How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[BenBurch]

The only verifiable and repeatable "miracles" come from science.

Religion has never produced even one.

 

[wollery]

I would say that science isn't a religion it's a methodology for examining the world.

At the very worst it's a philosophy rather than a religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean besides inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter?

Well this post demonstrates a lack of understanding that the reason scientist hypothesize dark matter exists is because of EVIDENCE it does. Just as we can see Xrays with instruments but not with our eyes, we can see dark matter with tools that visualize gravity.

You need a bit more education about the things you seem to think equate to faith based scientific conclusions. They do not equate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Turn it back on them: their belief in a monotheistic deity is simply a form of atheism.

I take it you are going here for the quote by Stephen Roberts, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How about asking people who claim 'science is a religion' to think about the similarities and differences between religion and science?

For example:

Science and religion are similar in that both are ways of understanding the world and deciding on what to do next.

Science is different from religion because all truths in science are provisional and based on explicit assumptions, which if found to be inconsistent result in that truth eventually being discarded, or the underlying assumption changed. On the other hand, religious truths are absolute and the fact that they are logically inconsistent with observation or each other does not mean they have to be discarded.

Science is different from religion because it cannot provide answers to ethical questions, whereas religion can.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Science is different from religion because it cannot provide answers to ethical questions, whereas religion can.

Religion only claims it can provide answers to ethical questions.

Dave

 

[Rasmus]

Science is different from religion because it cannot provide answers to ethical questions, whereas religion can.

I would object to that claim. The track record of religion in this regard is horrendously bad and science3 at least informs a rational decision making process where ethics are concerned.

 

[Cainkane1]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it? I get so annoyed at that "argument" that I usually get rude and sarcastic. But I wanted to know how I can counter that without being sarcastic. How can I construct a reasoned argument against that? Should I start from how axioms in maths and science are self-evident truths and belief in them is not even remotely close to belief in a religion.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

You can't construct a reasonable argument against some poeple because they can't understand reason. There comes a time when you just have to back away from some people. Like Arthur C Clark said "I'll discuss the weather with some people but I won't discuss evolution". The same can be said about any scientific discipline. Just go to the flat earth website and see for yourself.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Religion only claims it can provide answers to ethical questions.

Dave

I would object to that claim. The track record of religion in this regard is horrendously bad and science3 at least informs a rational decision making process where ethics are concerned.

I didn't say I thought the answers religions provide to ethical questions are very good, only that religion can answer questions about what we ought to do because religions typically consist of both a way of knowing *and* a set of values, whereas science is only a way of knowing and can therefore only provide information relevant to ethical decisions (as Rasmus has said).

 

[Tubbythin]

You mean besides inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter?

Sorry for the derail but...
Precisely none of these are taken on faith. For example, the need for dark matter can be gleaned from reasonably basic observing equipment. And has been demonstrated in countless ways. The fact that it must be exotic comes from
1) Countless independent experiments that show it cannot be large (eg MACHO) objects.
2) A precise (and I mean extraordinarily precise) understanding of the EM interaction.
So to reject this requires either the rejection of 1) or 2). If you're rejecting 1) then I would like to see a precise quantitative explanation of why so many different, independent, observations using different techniques show exactly the same results. If you're rejecting 2) then you're going to have to tell us why you think the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics is wrong. Your choice. But it would be better in the other thread so as not to derail this one.

Actually the above, I think, is relevant to the thread. It illustrates how "scientific belief" is based on trying to test its foundations to destruction. Religious belief, on the other hand, is largely based on confirmation bias.

 

[Dancing David]

Well there is some evidence for some minor chanages at exteme distances but thats not my point.

Cool, do you have a citation?

Pure experimentalism is flawed because:

It doesn't provide you with any guide about what experiments to do (until you have a theory that the laws of physics are universal there is no point in looking at distant gas clouds to see if they have exactly the same set of constants as we do).

It doesn't describe the way scientists actualy work (scientists tend to form theories then test them).

You have to have theory first, you can do observational testing, as many have done, say to establish atomic masses.

It doesn't allow you challange experimental results.

I disagree, sure you can and people do.

For example there was a test for benzene that was fully reproduceable. Problem was that it was actualy testing for a contaminat and every known sample of benzene was contaminated.

I think you are addressing a different point than the OP which is why I was confused. The scientific method was not claimed by me to be able to produce theories, and obviously (to me) it is a method, not an end all be all.

