Should Science be considered a Religion?

But is concrete research truly concrete?

well a research is never concrete and things change in beliefs of science also...well i think anything that provides belief and sense to a person is religion...the belief can be in hypothesis or in unknown powers of nature

That's true. Science changes all the time. First saccharine causes cancer, then it doesn't, etc.. etc...

I think science relies more on faith than many would like to admit.

By that definition I would say it qualifies as well. Are there any qualities that are different between science and religion?

lol.. hmmm I don't know if science or religion can explain that one!

Just realized something -- I'm talking about the email, not your religious views!

lol

That's an interesting point. What about today? Is science just another religion competeing with others for followers?

Which has the answer to this statement, science or religion or both?

And which one has the right answer?

As a fairly well educated person I would have to disagree. How do we establish what is fact and what is not? At any given point in time science is only as good as the all too fallable people who test and clarify facts. Science requires belief in the systems we use to discern facts. This belief is faith. To those for whom religion provides the answers, the barely believable is just as provable through religion according to some people. Just as science provides the answers to some people.

Peer review is a fine thing, but once again, it is subject to the errors and belief systems of humans.

Faith is required for both science and religion; therefore, comparisons are entirely justifiable and healthy.

I think people worship all kinds of things that are not reigious. people worship money, celebrity,themselves, and yes even science.

Look at the large numbers of people who look to science to solve all their problems, just as some look to religion.

Everyone is bringing up some great points. And I don't expect a mylot discussion to change anyone's views. But I have to disagree. I think science operates on a set of assumptions that seem provable on the surface, but underlying all the proof is a degree of faith in the observations and methodology used to measure these observations.

Not all religions focus on higher powers, and science could be considered as one of those religions.

My oncern is that in proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, still leaves doubt. Does that make sense? And even the slightest degree of doubt requires faith to overcome. A scientist must have faith that experiments are accurate. All objectivity has been maintained. This too requires faith. The results may have been recorded, but errors may have been made in the recording. A scientist must have faith that this has not occurred. Experiments may be recorded, but once again, errors could have been made. The scientist must have faith that the experiments were not fudged.

Facts are subject to change. It was once a fact that the Earth was flat years ago. Scientists of that time could even prove it with tangible evidence. How do we know that we are not those same mistaken people? And that all the scientific fact that we possess at this point in time is correct? To me this requires faith.

Scientists don't have faith in their experiments in the same way that a religious follower has faith in god or their dogma.

Religion operates on the idea that proof is unneeded. That goes for all religions. To prove the existence of any higher power for any religion would completely negate religion's purpose. The whole system hinges on placing one's trust in an unproven, unprovable ideal.

Science operates on the idea that nothing is real without proof. Without proof, science falls flat. Beyond a reasonable doubt, in science, means that every test that has been conducted has given the same result. There is solid proof that cannot be contested without proof of the opposite. No science is considered reliable until there has been that proof. There has to be some proof, some evidence, some tangible backing for any science to be credible.

Besides that, religion dictates a way of life. Religion influences someone's entire moral and life code. Science doesn't. There are no scientific rules for living, there are no consequences in science for being immoral or breaking the 'rules' - other than there would be for breaking any other human law or rule.

Here's my thing though. Proof requires faith. I think science can prove anything it wants to prove.

But for those of us who are not scientists, and that's really who this question is geared toward, we rely on faith in these scientists. Does that make sense?

Afterall, if I have not conducted an experiment personally, I only have a scentist's word and published results, to form my system of belief. Both of these things can be wrong; such as in my flat Earth example. I think science requires faith, and to me that qualifies it as a religion. In some ways I think in certain countries it's becoming the dominant religion.

And science does tell us how to live. The Surgeon General is a scientist. Scientists in all sorts of fields from nutritionists to medical doctors to envionmentalists try to dictate how people should live their lives.

Thanks for posting such marvelous replies by the way. This is the most I've thought on here in weeks!

But science obeys certain rules and laws that anyone can learn. Science and experiments in this era are constrained to set natural laws that no one can argue against. These laws are proven and public domain - you can find them online or in any library. Religious laws and edicts don't. There are no natural laws that govern them. That's faith without any proof. Science, all you have to do is look up a few things to see how a scientist came to his conclusions and how it was proven. We don't have faith in scientists because we have their proof - we believe in them and their work, but we don't have faith. It's impossible to have faith in science because of the very nature of faith. At least in the way faith is defined in conjunction with religion.

Those aren't rules, though. Those are suggestions. The Surgeon General warns of scientifically proven dangers to one's health. He doesn't say 'this is what you have to do to ensure your soul is saved' or 'this is what you must do to achieve enlightenment' or anything like that. And he has no power to enforce these suggestions. And again, there are no consequences to not following them other than physical.

And thank you for such an interesting topic!

sorry -- I missed this post earlier.

I do think that science does create rules. But the implementation of the rules is left to government. look at the furor over second-hand smoke and such. Laws are enacted everyday based on scientific findings. And because these rules are based on science, they are considered inviolate. Afterall facts are facts. I just think when you strip away the aura of scientific method, what you are left with is simply a belief system that still requires faith at its core.

I have found this to be an interesting discussion in many ways, but one in particular is that I never expected to be defending religion. And yet more and more as I read over the posts, it seemed more clear that religion at least makes no bones about it. It says up front that it requires faith. Now I'm not bashing science, but it seems that science develops a set of "proven" assumptions and then is intolerant of divergent views. I hadn't expected this thought to come to me. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it certainly has been interesting.

But new religions are being added all the time so I'm not sure if that makes much of a difference. Please understand that I'm not sure about this topic myself, but for the sake of argument, and clarity, I am playing "devil's advocate".

That's a cool take on it. i think you're right. They are parts that belong together.

Thank you, at first i didn´t want to answer this topic because i´m german and i can´t write down my thoughts as good
as i can in my mother language but i try to be honest on things like that.

I always appreciate your honest comments and input!