Is science a religion?

[Poor Player]

Recently another person on this board made the claims "evolution is dead" and "evolution is a religion" and tried to illustrate those claims with numbers one and two below. While the fomer claim is ridiculous, a lot of smart people still believe the latter. Many even say "science is a religion". I would like to discuss the differences between science and religion. I think it would be wise to define each of them first and then compare them. I have started it out with my rebuttal to the two claims made below. Would anyone like to give science and/or religion a definition and/or compare them? Don't be shy, but please keep it professional and refrain from personal attacks. Overly emotional mudslinging only degrades the quality of the posts.

"1. How can DNA form initially - this is the heart of Evolution and without it Evolution is dead. You are asking us to believe in luck? Try again. This is like hitting the lottery every time, not once, not twice but trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions... of times in a row - without even one miss. Surely you can do better than that. We have no evidence that there are any other planets where life tried to start, but even if there were, that has absoultely nothing to do with life starting by chance on Earth. Do you understand anything about statistics. Other events have nothing to do with this event.

2. I asked you to show a change in Phylum, Class or Order. I did not ask you to show that a slug became a man. I asked you to show any transitional forms beteen Phylums. Evolutionists are funny people. They will glom onto anything which even remotely looks like a transitional form - like a platupus, since it has webbed feet and a bill it must be a transitional form between otters and ducks, right - WRONG. If there truely were transitional forms, there should be MILLIONS of steps between Phylums, yet there are NONE!!!

Your suppositions here are both fatally flawed. They use very faulty logic and I will now prove it to you and whoever is listening in. I already addressed #1 on the last page but I will do it again here. In order to disprove the beginning of evolution by chance you have assumed that DNA was necessary to form the earliest life forms. This is not necessarily the case. We have no DNA or DNA-like samples to examine from a billion years ago now do we, because it all decayed long before even the dinosaurs. We just don't know how it all started yet and neither do you. It is very early in the dance. How long has the internet been around?

In premise #2 you have assumed that there aren't enough "transitional" forms between phylums. Define "transition". Until you can state what the evolutionary requirements are for a "transition" then you can't even define it let alone determine how many steps are required. So what are the requirements for a transition then? Give me the simplest one you can possibly think of. You can't do it. Until we actually OBSERVE it happening, then we won't really know for sure now will we. One can claim that a fossil "looks" transitory, but until a transition is actually observed then it is speculative. Observation is the essence of science is it not? Observation of testable theories that is. We theorize, we test, we observe, and we disprove. Until you can thoroughly and consistently disprove a testable theory then it could still be true now couldn't it?

But how long has it been since evolution was discovered? A few nanoseconds ago in geologic time. We may not have these answers for hundreds or thousands of years, or we may have them tomorrow. Your problem is that neither one of your assumptions is even testable yet. It's just like your wife saying "prove to me you love me and then I will believe you that you do". You cannot successfully argue against evolution using illogical and fatally flawed arguments. You have disproved nothing.

So now, both of your logical arguments have been discredited. Furthermore you err greatly when you claim that evolution is a religion. You have overlooked the single most important distinction between religion and science: the processes used to gather evidence. Scientific theories must be testable to be truly scientific. Religious theories have no similar requirement. The religious man takes his completely untestable theories and looks for supporting evidence anywhere he can. Fine, we all do this, but it is not practicing science. It is merely human nature and wishful thinking.

The requirements of practicing science are that your theory be testable. The rigorously scientific man then does everything he can to disprove his theory. If he doesn't try that then his peers in the scientific community will. This insures that science does not become religion. The most important difference between evolution and religion is again, simply, the process by which the evidence is accumulated. No hard evidence can be collected to prove or disprove religion because it is simply not testable. Scientific evidence, on the other hand must be tested, then proved, disproved, or deemed a work in progress.

Is evolution testable? Of course it is. We test it all the time. Can we prove it? Of course we can, but not tomorrow. It is going to take time. We see the evidence of it everywhere but we have not yet actually observed it happening before our eyes in a controlled setting. Science hasn't been around long enough yet. When was DNA discovered (1950s)? Science didn't exist ten thousand years ago now did it? If it had, the case would be now closed. Ancient religion is at best a collection of untestable beliefs. Evolution is at worst a testable work in process. Only science can give us the real answers. Only science gives us a process for finding the truth.