The consistency of the laws of nature was an assumption in the past, it is tested now and it is fairly well demonstrated. You are talking as those people who do research never play with stuff or check it, the chirality’s of the weak force carriers was found in the 1950s. Neutrino theory has undergone some recent testing, theory drives testing. Cold fusion vs. sonic bubble fusion and all that.

People do check stuff and sometimes people are dogmatic but that is not the fault of the method or science.

The OP, which is what I was addressing, was about "Is science a religion.” I don't see where your point applies there.

I have stated and am stating that the isotropy/symmetries and consistency of the way the universe behaves is now an observed fact.

My statement was pointed at the fact that if you doubt the relevance of the theory of gravitation you can check it in many ways.

 

[Dancing David]

Questionable. Without haveing faith in a objective shared reality science is pretty pointless. I would argue that there is good reason to think that such a thing exists but fundimentaly it's an act of faith that it does.

Now you are veering into philosphy, the underyling ontology does not matter. The method works in any set of ontology that has the consistency of structure. You can demonstrate that the structure is consistent or not.

In fact if we did live in a worled where you can summon demons and angels, the scientific method would still apply, if the underlying structure was consistent.

The axiom that reality exists is deeper than science, it permeates teh whole of human reality, it applies equally to religion.

 

[Dancing David]

Well this post demonstrates a lack of understanding that the reason scientist hypothesize dark matter exists is because of EVIDENCE it does. Just as we can see Xrays with instruments but not with our eyes, we can see dark matter with tools that visualize gravity.

You need a bit more education about the things you seem to think equate to faith based scientific conclusions. They do not equate.

Psst, please don't feed Michael in this thread, he has consistently argued his theories for many threads , currently this one:Fermi and Dark Matter

Don't say I did not warn you.

 

[H3LL]

Re: OP

Science make planes fly.

Faith makes them fly into buildings.

 

[geni]

Cool, do you have a citation?

For a closer to home example:

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0309048v3


Other research suggests otherwise and most of the theories that have a non constant fine-structure constant limit the effect to the very early universe or beyond the visible universe.

 

[geni]

Re: OP

Science make planes fly.

No engineering makes planes fly.

 

[ctamblyn]

I disagree if the scientific method did not work then you could not replicate experiements. It is not a matter of faith, you can preform the experiments your self.

There is good reason to beleieve the laws of physics are universal, there is no faith in that. It is demonstrable. You can demonstrate that a model accurately reflects the behavior of reality.

Planets do follow Kepler's laws of motion. Then you can add relativity.

I'm not a philosopher (I'm sure it shows ), and I'm certainly not arguing that the practice of science is on a par with religion. However, although being able to replicate experiments gives us a great deal of confidence in the scientific method, it doesn't logically prove its correctness. You can demonstrate that a model has been successful so far, but not that it will be successful tomorrow.

(I appreciate that it is a pretty useless point of view to take, from a practical point of view. Part of me wishes that I hadn't brought it up.)

 

[H3LL]

No engineering makes planes fly.

I sit corrected.

It must be a relief that engineering doesn't use any science. A quick pray and they just know that the required lift, trust and aerodynamics are correct.

 

[Robert Oz]

The Scientific Method

1. Observe phenomena.
2. Hypothesise explanation for phenomena.
3. Test hypothesis (3a. Attempt to disprove hypothesis).
4. If disproven, reject hypothesis and return to step 2.
5. If not disproven, develop theory for phenomena.
6. Publish results for peer-review.
7. Debate.
8. Repeat tests.
9. Repeat scientific method.
Note: Conclusions are always provisional and scientists should never be afraid to reject their own theory.


The Religious Method

1. Assert holiness and infallibility of a text.
2. Believe everything in said text.
3. If observation contradicts text, reject evidence or re-interpret text as allegorical.
Note: Conclusions are always set in stone and the religious should never, ever reject their beliefs.

 

[Meed]

Questionable. Without haveing faith in a objective shared reality science is pretty pointless. I would argue that there is good reason to think that such a thing exists but fundimentaly it's an act of faith that it does.

Even if life is a dream and I'm the only entity that really exists, I can observe that it's a dream with consistent rules and science is still useful.

What we really need to assume, in my opinion, is the problem David Hume wrote about. That is, that we can predict the future from the past. Of course, everyone does this and not just scientists, because it's necessary for functional living.