Again, not something that can be discarded.

With that said, I realize some scientific assumptions can be (and have been) discarded. Likewise, I have discarded some of my beliefs, and yet "God exists" remains.

 

[Resha Caner]

How can we change them so they are not circular?

Admittedly that is a difficult task, especially since we can't really turn to the scholars. One of my favorites (Montgomery) has made a statement to the effect that there is no "Religion" but only religions.

Still, as an alternative I might offer the one from dictionary.com:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

Dissecting that ...

1) Based on AV's post, we've been talking about whether science shares with religion a search for cause.

2) I think they do share a search for the nature of things, though there may be some nuanced differences.

3) We haven't yet started to discuss whether they are both interested in purpose.

4) The term "universe" is loaded. From the religious perspective it includes both the physical and the spiritual.

- - -

With respect to science, that is equally difficult. Consider such things as Bauer's book about the myths of "method." I often state a corrollary to Montgomery that there is no "Science" but only sciences. It is only at the most philosophical of levels that they share a "method."

With that said, being methodical is at the core of the idea of science. So, would one say religion is not methodical? What of the Scholastics?