Is science the new religion?

No. In my opinion, religion is by definition “belief without proof” (or even “belief in spite of proof). Science is science, not a crutch or a desire or a wish.

Perhaps there are three alternatives: religion, science, and spirituality.

I view religion as a set of strictures and limits on behavior.

Science as a set of known facts and posited theories.

And spirituality as a belief in a higher power that is understood emotionally and somewhat intellectually, but not completely explainable to a skeptic.

While science is not the new religion for the obvious differences between knowledge and faith both science and religion are used to justify beliefs.
You cherry pick your facts and choose the god you want that allows you to do what you were going to do anyway.

I really liked this quote: ”...expertise is an unfair advantage, that all opinions are equal; an idea that people who are experts in climate change, drugs or engineering are given unfair preference just because they spend much of their life studying these things.”

No. It can be treated as such by individuals, but that doesn’t change its actual intent or purpose.

It’s notoriously difficult to define “religion”. One of the more commonly accepted ways is also one of the more inclusive, often called “the 4 C’s”. By this definition, a religion has these four necessary elements:

Creed – A set of beliefs;
Cultus – A set of devotional practices or rituals;
Code – A prescription of right conduct;
Community – A fellowship of followers.

Different religions may place more emphasis on some of these than on others, but all four would need to be present to some extent.

In trying to fit science into this mold, I could see a case for Creed, Code and Community, but I get stuck at Cultus. Maybe I’m just missing it, though.

@zenvelo Agreed. Religion is discipline (according to the Catholic Church.)

No.
They are different stages in the evolution of epistemology.
While science does not make religion extinct (poeple will always have a vague sense of mystery, I think), science replaces religion in that evolution.
For example…evolution

Einstein:

“The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.”

@thorninmud Very nice!!

People forget that the church nourished the development of the arts for centuries and introduced education for the masses, not just the elite classes. Prior to Christ walking the earth, there weren’t hospitals, the sick were left on the side of the road. That’s a pretty measureable impact.

No, science is not a religion.

Science takes a standpoint of “we don’t know everything about how the universe works, but let’s find out. This is hypothesis A, and here is hypothesis B, let’s do an experiment.”

Religion takes a standpoint of “as far as we can tell, [insert our holy text] is the great and singular truth.”

What an eloquent way for Einstein to say he didn’t know and then express his unsolved mystery as a religious thingy.

@KNOWITALL Meh, for nearly 1000 years after the decline or Rome, societies and cultures kind of stagnated as far as technological evolution goes. The church itself ruled for a lot of those years, and education and healthcare weren’t as widespread as you’re saying it is. Not only that but there were the Inquisitions that would fuck people up at the drop of a hat.
I agree though, the church was highly responsible for education and art, but I really don’t think ’‘the masses’’ benefited from it all. (nor was art seen back then as it is today)
I’m not trying to argue just for the hell of it, but the common folk weren’t treated any better after Christ than they were before, far from it.
I believe shit picked up with the Renaissance, when science was being accepted as something legitimate, to which the church highly sneered upon for ages.

@Symbeline Good point(s), thank you! Sometimes I just like to say something positive about the Church or Jesus, you know, to break the monotony of negativity. ;)

I ain’t saying the church never did anything good; maybe it didn’t invent architecture for example, but it sure as hell revolutionized it. Wanting it or not, architecture is important.

@Symbeline Oh you ain’t? You tryin’ to out ‘neck me son?

Ah reckon’ so, bro.

Now a days I personally think science can be the new religion. Religion doesn’t always have to include a christian God.

But perhaps if one wants to think about this religiously within the Christian religion then idolatry is simple to commit if one worships the “thing” (“thing” being science or anything other) than a christian God.

I would say scientism is.

Science is not religion.
And I can’t think of any religion that is anything like the description in Robin’s answer “redefine religion as”, except maybe Pastafarianism, which few consider to be a “real” religion.