 

[the preacher]

poor player welcome firstly, and you certainly not a poor player.

I would have liked to have posted, the entire essay, from Richard Dawkins. Url below because it says a lot.
http://www.2think.org/Richard_Dawkins_Is_Science_A_Religion.shtml

religion is based in and on faith, science is not, it's that simple.

religion is faith without any facts, and science is facts without any faith.

 

[Poor Player]

Thank you for the outstanding Dawkins article. It actually addressed some of my unstated interests on this topic rather well. Unfortunately, I think he has missed a very important point about faith. Faith is not necessarily the enemy. Maybe a better question for many of us is "What place has faith and morality for the man (or woman) of science and reason?" Does not faith inform our morality?

Dawkins touches on this in his words about having a "rational moral philosophy" that is informed by science. What does this rational moral philosophy consist of? What should it consist of? If all morality is subjective then why should we even strive for any kind of uniformity?

These are very important questions in the perilous world we live in today. To this last question I suspect the answer is a resounding "We should care, because if we don't, we will most likely all perish as a species". I have heard it argued by some that a common ethical foundation is not needed in the world today. That evolution has endowed us with all that we need to survive indefinitely: self-interested rationalism. I think that particular article of faith is very weak.

I'm not sure we can have a rational moral philosophy without having faith in something. We are only human. Science can inform our faith, but it cannot abolish the need for it, if we care at all about our long term survival. Faith is merely an obvious component of human nature. It gives us direction. It guides us into the great unknowns of life.

Will I live to see tomorrow? Will any of us? How long will we live on as a species? The answers, no matter how subjective, are simple articles of faith but they instruct us how to live our lives. Can a meaningful morality exist without faith? I doubt it. I suspect we need to have faith in new things, informed greatly by science, but not defined by it. Faith is invaluable to us.

 

[§outh§tar]

religion
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Science is not a religion. Science can change and admit it is wrong. Science does not put the cart before the horse. Anyone who holds to science with "ardor and faith" is a fool irrespective.

 

[guthrie]

Off the top of my head, I think that one of the important points about science is that it is supposed to be demonstrable, and that you can show the experiments to others, they can go off and repeat them themselves, whereas religion, you may well believe, but what if the other person doesnt? They wont see things the same way then, will they. Thus there is a more interpersonal dimension to science than religion. You could also say religion is the last bastion of the personal self, what you say to god inside your own head is inaccessible to others, but with science, for it to be scientific in any kind of modern sense, it has to be communicable and comprehendable.
Thus, science helps create a world in common, more so than religion in my opinion.

 

[glaucon]

religion is based in and on faith, science is not, it's that simple.

As stated, quite correct. However, the problem is that science is not based on faith specifically by scientists. Unfortunately, the vast majority of non-scientists do indeed have faith in science, and in fact practice this faith every day.
A foundationalist approach at differentiation does not work here.
For the lay, science is today more of a religion than any religion per se.

 

[Poor Player]

I am not saying that science should be held to by faith but that our faith should be built upon our science. First comes science then comes faith. Faith gives rise to our values and our morals because we are are so limited and human. We all have a system of beliefs. But where do those beliefs come from? If they are not built on the foundation of science then we are merely engaging in wishful thinking. From my recent post on "Science vs. Religion" I said:

" Science is not so much a system of beliefs or an ideal but a system of objective factfinding. Once the individual facts have been found and then survive a long term rigorous peer review process, then they are "believed" or more accurately "accepted". The scientific process is designed to specifically eliminate bias and ideals where possible. It is successful when accurate predictions can be made about the future behavior of a given finding. Religion has no such process. It is entirely subjective in every way and that is why it is so prone to error. One culture believes one thing while another believes totally differently.

It is not an article of faith to say that only science can lead us to the objective truth because that is what modern science is specifically designed to do. There is truth in science if you define truth as a universal standard. We can send spacecraft all the way across the solar system using gravity assists from other planets because the law of gravity is true there as well as here and we can predict its behavior. Morals are subjective but truth isn't.

But what science cannot do is tell us how we should live. This is where faith becomes so valuable. If I believe the world is truly in great peril, and if I believe that we collectively can save it, then those beliefs inform my values, my morality, and ultimately my behavior. You might disagree and believe it's all a waste of your time. Again, your beliefs have informed your behavior. So we all have a system of beliefs but we do not all rely on science to inform them, mold them, and change them. Many rely instead on religions based much more on traditions and subjective experience.

