Can science be seen as the religion on the 21st century?

Question

Before you jump in, I am an atheist and reject all religions' views on the universe.
Recently, I used to think that science was concrete facts that could not be disputed. If you believed in religion, you were denying all reason and logic. Newton could be proved time and time again, as could Einstein. Even Darwin, although not proven, is by far the most likely explanation and everything we since discover confirms this strong theory.
HOWEVER, science these days, now that it has gone beyond simple motion and matter, gets more and more theoretical. I've seen programs about the nature of atoms and the universe and the theories are extremely varied and counter-intuitive. Is it now becoming a matter of faith to believe that atoms can be in 2 different states at the same time and in 2 different universes?

To illustrate further. It should be a matter of science to give a definite answer as to whether mobile masts causes harm. We get scientists on both sides giving answers. Who do you believe? Both produce evidence and use scientific methods. What about global warming? Some say its due to pollution, others disagree. Who finances the research can have a bearing on the outcome.
I cannot go through all the evidence and make sense of it all, I have to understand it as best as I can and then decide which side I believe. This is not science as hard facts giving answers – it is more similar to what you believe, hence my thoughts that science is becoming somewhat similar to religion.
Don’t get me wrong, religion has none of the answers, but do you need to put your ‘faith’ into science these days?

Answer 1

It is not the "facts" that you should have faith in, but instead, the methodology that led to the arrival of said facts.

I do not know that the earth is round, but the stuff I've heard about it seems to make a lot of sense to me. There's a lot of various evidence that all seems to point to the same thing, so I'm willing to "believe" that the earth is round. Or close enough to round, anyway.

So therefore I don't think "believing" scientific things is blind faith in the same way believing in god is.

Answer 2

You are mixing two fields. Science is the study of physical things - how they interact, and try to speculate on how they came to be. Religion is a definition on a spiritual matter - and how it has had an effect or brought about the physical that we now see.

The fact that scientists disagree shows two things. Neither of which makes science a religion. First, it shows that science is the art of taking quantifiable data (facts, stuff you can measure) and making an educated guess as to what that data proves, or leads you to believe. Those educated guesses are not only impacted by the quantifiable data, but also by the scientist's other experiences (and possibly agendas). Secondly (as you pointed out about "who pays for the study") science is heavily impacted by dollars and politics. Some studies say vitamins are good for you. Seems pretty obvious that giving your body good nutrients ought to be good, right? Not if you're a scientist funded by a pharmaceutical company - vitamins are not drugs, and taking them causes people to take less drugs - so studies funded by pharmaceutical companies all conclude that at best, taking vitamins gives you expensive urine, at worst, they can hurt you.

But no, science is not religion. As a fundie, I like science. It's the "educated guesses" part where people end up in disagreement. There is a great big hole in the ground called the Grand Canyon. Could it have been made by a cataclysmic event of geisers of water rushing up out of the ground and earthquakes followed by a year or two of flood waters running off this continent? Possibly. But most funding points at it taking billions of years of water running through it.....

Answer 3

I see what you mean - there is an enormous amount that science can explain, and an enormous amount it can't.

Basically, science will always continue to evolve as we discover more each day until either (a) a theory is conclusively proved, or (b) we have to have a paradigm shift because evidence points against what we previously believed. Until we reach one of those states for each individual theory, there will always be an element of faith. So yes, a lot like religion!

I would argue that this isn't a 21st century thing, though - remember that we used to believe the world was flat! That theory was largely based on faith...

PS Contrary to your belief in Darwin, evidence being discovered every day is working more to disprove many elements of his theory rather than prove. In fact, many scientists believe that it won't be long before we have to virtually rewrite Darwin - that would be a helluva paradigm shift!

Answer 4

Let me speak onthe science of evolution, first.

It is just imagination and therfore just another set of beliefs - so yes, it is a religion in that sense. It has it's ardent followers who support it because the position has become part of their identity - who they are - how they define themselves in the world. Yes, just a belief.

We want something more. Above believer - there is the level of knower. But you will never know in your mind. Your mind has limits, your mind constantly lies to maintain control over the soul. Only the heart and soul can understand clearly what the mind will never see or understand.

I will give you some heavenly knowledge that goes way beyond what religious people and scientists profess - with their foolish beliefs.

There has been 124.000 Adams, not the few human fosil records that scientists have uncovered. 124.000 levels of existence - stages of development of the human species. You will never find this knowledge in books. Each Adam was created and then uterly destroyed and a new Adam - species was created. It is not evolution as the imaginative mind wants to say. No.

