Should Science be considered a Religion?
By Ashida
@Ashida (1370)
United States
19 responses
@misskatonic (3723)
• United States
18 Jan 07
No. Science doesn't rely on faith at all. Faith is belief without proof, faith cannot exist with fact based evidence. Science refuses to acknowledge anything that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A scientist may have faith in his own ideas, but that's faith in himself, not a higher power. Religion focuses on a higher power, whether it be the existence or non-existence of that power. Science focuses on the tangible, the factual. Religion can't exist with proof, and science can't exist *without* proof.
1 person likes this
@misskatonic (3723)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Scientists don't have faith in their experiments in the same way that a religious follower has faith in god or their dogma.
Religion operates on the idea that proof is unneeded. That goes for all religions. To prove the existence of any higher power for any religion would completely negate religion's purpose. The whole system hinges on placing one's trust in an unproven, unprovable ideal.
Science operates on the idea that nothing is real without proof. Without proof, science falls flat. Beyond a reasonable doubt, in science, means that every test that has been conducted has given the same result. There is solid proof that cannot be contested without proof of the opposite. No science is considered reliable until there has been that proof. There has to be some proof, some evidence, some tangible backing for any science to be credible.
Besides that, religion dictates a way of life. Religion influences someone's entire moral and life code. Science doesn't. There are no scientific rules for living, there are no consequences in science for being immoral or breaking the 'rules' - other than there would be for breaking any other human law or rule.
1 person likes this
@Ashida (1370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Here's my thing though. Proof requires faith. I think science can prove anything it wants to prove.
But for those of us who are not scientists, and that's really who this question is geared toward, we rely on faith in these scientists. Does that make sense?
Afterall, if I have not conducted an experiment personally, I only have a scentist's word and published results, to form my system of belief. Both of these things can be wrong; such as in my flat Earth example. I think science requires faith, and to me that qualifies it as a religion. In some ways I think in certain countries it's becoming the dominant religion.
And science does tell us how to live. The Surgeon General is a scientist. Scientists in all sorts of fields from nutritionists to medical doctors to envionmentalists try to dictate how people should live their lives.
Thanks for posting such marvelous replies by the way. This is the most I've thought on here in weeks!
@Ashida (1370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Everyone is bringing up some great points. And I don't expect a mylot discussion to change anyone's views. But I have to disagree. I think science operates on a set of assumptions that seem provable on the surface, but underlying all the proof is a degree of faith in the observations and methodology used to measure these observations.
Not all religions focus on higher powers, and science could be considered as one of those religions.
My oncern is that in proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, still leaves doubt. Does that make sense? And even the slightest degree of doubt requires faith to overcome. A scientist must have faith that experiments are accurate. All objectivity has been maintained. This too requires faith. The results may have been recorded, but errors may have been made in the recording. A scientist must have faith that this has not occurred. Experiments may be recorded, but once again, errors could have been made. The scientist must have faith that the experiments were not fudged.
Facts are subject to change. It was once a fact that the Earth was flat years ago. Scientists of that time could even prove it with tangible evidence. How do we know that we are not those same mistaken people? And that all the scientific fact that we possess at this point in time is correct? To me this requires faith.
@Randync (544)
• United States
18 Jan 07
No I don't think science can be called a religion. Science can prove most of it's theories eventually. Religion goes more on faith.
Funny side note. I just got finished talking to a preacher about an article/interview I will be doing about him. Then I get an email saying you started this discussion.
For the record I myself am Agnostic with Christian leanings.
1 person likes this
@kesfylstra (1868)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Religion tries to explain the unexplainable BY faith, though, while science explains by concrete research. The "faith" in science is more of a belief in a hypothesis.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
According to the person I most admire of all who lived in the 20th century, Teilhard de Chardin, science and religion are meant to be one. He believed the final stage of evolution would be the total synthesis of science and religion.
He knew a good deal about both since he was not only a world renowned scientist (paleanthologist)who believed in evolution but also a Jesuit priest (sanctioned for teaching evolution) who believed in a personal God.
I think I'll just go with Teilhard and say that religion & science should eventually be one. He says it better than I could:
"The day will come when after harnessing air, ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire."
He was also a highly respected philosopher and poet. (Whatta guy!)
1 person likes this
@Ashida (1370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
That's my thought too -- that there is no real distinction between science and religion ... and along these same lines, if anything, religion is more honest about it. It states up front that it requires faith.
Please understand I'm not bashing either one. It just struck me as I was writing another discussion topic, that the two of them are more related than they seem on the surface. So I thought I would throw this out to the mylot community to see what everyone on here thought.
so far I've gotten some terrific responses, that have really made me think, including yours. I really appreciate that. I was on here earlier today, and just couldn't find anything I wanted to discuss, so I am thankful that you all have responded.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
I know the feeling. I buzzed on here a couple times earlier and buzzed out without finding anything. Then I came back & found yours and a few others.
Thanks for the topic.
@loralee (542)
• United States
1 Dec 07
This is a great and interesting question that people could debate over for all eternity. However, I have no answer. For one way or the other and as much as I love the question, I loathe the answer.
The getting there is thing...