But I think there is an issue with folks who don’t really understand what science really is and ‘believe” it to be capable of remarkable things that it is not. They beat ordinary religions around with science posturing while science would never claim to have traction in the domain of religion. They are really quite different.

Not as long as Religion continues.

Great Answers, all. Thanks.

@thorninmud I think that in quoting Einstein, you have given us the Cultus. I know I experience exactly the awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the Universe in everything from new revelations in quantum mechanics and particle physics to views of the spectacular light show that is the cosmos. The root Latin cultus m, culta f, and culto n, meant adoration. Atheist though I may be, I truly adore looking into the unknown, knowing just one more thing about it, and seeing that one insight open up so much more unknown. It is the awe of the infinite.

@PhiNotPi And so it must be. Many Christian denominations, after fighting ideas like heliocentrism and evolution, have finally conceded that the weight of the evidence is too great for them to cling to what they believed the Bible says. But there are things fundamental to their faith which are not evidence based, and which they must refuse to allow evidence to challenge. To the dedicated Christian (or Muslim or Jew, for that matter) accepting their core belief based on faith and not facts is foundational to their religion.

@Linda_Owl You know how to state things simply. :-)

@ETpro I like your answer to @PhiNotPi, and I agree for the most part. In the end, whatever science proves, doesn’t mean the ‘force’ behind the occurance was not intentional by our God. So in a way, believing in God doesn’t discount facts or science for some of us.

Fervently held percepts proclaimed by scientists and/or atheists frequently border on religion. I think the first three of @thorninmud‘s 4 C’s clearly apply here. However, scientists and atheists are a somewhat more amorphic community.

I agree with @KNOWITALL. Belief in a Creator does not preclude acceptance of scientific discoveries or the methods used to reveal them.

@Bill1939 I think the Community aspect comes from the recognition of the importance of peer revue. Until the scientific community has signed off on any individual’s work, it’s not taken seriously.

edit: peer review (although a peer revue would be more fun

^^ Now we know what you were really thinking. Lol.

@KNOWITALL @ETpro Also, science does not necessarily conflict with religion or spirituallity. It all depends on how a person defines “god.” If god is taken to be something that exists outside of the laws of physics, then that belief does not conflict with science, as science can only test things within the laws of physics. Conflicts only occur when religion leads people to believe something that does conflict with the laws of physics. This was the case of heliocentricism.

This leads me to another reason science is not a religion: science can be used to create technology, while religion can’t be used to create technology.

@PhiNotPi Very true, thank you!!

No, only when someone claims science can answer every question, which, by its very own definition, it can’t.

Science is the systematic knowledge of any entity or of the mind that can be observed/understood through experimentation, observation or induction. The Scientific Method is a part of a system used to verify, debunk and understand a phenomenon or entity. Religion is a system of faith and worship which usually (but not always) focuses on some type of supreme deity or entity. Religion also usually (but not always) comes with some type of philosophy which would be associated with it such as nature of deity/s, moral compass, purpose and expectations of one’s self.

Ironically despite my definitions of each term I don’t feel that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge of an entity, phenomena or something of the mind. I also don’t feel that religion has to necessarily mean blind faith without evidence nor being confined to rigid thought. Some religions such as Buddhism and Theosophy, along with a few others, are very adaptable to change and supportive of scientific discoveries.

I can never see science in itself as a religion, at least according to the definition I’d given the term. I think that certain fallible manmade elements within science however can take on a religious type of mentality though such as vested interests, special interests, paradigms, reputations of individuals with science, etc. No, I don’t (and likely never could) see science in itself as a religion, but people involved with science do have the power to turn science into a religion.

In my youth, I imagined a flying city governed by scientists. My belief was that their superior intellect would be stronger than emotion and therefore they would make better decisions. I suspect that many (especially liberals) today share the biases of my preteen fantasy. Since science can never be wholly separated from emotion, I posit the possibility of at least a religious aura existing.