Is Science a Religion?

[littlemissattitude]

I haven't read everything in this thread (because I want to respond to the issue raised without being swayed by other responses), so forgive me if I am revisiting ideas that have already been covered.

It makes me uncomfortable to put science and religion in exactly the same category. I would much rather say that science and religions have in common that they present us with structured ways of looking at the world and the universe. Various religions and science are, then, all belief systems. When someone chooses a religion or science and uses the paradigms of the system they have chosen in order to make sense of things, then there are certain assumptions that they have to accept. Science makes assumptions about how the universe works just as the various religions do, and those assumptions must be taken on faith by the layperson in science just as in a religion, simply because the layperson does not have the knowledge and facilities to investigate each bit of data that the topics science looks at are built upon, so he or she must take on faith that the conclusions that science has come to through the work of scientists are correct. In the same way, most of us do not have direct knowledge of God or the gods and must take the statements leaders in the various religions have made and the conclusions that they have come to about things like the nature of god or the gods on faith.

The difference comes here, I think: there are, in science, objective ways of coming to conclusions about how the universe works. Experiments can be conducted to work out the principles of physics or chemistry, for example. This is not true, as far as I can tell, in religions. It is true that some religions (at least the religion I was once associated with) consider prayer as a sort of experimental method in that one is told that if they pray about a principle, it will be confirmed by some good feeling in the person doing the prayer/experiment. The problems with that are 1) such a "good feeling" is extremely subjective, and 2) if the prayer/experimenter does not get the answer considered "correct" by the religion, it is usually explained by saying that the person praying did not pray earnestly enough or had sinned or in some other way was not open to receiving the "correct" answer. This is enough of a problem that I cannot consider this religious analog of experiment to be an objective source of information in the same ways that science can objectively conform or disconfirm facts.

So, yes, science and religions are both belief systems. But, no, I don't think that science and religion are species of the same genus.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

I haven't read everything in this thread (because I want to respond to the issue raised without being swayed by other responses), so forgive me if I am revisiting ideas that have already been covered.

It makes me uncomfortable to put science and religion in exactly the same category. I would much rather say that science and religions have in common that they present us with structured ways of looking at the world and the universe. Various religions and science are, then, all belief systems. When someone chooses a religion or science and uses the paradigms of the system they have chosen in order to make sense of things, then there are certain assumptions that they have to accept. Science makes assumptions about how the universe works just as the various religions do, and those assumptions must be taken on faith by the layperson in science just as in a religion, simply because the layperson does not have the knowledge and facilities to investigate each bit of data that the topics science looks at are built upon, so he or she must take on faith that the conclusions that science has come to through the work of scientists are correct. In the same way, most of us do not have direct knowledge of God or the gods and must take the statements leaders in the various religions have made and the conclusions that they have come to about things like the nature of god or the gods on faith.

The difference comes here, I think: there are, in science, objective ways of coming to conclusions about how the universe works. Experiments can be conducted to work out the principles of physics or chemistry, for example. This is not true, as far as I can tell, in religions. It is true that some religions (at least the religion I was once associated with) consider prayer as a sort of experimental method in that one is told that if they pray about a principle, it will be confirmed by some good feeling in the person doing the prayer/experiment. The problems with that are 1) such a "good feeling" is extremely subjective, and 2) if the prayer/experimenter does not get the answer considered "correct" by the religion, it is usually explained by saying that the person praying did not pray earnestly enough or had sinned or in some other way was not open to receiving the "correct" answer. This is enough of a problem that I cannot consider this religious analog of experiment to be an objective source of information in the same ways that science can objectively conform or disconfirm facts.

So, yes, science and religions are both belief systems. But, no, I don't think that science and religion are species of the same genus.

Interesting perspective Little Miss. I wonder what happens to an experiment if something is left out, however...does the experiment work as well? Or does the colleague inform one that because a step was left out the answer sought will not come to pass...?

(e.g. failure to connect one wire to a battery results in no light bulb illuminating).

Just a thought.

v/r

Q

[littlemissattitude]

Quahom...The thing with science is, if something is left out of an experiment, not thought of, or otherwise wrong with it, that will likely be caught, if not in the first instance, then when another scientist replicates the experiment - which is the hallmark of science. A result must be replicable in order to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

I honestly don't see how this is possible in religion, even in the prayer example I gave in my previous post. It isn't possible for one individual to recreate the state of mind of another person in prayer or in contemplating religious or theological issues. It seems to me impossible to equate the experience of two people praying, even when uttering the exact same prayer. I'm not saying that prayer is not a good thing to engage in, but only that I suspect that what one person learns in prayer is probably not applicable generally but is specific to that person only and may be biased toward what they hope to hear. This problem, seeing what one is looking for or what one wants to see is, of course, also possible in any particular running of a scientific experiment, but is also a factor that is easy to weed out in repeated runnings of the experiment by separate researchers. That is why, when a new scientific discovery is made, it is reported in journals in minute detail, including how the experiment was set up, the conditions that were in existence during the experiment, and so on.