@tnuctipun (24)
• United States
18 Jan 07
Science is not a religion, imo. If you try to proove there is no god for example you are ostracized, excommunicated, or even burned at the stake (even today with some religions).
Science accepts critique.
@tnuctipun (24)
• United States
19 Jan 07
No one has ever been burned at the stake for not accepting science.
1 person likes this
@thewatchlist (653)
• United States
19 Jan 07
No, it shouldn't be considered a religion... Science deals with natural phenomena. Religion deals with the supernatural.
Since supernatural means something that exists outside the natural world, that by definition means that it encompasses that which is not scientific.
Saying science is a religion would be like saying a plant is an animal since both require nutrients and both are living things.
@sumitvella (379)
•
19 Jan 07
Does science say that go to war?
Have wars been fought over science?
Is there hatred among science believers and non-believers?
If the answer to these questions is no, then no you can not say science is a religion.
@sumitvella (379)
•
25 Jan 07
not exactly, but that is one way of looking at it.
I diffrentiate between organised religion and one's faith and beliefs.
@aparajitoc (365)
•
19 Jan 07
Primarily science can be considered as a religion as both require faith and both attemmpt to explain the unexplainable.
Secondarily it cannot be considered as religion because we don't have to visit any monastries, church or temples to show our faith to science. And science succeeds after a long period of research but religion remains unexplainable.
So, science cannot be considered as a religion.
@nuffsed (1271)
•
18 Jan 07
Science is a study of the facts. Facts which are studies, tested and reported globally to the community of peers. Any errors are quickly brought up for clarification and eventual correction. Science does not require any faith.
Religion is all about faith in the barely believable.
No comparison.
Any educated person would be insulted to have science thought of as religion.
@Ashida (1370)
• United States
18 Jan 07
As a fairly well educated person I would have to disagree. How do we establish what is fact and what is not? At any given point in time science is only as good as the all too fallable people who test and clarify facts. Science requires belief in the systems we use to discern facts. This belief is faith. To those for whom religion provides the answers, the barely believable is just as provable through religion according to some people. Just as science provides the answers to some people.
Peer review is a fine thing, but once again, it is subject to the errors and belief systems of humans.
Faith is required for both science and religion; therefore, comparisons are entirely justifiable and healthy.
@amgupta (274)
• India
18 Jan 07
yeah it is a religion...well my definition of religion is a some values and philosophies a person has faith in.....science definitely qualifies..regarding what you said about explanations...well explanations are just a result of faith of a person..
1 person likes this
@Aussies2007 (5336)
• Australia
19 Jan 07
Definitely not!
Science has nothing to do with faith.
Scientific people only open their mouth when they have all the facts on the table.
The fact that religious people choose to ignore those facts because it does not suit their purpose in life... does not make those facts any less of a reality for people with a brain which has not been brainwashed by religion.
@Ashida (1370)
• United States
19 Jan 07
Whoa there!
Nobody's talking about brainwashing or anything else here. The question is that unless you, personally, have done the research for yourself, and conducted your experiments perfectly, which is next to impossible, then you are putting your faith into science.
I'm really looking at defining both of these terms, and I think that the differences are merely on the surface.
I don't ignore any facts I'm presented with -- but I do, and will, question whether or not the facts are accurate. I also don't believe everything that science generates either. Too many times has science had to recant previous "facts". SO before we go painting with a very broad brush, I think we need to take a look at both sides of an issue, rather than dismiss one outright.
@tamiYusuf (34)
• Singapore
19 Jan 07
science keep changing. today a theory may seem to be true & proven, the next day it's proven to be wrong. for me a religion must be an absolute true, forever
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
25 Jan 07
No, science is completely different from religion.
Religion has dogmas, truths that cannot be challenged.
In science, theories and positions change as the old ones are challenged, and the new ones prove to be better.
Religions (most) claim to give you a moral, ethic code of conduct.
Science deals with questions and problems that may not have any moral attached. Science gave us technology that allowed nuclear energy, that can be used as weapon or to generate energy, the use is a moral decision.
Religions claim to explain the world natural and supernatural, but they fail to give proof that exists without faith.
Science deals with tests and theories, what is just a supposition is a supposition until it can be proved, tested.
Religions (revealed at least), claim exclusive contact with a higher being and how you should bow to it and what you receive as rewards for following it.
Science make no claims about higher beings, recompenses. etc.
Faith is believing in something without evidence, faith is the material which religion is builded. Religion claims to have answers for everything.
Science confess his ignorancy and limitations. And that some things may be out of our reach (for example , how life appeared on earth, it is possible, if not probable that we may never know for sure).
So science is one thing, it gave us many good things (better food, medicines, life quality), bad things (weapons for instance).
Religion is other thing, that gave us good things (I think there are some, can remember any now) and bad things (bigotry, intolerance).
So in my opinion, science and religion are like oil and water, they don't mix.
@manong05 (5027)
• Philippines
18 Jan 07
centuries ago, science and religion are one and the same, they are inseparable.
@dazzlingkaykay (209)
• India
25 Jan 07
i think its better if we read angels and demons then. Science has proved many religious theories wrong, like earth being the centre of solar system n all. Hence, science can be considered as a religion with intelligence and theories.
