should science be the religion of the human race?

Answer 1

One of the problems that arises from a discussion of "science" is the problem of definition of terms. If two people are discussing "science" and they define their terms differently, the conversation will be hopelessly confused!

We must consider two different definitions for each of these terms. When you discuss them, you must first clarify which definition you are using.

Science

First Definition

Here is a dictionary definition. Many people assume that when we use the word "science," we are talking about this definition. In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science." In general, when you see the word "science" in these pages, this is the definition.
"Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)

Implied in this definition is the idea that conclusions are made on the basis of empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that comes from experimentation and observation). Thus, a true "scientist" is someone who studies a part of the world around him for evidence that he then uses to draw conclusions about the world he lives in.

Few people should have trouble with this definition of science.

Second Definition

However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset. Their definition of science might be something like this.
"An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value."

Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!"

They are using a definition of science that, by definition, excludes the concept of a Creator. They believe, in essence, that their philosophy of life (or religion) of materialism and naturalism is "science" and that the religious philosophy of life (or religion) is "religion." In fact, both materialism and religion can be thought of as philosophies of life. One must examine the evidence closely to ascertain which "philosophy" most closely fits the evidence that exists in the world around us. (And, in fact, one can do "good science" [first definition!] and still adhere to either "philosophy"--or some other philosophy--of life.)

I can argue all day that "science" (first definition) points to a Creator, but they will have none of it because they claim that "science" (second definition) allows no room for the concept of a Supernatural Creator!

This is the very reason you hear so many people on television "nature programs" and in high school biology textbooks talk as though the natural world is all that there is. They believe that to imply that a Creator might be involved in all this would be to deny "science" (second definition, of course).

I would suggest that we need to do our little part to insist that the first definition of science (above) is the only valid definition. And I would suggest that those who use the word "science" to mean the second definition should be required to use a different word--a word that shows that they are really talking about their philosophy or their religion. They are talking about the philosophy (or "religion" if you please!) of materialism or naturalism.

We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!" (And then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to replace "science" [second definition] with religion!)

Peace and Blessings,

Salim

Answer 2

In many ways science already IS a religion. There are many parallels. It has a heirachy of priests (professors); ritual (the scientific method) and makes claims to 'know the truth'. The fundamental difference is that science is progressive in that it looks for new evidence and tries to solve new problems rather than regressive like religion which refers back to sacred texts, the older the more sacred. It is, however, appalling poor at helping real people with real lives or describing the spiritual aspects of human life.

Certainly, in the realm of making truth judgements, science has overtaken religion as arbiter. We now ask a forensic scientist for evidence, rather than priests for divination, to reach a conclusion about what really happened at any given moment - thank God (sic).

It will be intersting to see how or if the threat of global warming will provoke a synthesis of earth sciences and reverence for nature into a new form of religion with echos of tribal traditions of nature worship etc. It might just save us. Worshiping material wealth certainly wont.

Answer 3

I believe for some it is. But, science is just the discovery of the workings of God's creation. So, no, it should not be the religion of the human race. Science is often wrong - 400 years ago, the scientists believed the world was flat. 250 years ago, they thought the Earth was the center of the universe. 50 years ago, they thought the atom was the smallest intact piece of matter. The list goes on. Humans should only worship a perfect God.

Answer 4

Yes, Science should be the religion of the human race. Because Science is the study of different aspects of this universe. it could include study of the Universe, study of human psychology or even the study of philosophy and spirituality.

Answer 5

The Source of all knowledge, scientific or spiritual, is one point. Therefore, true science and true religion agree. When it appears that science and religion conflict, it is either because science has yet to discover a hidden mystery or religionists are closing their eyes to truth and following superstition. If scientists and religionists see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears (and not through the eyes and ears of others), their knowledge will agree.

Consider this ... in 1844 the U.S. patent office planned to close its doors because they believed everything that could be invented had already been invented. In that same year God sent down a new revelation to mankind stating in very clear language:

"...In the days to come, ye will, verily, behold things of which ye have never heard before. Thus hath it been decreed in the Tablets of God, and none can comprehend it except them whose sight is sharp. In like manner, the moment the word expressing My attribute "The Omniscient" issueth forth from My mouth, every created thing will, according to its capacity and limitations, be invested with the power to unfold the knowledge of the most marvelous sciences, and will be empowered to manifest them in the course of time at the bidding of Him Who is the Almighty, the All-Knowing. ..." - Baha'u'llah

How science has progressed since 1844!

If you want to know more check out www.bahai.org.

Answer 6

Some time ago, by gleaning all that is known, I put god through a psychometric test.
The results showed that :
1. He had a severe personality disorder.
2. Is a dangerous threat to the public.
3. Should never be trusted.
4. Most certainly, never be challenged.
5. That he would kill just to prove a point.

Answer 7

No, because if you called science a religion, then it wouldn't be science any more, and people would be warring over quantum physics and theories over global warming.

Leave science to people who can think for themselves. It's far safer that way.

Answer 8

There is a religion based on science already.

Read a book called Vedic Physics by Raj Ram Mohan Roy Ph.D
This shows that the Vedas are about Cosmology.

The god Indra is in fact Electric Force.
The god Indu is in fact Electricity
The god Agni (fire) is Energy.
The god Varuna is Electron.
The god Mitra is Proton.
The god Aryama is Neutron.
The god Vasistha is Nucleus.
Just a few are listed here.

The religion based on the Vedas is called Hinduism.
The Vedas are also associated with the Indus Valley Civilisation.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE HINDUS HAVE SO MANY GODS?
The Hindus themselves have forgotten, over the ages, why they have so many gods.

It has taken a man with a Ph. D in Material Science & Engineering and his previous knowledge of the Vedas to bring this to light.
The book has been endorsed by David Frawley, Director of American Institute of Vedic Studies.

Answer 9

That would be foolish. Science changes and re-invents itself every day. A theory valid one day will be scorned with venom the next.
Also think of all the atrocities comitted in the name of science. Science is by nature amoral and should reamin so. But having all the human race amoral would be awful - I would rather love my kids than disect them to learn about their internal organs!
If you think about the worst excesses of science they are as bad as the worst excesses of religion - atomic bombs, machine guns, viral warfare... all created through science.

I think people should adopt decency and objective morality as their first policy with things like science and religion coming second.

Answer 10

it's a shame that science cannot answer this question. science cannot answer a lot of questions, nor can science make moral judgments. sounds like a poor religion... because it is a poor religion to live by. It is good to study things, but not to judge things.