Is 'science' a religion?

Question

Religion in the supernatural sense.

Do you personally think that it requires just as much faith to believe in science as it does religion?

Do you think that religion should supercede the discoveries of modern science?

I am an Atheist.

I do not believe that faith and religion should ever supercede the discoveries of science.
Science is proven through itself; it begets facts and empirical evidence.
Religion, in my opinion, doesn't hold a candle to science.

Source:

Richard Dawkins
"Is Science A Religion?"

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Pardon me for lack of proper source-citing.
I apologize.

Answer 1

Absolutely not.

Science is based on evidence and repeatable research/experimentation. i.e If you do A, then B always happens.

Religion is based on faith and belief in something that you cannot prove.

Where it may get murky is in theoretical science (i.e. quantum physics) where it is not possible to directly experiment in the area due to physical limitations. A lot of this is hypothesizing what is happening based on what else happens. Without proof, it takes a kind of "faith" based on current knowledge to determine which of several opposing views to believe.

That being said however, as technology improves, we can begin to do better experiments to narrow down the theories and possibly determine which one is correct. That can never happen with religion (barring some random omnipotent being coming down/up/out and saying "Yeah, I did this.")

Answer 2

Science and religion are two seperate things that's like comparing a fork and an apple. Religion and science fit hand in hand. There is no reason to debate either. The more science "discovers" the more events from the bible are proven. Evolution for example... according to the bible God created everything... in evolution is a description of how things were created it doesn't say God didn't tell the events to happen this way. Evolution does not say man came from monkeys as a lot of people think. Evolution even describes how the fish were created first then land animals , just as it is said in the bible. Neither should supercede the other they work well together one tells how and the other is why.

Answer 3

Science resembles religion in that it requires the following of strict rules, begs a lot of faith (at least, if you're in research, or follow theories rather than proven facts), and it's been taken over and corrupted by powerful people with too much money and influence. I believe that such things as cancer cures have long been held down in the name of corporate greed (a chappie by the name of Jonathan Eisen has compiled some pretty compelling stuff to support my claims), hence allowing drug companies to make big bucks on 'research' and 'cures' that cause people more harm than good. Quite the parrallel to various religions taking money from people who don't really have it, to build enormous cathedrals and similar unnecessary luxuries.

That said, I too am an athiest, and I do believe in pure science (i.e. science for the sake of discovery and the betterment of mankind), and respect those who follow a religious belief system for the same purpose. The organisation of religion and, as you say, the scientific religion, almost invariably turns sour and corrupt, so there is no substantial difference between the two.

As for religion superceding the discoveries of modern science... They should be able to work in tandem, as science has the potential to explain miracles or spirits, or what have you. They are only in contention with one another where there are matters of faith (i.e. unproven miracles and miscellaneous unexplained occurrences).

Answer 4

Religion is a belief in something you have complete faith in and dedicate yourself to. If that is how you view sience, then yes, I think science can be a religion. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I doubt that science will make anyone leave behind their faith in whatever religion they may have. For instance, me. I seriously doubt that anything science tells me will make me believe otherwise of what I have already come to have faith in, just like you who seriously doubts that christianity, or any other religion involving a god will ever change your faith in science.

Also, their are many holes in the scientific world as well. How is it possible that the world, by complete chance, formed into a sphere and developed a biosphere, and atmosphere that was just perfect for all forms of life. And how is it, that by chance, the human body has become so intricate, yet still works?

To think that this world was created by complete chance is inconceivable, to me at any rate, and others in this world who share the same view.

Answer 5

I believe that reliion is the way that people tried to explain the world around them before science and continued through uneducated people to our times.

Religion is effective when it comes for passing ideas and morals to the masses.Religion has been used as a very effective tool fr good and bad reasons.Furthermore ,all the big religions talk about love and generally positive ideas but it is clear that have been used very badly through the centuries.

On the other hand,science does not support any ideas or morals and talks only about proven facts that can not be doubted.
Additionaly,science explains or tries to explain the creation of this world as all religions as well but it is not a religion.

Science is known for freeing one's mind of the stupid ethical rules and for making people think in a more practical way.

Answer 6

Richard Dawkins, I'm afraid, overstates his case.
"science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices."

If you take the ideal form of religion, and the ideal form of science, (as Dawkins does above) there may not be much of a problem in either case. But science and religion is practised by human beings, and there lies the inevitable, unavoidable problem.
In science we have seen the faking of evidence for fame and for grant money. Sectarian in-fighting, with unpopular views having a difficulty getting published not directly connected to the quality of the work. The burying of evidence and poor results in order to "save face". Bending of results to suit the sponsor of the research...
No, Science isn't just the pure high ground it would like to be.
And, to tackle your question directly, undoubtedly some people USE science as a religion. Complete with taking "proof texts" shorn of their context, and holding a belief independent of the actual evidence.

Science requires certain assumptions to be made. A metaphysical step that there is something worth investigating, and a methodology that can do it.
But these assumptions then get tested, which is where the potential for error starts to be reduced. And the need for faith reduced. The confidence comes to rest on the *confirmation* of the speculation, not the first step.
(Bertrand Russell's view, which was supported by Einstein).

To the extent that religion conflicts with science (science not used religiously) so much the worse for religion.
The extent of that conflict is, though, itself disputed.

(edit: ah, Dawkins was not being as naive as I at first took him for. Reading further:
"Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence...")

Answer 7

No, it is not a religion, simply by definition.

As for the other questions, no, the same level of faith is not required. Significant evidence must exist before a theory becomes accepted in the scientific community, and even then, no one asks for blind faith. Scientists are free to dispute theories and perform experiments.

Those who choose to believe in myths should be allowed to do so, but no, I don't think it's wise. I find that, in all areas of my life, I can make the best decisions if I am working with accurate information.

Answer 8

No, science is not a religion.

It requires no "faith" to "believe in" science. This 2nd question doesn't really make sense. You can rely upon science with a reasonable assurance that it produces valid results. I wouldn't call this "faith" or "belief".

And of course, religion should never be allowed to supersede science. That would lead to disastrous decisions.

Science is dynamic - a method of learning new things. But religion only changes when scientific discovery forces it to, or the leadership changes it for its advantage.

Science is self-correcting - when mistakes are made they are discovered and corrected. But religion is arrogant in comparison. It claims to be the one and only answer, often regardless of any evidence or in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

Answer 9

Science and religion are not at odds, and do not fulfill the same purpose. Science is the study of how the physical world operates. Religion defines primary concern, and gives context for humanity's role in existence. It provides us universal context, so to speak. Note that many of our early scientists were religious monks. The two are no more at odds than mathematics and literature.

Answer 10

I find your supposition to be absolutely laughable.

Science is the study of the natural world
Religion (at its core) is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs that we are loyal to, practice or make a routine of following.

Scientific study was begat by so-called Religious folks (as someone else noted)
Religion does not need to supercede science, modern or otherwise. Nor does science exist without religion.

In the past scientist have said that flight by man by any means is impossible.
Scientific observation of a dead bumble bee without prior knowledge of its flight would have one hypothesize it could not fly
But just as our temporal (a few thousand years) study of our surroundings does not provide all the answers, with religion, it doesn't have to.