It is a shame that many cannot see the promise of having a faith based on the scientific process. A faith that would instruct us how to live, how to treat others, and what to value in the world. We have no such faith today. Maybe we never will. We may never live long enough as a species to see it arise. I would argue that we probably won't unless we find a way to create it. "

 

[Poor Player]

To further the debate I just found this interesting quote in an article for Daedalus (Summer 2003) by James Carroll. (http://www.amacad.org/publications/back_issues.htm)

" Absolute claims are the issue. The challenge for religions of all kinds, but perhaps especially for religions based on narratives of divine revelation, is to make positive assertions of faith that do not simultaneously denigrate the different tenets of faith held by others. Religious denigration is a source of violence. “There will be no peace among the nations,”
the Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Küng has written, “without peace
among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions. There will be no dialogue between the religions without the investigation of the foundations of the religions.” The new condition of world politics that has brought so much trouble with it is also the source of hope, because formerly triumphalist traditions now have no choice–precisely because of religious elbow-rubbing–but to encounter the truth claims of others. That means that the foundational assumptions of every religion must now be the subject of reexamination. "

He didn't mention it at all in the article, unfortunately, but science has been reexaming the foundational assumptions of all religions for the past four hundred years or so. NASA even has an entire program called "Origins" which spawned the Hubble telescope and many other similar astronomical observatories that have given us so much new information on how we all got here in the first place. So the question I raise is "Can we really have a new faith based on science, or do we have to settle for integrating science with the old religious traditions first, where possible, before people will ever embrace a new ethical foundation?".

 

[§outh§tar]

Could you please provide the name of the member whom you quoted so we can make fun of them and bring a few ad hominem remarks?

 

[SnakeLord]

It was during a debate with me on evolution, and the member who posted the above seemed more than happy to ignore any explanations or questions concerning the topic matter, but instead seemed more than happy just to waffle his misguided comments continually. The thread was the one you started, (with a heavy heart..). Look towards the end of the thread somewhere.

 

[Poor Player]

South and Snake, both of you are obviously up to speed in understanding a great deal about science, but how do we actually live our lives through it? If science does not tell us how we should live then how do we decide? You cannot deny that this question is of the greatest importance to many people. I know a lot of people who have made many major decisions in life that they later regretted because they had no real definable code of ethics to live by, at least not a consistent one. So how does science help out? Does it all even matter in the long run? I argue that it does matter but that we are doing a pathetic job communicating that to society. We have relinquished moral authority to the religious. What say you?

 

[SnakeLord]

If science does not tell us how we should live then how do we decide?

Surely the majority of it is no different to that of any animal? We work, we eat, we protect our loved ones. What is there that we do, in this context, that cannot be seen in nature?

Aside from this, we are victims of influence. A child who is abused, tends to then abuse - etc. We are told and taught what to do and who to be, and in general we stick very close to that. It doesn't make the lessons correct as a whole, but individually they always will be.

You cannot deny that this question is of the greatest importance to many people.

Most certainly, but I feel that people are trying to make the issue too complex.

I know a lot of people who have made many major decisions in life that they later regretted because they had no real definable code of ethics to live by, at least not a consistent one.

People will make decisions that they often regret later, and much of that reason is purely because at the time, 'later' is not all that relevant. If people have a 'problem' they will tend to it now, and what happens later isn't of importance, because right now it's a problem. Once 'later' arrives, they see the past problem from a completely different perspective where it is undoubtedly easier to see all the moves they could have made as opposed to the one they did.

It's easier to work backwards from a finished game of chess and figure out what your starting move should have been, than to make the appropriate starting move before the game has been played.

So how does science help out?

It affects everything, for both good and bad. It gives us life saving techniques that eventually might make us live longer and with less disease - and on the other hand it gives us atom bombs. In both cases it affects the way we live. For all the evil of nuclear weapons, they have in general, (most likely), stopped a lot of wars that would have been fought- and in this instance, even something bad can seemingly benefit mankind.

On a smaller scale, it has enabled us to speak to people across the planet instantly, not only bringing humanity closer to each other, (in certain respects), but to allow us to view and learn all cultures. Back in the old days if a christian wanted to preach, he'd be forced to do so in his town alone, now he can reach the planet with the click of a button.