Not enough - the mosquitto - it has two tubes it injects into it's lunch. One for extracting, one for injecting a solution to thin the blood. Find this in any science book - then talk to me about real knowledge.

The cockroach. Why was it created? What purpose? Everything has a purpose in creation - you must know this. It is the only cure for persitent open soars. Kill it, cook it over fire, crush into a powder - then apply to the soar - day and night - three days, begining to heal. Find this in science . . . .

The Earth. What makes it turn? Jet engines?

No, God.

I normally do not bother with Atheists - ususally no point.

Seems you may be an exception.

Peace

Answer 5

no.
Look up the difference between natural and supernatural.
If a natural explanation is getting too complicated to understand without years of studying it does not mean that it has been achieved by supernatural means.
Contradictory results are also not a problem in science. Nobody is perfect, neither are scientists. Mistakes are made, a lot are perfectly natural mistakes. E.g. if the main factors contributing to an effect are not known the correct factors may not be controlled for, giving misleading results. Not all methods used may turn out to be appropriate, and some is just bad science.
That's why reproducability is important in science. Cold fusion turned out to be not reproducible, so the idea it could be reached with the method described has been discarded.
As far as your example with mobile phone masts are concerned a) studying long-term effects is by nature not quick. b) the last I read is that they have an effect, but that the effect is mainly psychological. If people believe that mobile phone masts cause them damage they actually get sick.

Answer 6

As person who has a belief,I also have a pragmatism.Sure science has dispelled what our forefathers believed to be the truth.As will it prove hat we hold to be true no longer viable.Some scientist believe there may be up to 11 dimensions.Science can complement religion if your mind can rationalise and accept as you've stated Darwin.Before the big bang theory what had we.This where faith should really begin,what has been written and theologies since is like Darwin and other scientist,their best guess

Answer 7

It all depends on how you define religion. In its most simplistic form religion can be defined as a set of ideas with followers. (Most people go a step further and add that those ideas are worshiped and this has become the accepted definition of religion.) Based on the very basic definition science could be considered a religion. I think most people scoff of the idea of science being a religion because of the association of that word with god(s), worship, and blind faith.

I also remember reading an article a year or so ago that stated that environmentalism is the new religion.

Nothing is absolute truth. All anyone has is faith, acknowledged or not, that the universe operates as it should. Whether by scientific laws and theories or by a divine power's hand.

It all in how you interpret things.

Answer 8

Well what you are saying makes sense but just because you have to put a little bit of faith into something it doesn't mean it is a religion. You put faith in the fact that the sun will rise, not because you have proof that it will but because that is what it has always done in the past. So, that's kind of how faith works with science. Yes you are choosing which side you believe in terms of global warming or whatever the topic but you are basing it on a logical thought process that is based in evidence and observation not just wishful thinking or what your Mom told you.

Answer 9

I certainly hope so, because science is flux...and constant learning. You don't know much about science if you believed that it was concrete. It can never be concrete because we don't know everything! It is a constant search for more information. A constant learning process. Once you say everything is written in concrete, you have stopped growing and will be like it was in the Dark Ages. Sure you've seen things change...but what on earth is wrong with that? It doesn't change for the worst! It is always for the best to admit you are wrong and to embrace the truth. Just because you can't wrap your mind around the new ideas doesn't make them bad or wrong. So, are you saying that because you don't understand the newest information, you are going to revert into your shell and lean back on religion's archaic, restrictive, constand and concrete ideas? If so, I feel sorry for you. Me...I'm always there, eagerly waiting all new information.

atheist

Answer 10

Some people think that science is the salvation of mankind. That is has the answers. That is provides or will always provide all the solutions. But science also fails miserably in certain areas where things ar mystical and simply unexplainable by the scientific method. Many times in the past science has been proven wrong or has fallen short.

So I wouldn't put faith in a "god" that is fallible and untrustworthy. Some people just like to use science as a salvation from religion. As an "I told you so" approach to religious people.

Answer 11

yes we cannot deny that the field of science is growing... but still spiritual things are spiritual.. Science only explains the things pertaining to the World we live in..Physical things.. and it has done very well.. Some of which still remain as theories.. unproven...

Both are not related... therefore cannot be compared and weighed which one is better.. or science would replace religion, or the other way around.. Both have different subjects...