An example that may seem rather exotic, but is fairly common in the religion that I used to associate with (I've known people who have played out exactly this scenario): A young man is dating a young woman who he desires to marry. This is serious business, for in that religion marriage is not beleived to be just for this life, but for the rest of eternity, so he prays about it and gets the answer that, yes, she is "the one". He proposes to the young woman, using the answer to his prayer as a sort of extra incentive for her to say yes (in that religion, all male members hold the priesthood, which is seen as a mark of authority). However, the young woman is not as ardently in love with the young man and tells him that she must pray about it before she answers him. She does pray about it and receives the answer that no, he is not the one she is to marry. Accordingly, she turns down his proposal. He protests that he knows the answer to his prayer is true, but she maintains that if God wanted her to marry him, He would have told her as well, not just the young man, priesthood holder or not.

The dilemma here is, how can it be determined who received the correct answer - if indeed there is a "correct" answer here. There really is no way to do so. He got his answer, she got hers, but I can see no way to determine exactly how much his desires and her desires (or lack of same) played into the answer they received. Were either of them really hearing the voice of God, or were both of them getting the answer they wanted because that was all they were prepared to hear? It does no good to go to a third party and ask him or her to pray about it, because there is no way to tell to what extent that person might be inclined to favor either the young man's claim (that, as a priesthood holder, he has the authority to receive an answer for the young woman as well) or the young woman's claim (that surely God would tell her if He wanted her to marry the young man).

In short (yeah, after all that), there is no way for a third party to exactly replicate the "experiment" of a prayer, as there are ways to replicate a scientific experiment.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Quahom...The thing with science is, if something is left out of an experiment, not thought of, or otherwise wrong with it, that will likely be caught, if not in the first instance, then when another scientist replicates the experiment - which is the hallmark of science. A result must be replicable in order to be taken seriously in the scientific community.

I honestly don't see how this is possible in religion, even in the prayer example I gave in my previous post. It isn't possible for one individual to recreate the state of mind of another person in prayer or in contemplating religious or theological issues. It seems to me impossible to equate the experience of two people praying, even when uttering the exact same prayer. I'm not saying that prayer is not a good thing to engage in, but only that I suspect that what one person learns in prayer is probably not applicable generally but is specific to that person only and may be biased toward what they hope to hear. This problem, seeing what one is looking for or what one wants to see is, of course, also possible in any particular running of a scientific experiment, but is also a factor that is easy to weed out in repeated runnings of the experiment by separate researchers. That is why, when a new scientific discovery is made, it is reported in journals in minute detail, including how the experiment was set up, the conditions that were in existence during the experiment, and so on.

An example that may seem rather exotic, but is fairly common in the religion that I used to associate with (I've known people who have played out exactly this scenario): A young man is dating a young woman who he desires to marry. This is serious business, for in that religion marriage is not beleived to be just for this life, but for the rest of eternity, so he prays about it and gets the answer that, yes, she is "the one". He proposes to the young woman, using the answer to his prayer as a sort of extra incentive for her to say yes (in that religion, all male members hold the priesthood, which is seen as a mark of authority). However, the young woman is not as ardently in love with the young man and tells him that she must pray about it before she answers him. She does pray about it and receives the answer that no, he is not the one she is to marry. Accordingly, she turns down his proposal. He protests that he knows the answer to his prayer is true, but she maintains that if God wanted her to marry him, He would have told her as well, not just the young man, priesthood holder or not.

The dilemma here is, how can it be determined who received the correct answer - if indeed there is a "correct" answer here. There really is no way to do so. He got his answer, she got hers, but I can see no way to determine exactly how much his desires and her desires (or lack of same) played into the answer they received. Were either of them really hearing the voice of God, or were both of them getting the answer they wanted because that was all they were prepared to hear? It does no good to go to a third party and ask him or her to pray about it, because there is no way to tell to what extent that person might be inclined to favor either the young man's claim (that, as a priesthood holder, he has the authority to receive an answer for the young woman as well) or the young woman's claim (that surely God would tell her if He wanted her to marry the young man).

In short (yeah, after all that), there is no way for a third party to exactly replicate the "experiment" of a prayer, as there are ways to replicate a scientific experiment.

In that light you are absolutely correct. Unlike an experiment, the "prayor" wanted a specific answer (to his liking). That isn't how prayer works either. Just like experiments don't do what we want, only what they're supposed to do.

Religion is like science in that, both parties "hope" for a favorable outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

That was my point.

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Little Miss!

It's great to see you back around! Did you ever make it to Italy?

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Little Miss!

It's great to see you back around! Did you ever make it to Italy?

Nah, juantoo3, I'm still here. Only I'm living much closer to McLane High School now. I was actually on campus once last summer, visiting my best friend, who teaches history there during the summer. I get over here to the boards once in awhile, but not as much as I'd like.

Quahom...The thing is, with science, if a researcher is pulling for one outcome of an experiment over another, he or she is not really doing science correctly. Of course, this does happen, probably rather more often than scientists would like the layperson to believe. This has a lot to do, I think, with the fact that scientists are human (something some of them sometimes seem reluctant to admit). However, the ideal in science is still objectivity, and it usually is accomplished over the long haul as researchers with all different ways of looking at things replicate a particular experiment and evidence accumulates one way or another for the confirmation or disconfirmation of the hypothesis being tested.

Objectivity is hardly ever the standard in prayer, from my experience. In the tradition I used to associate with, investigators into the religion were not told, read these scriptures and then pray to see if they are true or false. Instead, they are told, if you read these scriptures and pray about them, you will be given a witness that they are true. There is a big difference between the two positions, and there is no real objectivity in that there is only one answer that is acceptable to the believer.