From another aspect, it gives us an insight into what we are, and how we got here. While many will debate these issues until they're blue in the face, it shows the rest of us the adversity and hardship that humanity has gone through just for the right to exist. More than our own wars and killings, we have battled the planet itself, against all the odds, and have come out the other side a tremendous species. Of course, no more so than any other animal that has made it this far, (and alas man has ended many of them), but it is science that provides our future, our childrens future. While religion can provide comfort, it can't provide reality. That is the job of science, and is it that which keeps us going.

I argue that it does matter but that we are doing a pathetic job communicating that to society

The main problem and hurdle is that the layman does not understand it. Take my computer for instance; I know how to turn it on, I know what it does, but I don't know how it does what it does. All the RAMS, ROMS, and GHZ's don't mean anything at the end of the day, and this is the main drawback of science.

People only argue it because they don't understand it.

Some things can be easily understood, such as gravity, but try explaining quantum physics to the average Joe. We don't live long enough, or have enough time to learn everything that science provides. "god did it", provides the whole answer instantly. No queues, no waiting list, no hassle. Science does not work like that, but that's how many people want it.

A lot of it is also dependant upon what you read. If you sat down and read a scientific journal about evolution, the chances are most people wouldn't understand much of it. Speciation, transitional fossils, base pairs etc.. It's generally incomprehensible to the average human being. If you then read something easier, (from a private author), it would most likely be full of opinion and falsities. Read any creationist book trying to debunk evolution for example. If that's the first book regarding evolution that you read, you'd undoubtedly adopt a very warped image of what evolution is, and an opinion that will always be overly biased.

In general though, people will and do accept science as long as it's kept simple. Who denies the past existence of dinosaurs or that they were wiped out? Who denies gravity?

We have relinquished moral authority to the religious.

I disagree. More later, I think the clocks have just gone forward when they were supposed to go back?

 

[MarcAC]

Thus, science helps create a world in common, more so than religion in my opinion.

Very true, that is where science and many religions (Christianity for one) diverge.

 

[Poor Player]

It is possible to lose touch with reality. It's called insanity and many have been afflicted by it. There is universal truth in the physical world. Just because the laws of gravity may be suspended in a given situation, although I don't believe it has ever been demonstrated, and that other forces may act on it to cause it to change its properties, doesn't mean it isn't universal.

Objectivity from a scientific viewpoint is built into the traditions of science built up over many decades. Science prides itself in rigorously disproving any theory which had previously been accepted as fact. So as a community science does a very good job of policing itself and ridding itself of error. Religion thrives on subjective experience which is not a bad thing, in and of itself, except where it contradicts known facts in the physical universe. The metaphysical has no place in science because it can never be observed in a controlled environment, or predicted with any degree of certainty.

To get anywhere in this discussion I think we have to limit the definition of facts to those that can be observed and repeated in the physical world. Sure, there are other facts, but they cannot be verified. The definition of beliefs on the other hand should have no such restriction, but when your beliefs contradict known facts then you do a great disservice to your fellow man. The lack of sheer honesty and intellectual integrity in people of faith is why so many have left the old religious traditions. They need a new morality with an ethical foundation based on what we know to be true in the world today. I am questioning what that morality should consist of.

 

[Poor Player]

Juust to clarify Snake, my last post was responding to Marc's postings in the "Science vs. Religion" thread not to yours. I don't have enough time right now but will respond later. Thanks.

 

[Poor Player]

I'm trying to focus on one thread regarding this discussion.

 

[Poor Player]

Getting back to Snake's comments, I agree with most of them. The one concept I take issue with is that science is the driving force of our future. I think we are the driving force and we do not live our lives like a science experiment. We have to deal with a great sea of unknowns. Life is lived more like applied engineering than science. The future is not entireably knowable as it regards human affairs.

What will become of us in a thousand years? It has been shown by science that we could destroy the world's climate and possibly kill everyone with a nuclear winter. There could be a natural disaster from space that could take us all out or some as yet unheard of virus. Or we could tip over the world's natural balance with pollution and cause a domino effect of eco-disasters. So many surprises could happen that it is beyond our ability to predict them.

We just don't know and can't model the likelihood of all of those possibilities. The future of the world is at bottom an article of faith. We can believe one way or the other but it's just at best a well-informed belief. Why then is what we believe regarding the future of the world relevant to our daily lives? I think it's because science may have given us the power to shape the destiny of the Earth and the human race. What a waste if we don't use it.

