Godot

A thought occured to my on my way home from uni this afternoon.
That rationality and a rigorous adherement to scientific principles could equally be interpreted as dogma and doctrine.
Essentially, science itself is a religion.
Any thoughts?

sakrilege

From dictionary.com

re·li·gion
1.a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



sci·ence
1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.



I think it is possible to follow the scientific method religiously but science is not a religion.

keyser_soze

Personally, not being the science type, I look at science as a way of measuring things. It really has not dogmatic or religious significance to me...It is merely the most accurate way to measure, define, or predict the world we live in.

Jamie_L

Science, at its heart, is just observation and test. Formalized, it is simply and established process for observation and test.

I have a hard time seeing how this can be a "religion".

Religion is a philosophy. An assertion about the world, not an observation. But also a direction on how to live one's life. Science makes no claims about how to live one's life, and it makes no assertions.

Jamie

VonEvilstein

If science were a religion, it would just about the only one with a track record of getting things right, and an even better record of showing how not to get things wrong.

If science were a religion, would planes be keptin the sky by belief?

Bottom line - science requires no faith, anyone can do it and verify the results for themselves. That, alone, would move science of the religious arena.

fishbulb

Science observes phenomena and from those observations generates hypotheses. The validity of those hypotheses is determined by their ability to make correct predictions. A hypothesis that makes incorrect predictions must be re-evaluated. Hypotheses that do not make predictions at all are irrelevant in science. Science is fundamentally about using past experience to make predictions about future events.

Religion observes phenomena and applies theology to interpret the significance of those phenomena. Religion usually makes no predictions that can be verified, and when it does, the failure of a hypothesis to make a correct prediction does not generally invalidate the hypothesis. Religion is primarily about explaining why things are the way they are and is of little practical value in predicting what will happen.

JerryM

Science appeals to the reason. Religion appeals to the imagination.

happyboy

science appeals to those who use their brains. religion appeals to those who DON'T use their brains.

happyboy

Mageth

A thought occured to my on my way home from uni this afternoon.
That rationality and a rigorous adherement to scientific principles could equally be interpreted as dogma and doctrine.

It's true that one could be dogmatic about "science". One can be dogmatic about baseball, I suppose. But that doesn't mean that all who "practice" science are dogmatic, or that science (or baseball) is a "religion".

If practicing "rationality and a rigorous adherence to scientific principles" is a religion, I'll eat my hat. I would hope everyone would strive for those "ideals". Walking around being irrational and trying to defy gravity by jumping up and down would make one appear a bit silly, I reckon.

And there's no "doctrine" of science. Hell, there's considerable debate about what the scientific method really is, not to mention just about any theory of science one can think of. Read up on the philosophy of science.

Essentially, science itself is a religion.

Science, from the Cambridge International Dictionary of English (online), is:

the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities (or the knowledge obtained therefrom).

It would be hard to squeeze "religion" into that definition.

So, one might say science is a method or system for understanding the natural universe, and is so far the best method we've yet come up with. It's not used for worship, is not worshipped, has no deity, establishes no doctrines, makes no moral claims, and doesn't directly address any metaphysical questions.

Many from various religions use science to gain understanding of the natural universe. I would bet you do, too. Even biblical literalists trust science up to a point, even if they deny it. It would be difficult for one to claim one practiced or followed two religions as religions tend to be exclusive.

Any thoughts?

You'd have better luck with "secular humanism" or "metaphysical naturalism." Neither of which are technically religions, but both of which are perhaps closer to "religion" than science is.