But science is just a tool. It informs us and our belief system, and gives us options and more power, but it cannot guide us into the future. We create the future with our beliefs and our subsequent actions. We may not completely understand the consequences of what we do at the time, as you have pointed out, but is not learning from our mistakes the essence of wisdom and exprience. If we applied this to human affairs as a whole what would we want to make sure that human society has learned? How would we communicate that lesson so that those who come after us don't repeat it?

So we create the future with science as a tool but not as the judge of what is right. We must choose ourselves what is right and what is wrong and then live accordingly. Both religion and our system of laws have had a monopoly on morality up to this point, but while religion has become widely discredited by science, our laws have become hopelessly ineffective at molding desired behavior. They only serve as a bandage for a faulty morality.

I think we need to have a new morality that starts at the end result of long term human survival and the moves backwards to today. What then are the things we should all be doing to insure to the best of our ability our survival for as long as possible? Or should we just "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." Are not "All things possible to him who believes"?

 

[MarcAC]

It is possible to lose touch with reality. It's called insanity and many have been afflicted by it. There is universal truth in the physical world...

I assume here you define reality as the objectively verified and repeatable observation. Sure, a universal truth governs the universe because we can at least understand it to an extent... but how can we depend completely on the scientific method and relenquish all other methods based on what you have in the quote below?

...Science prides itself in rigorously disproving any theory which had previously been accepted as fact. So as a community science does a very good job of policing itself and ridding itself of error.

The problem I have with that with regards to depending soley on science (putting my faith in completely in it?) is this; Your statement seems to allow for the disproving of one errant theory for the introduction of another errant theory... and the cycle continues. Humans need some stablity. That's one of the reasons why God is there I think.

Religion thrives on subjective experience which is not a bad thing, in and of itself, except where it contradicts known facts in the physical universe. The metaphysical has no place in science because it can never be observed in a controlled environment, or predicted with any degree of certainty.

Considering your limit on the definition of fact, even then, I would modify the statement above. You may see paradoxes with known facts (as you define them), but if investigated thoroughly many can be resolved and a marraige of science and religion take place. Paradoxes are one driving force in scientific progress right?

Sure, there are other facts, but they cannot be verified.

And here you limit the definition of verify to the scientific one of course - peer review and repeatability etc. We have to accept though, that some factual observations cannot be repeated. Take the search for extra solar objects orbiting other stars. One method utilizes the gravitational lensing effect predicted by Einstein, and it is a once off observation, but planetary objects can be inferred from that process. A non-repeatable observation. Of course other methods may be employed to verify the claim... but not that one.

The definition of beliefs on the other hand should have no such restriction, but when your beliefs contradict known facts then you do a great disservice to your fellow man. The lack of sheer honesty and intellectual integrity in people of faith is why so many have left the old religious traditions. They need a new morality with an ethical foundation based on what we know to be true in the world today. I am questioning what that morality should consist of.

I don't think a new morality is needed. They need to adhere to the moral code grounded in their being. I can imagine a world with morality grounded in some kind of scientific process, but, morality will be like fashion - today it's in - tomorrow it's out. Not to mention the debates about which is the better moral? Anarchy. I don't like it.

 

[TheERK]

Could you please provide the name of the member whom you quoted so we can make fun of them and bring a few ad hominem remarks?

Right, because you didn't make similarly ridiculous claims a few months ago. Go back to being a theist; your attitude towards people who you used to be just like makes non-believers look bad.

 

[MarcAC]

So we create the future with science as a tool but not as the judge of what is right. We must choose ourselves what is right and what is wrong and then live accordingly. Both religion and our system of laws have had a monopoly on morality up to this point, but while religion has become widely discredited by science, our laws have become hopelessly ineffective at molding desired behavior. They only serve as a bandage for a faulty morality.

Interesting... How can that ever be achieved with the human nature of "my way is better than yours" (absolute)... or even "you do it your way I do it mine" (no standard)? It seems you are advocating the building of a new morality from nothing - impossible. You have to have some grounds to build on (moral grounds). You have to justify why "this should be so". Unless you'll be creating morality from the amoral. Again, how is that possible? The moral grounds are here and solid. The morality is not at fault. Not the true one. It is the human (self interested) twisting of it which is at fault and yes, laws do serve to highlight that moral twisting. Laws themselves are included in the moral twisting.