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

[athon]

Thanks for your comments there, PS. I'm being honest when I say I really appreciate coming away from discussions with a different perspective, and like being challenged on my views. I didn't get to this point without such challenges.

I wish to continue to address one point, if I may:

I do think evidence can do so if people allow it to do so.

Is it still evidence for an individual if an observation doesn't do this? My point being, do you think evidence is objective in nature? The way you've used it here makes me think you believe it might be, but I'm not sure.

If it is, what quality makes that the case?

Finally, I'll admit a strong disdain for religions and religious beliefs. My comments may be a bit extreme at times. Nevertheless, I don't know how to account for the persistence of thousand of unsupported contradictory belief systems around the world other than to conclude that evidence generally takes a back seat to naive (non-evidence based) belief.

This is kind of what I've been doing a lot of research on for the past, well, decade. I was never satisfied with the sense that some people were just stupid or stubborn or naive...there had to be something more. I believe it lies simply in what our brains evolved to do - it's a consequence of the fact our intelligence evolved for social reasons and not to decode the mysteries of nature. Science is an interesting quirk in that it takes advantage of our ability to address thinking conceptually (part of that social intelligence has evolved features of advanced 'intensionality' as a part of our theory of mind; without intensionality ['s' is intentional ] we would never be able to do science).

Sorry...a bit of a digression considering this thread. But it is damn interesting.

My earlier comments did not allow for much use of the concept of evidence within religious systems. You have force me to reconsider that extreme view.

Glad we both came away with something.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

Is it still evidence for an individual if an observation doesn't do this? My point being, do you think evidence is objective in nature? The way you've used it here makes me think you believe it might be, but I'm not sure.

If it is, what quality makes that the case?

I don't know how to get around the fact that evidence is often subjective in the ordinary world. When you witness extremely bizarre behavior, you may see evidence of mental disease while someone else may see evidence of satanic possession. When I see a fossil shell embedded in a stone, I see evidence of plate tectonics and someone else sees evidence of the great flood.
There are a few disciplines that are structured around reducing ambiguity as evidence is evaluated. The sciences and law are two that come to mind. Nevertheless, history has shown us that even within science (probably the most rigorous discipline in this respect), evidence is often ambiguous and the subject of controversy. The subject of Maxwell's equations are a good example. The equations themselves were a form of evidence (MM take note), but were not convincing. As MM would say it was only mathematics, not laboratory stuff.
We now have much stronger evidence that the universe behaves mathematically, so our mathematical models have greater credibility, but we still prefer to close the deal with experimental evidence. So, in summary, evidence can be ambiguous, leading to various interpretations. The phrase preponderance of evidence (also used in law) comes to mind.
All that having been said, evidence remains the essence of modern science. Evidence can be experimental, observational, mathematical, structural, etc. But there is no other source of scientific knowledge. Non evidence based statements within the sciences remain opinions, speculations, hypotheses, etc.

This is kind of what I've been doing a lot of research on for the past, well, decade. I was never satisfied with the sense that some people were just stupid or stubborn or naive...there had to be something more. I believe it lies simply in what our brains evolved to do - it's a consequence of the fact our intelligence evolved for social reasons and not to decode the mysteries of nature. Science is an interesting quirk in that it takes advantage of our ability to address thinking conceptually (part of that social intelligence has evolved features of advanced 'intensionality' as a part of our theory of mind; without intensionality ['s' is intentional ] we would never be able to do science).

This is a difficult area. As you know, our brains are wired to see structure, so our remote ancestors created entities to explain their universe. That would seem to be the origin of superstition and religion.
Why does it persist in the modern world? In many cases, people have no alternative due to their lack of exposure to scientific explanations (Brazilian tribes-people, impoverished urban dwellers). In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives (creationists come to mind). Intellectual limitations also are a factor; unfortunately some people are simply not capable of understanding scientific explanations of the universe and find religious ones accessible. I would be interested to learn of any other explanations you may have.
Sorry, I do not follow your use of "intensionality" in the context above.

 

[Beth]

Really interesting discussion guys. I'd just like to say that I agree with Athon. Evidence is necessarily subjective. Always.

I don't know how to get around the fact that evidence is often subjective in the ordinary world. When you witness extremely bizarre behavior, you may see evidence of mental disease while someone else may see evidence of satanic possession. When I see a fossil shell embedded in a stone, I see evidence of plate tectonics and someone else sees evidence of the great flood.
.....
Non evidence based statements within the sciences remain opinions, speculations, hypotheses, etc.

Aren't all the statements above evidence-based? The conclusions differ, but the observations of physical objects or bizarre behavior is the same. There's less subjectivity with the fossil, because what constitutes bizarre behavior depends on the circumstances and culture the individual is in. It seems to me that the "evidence" for mental disease versus satanic possession is exactly the same and the difference lies in their respective models of the world, not in the evidence they are evaluating.

 

[athon]

I don't know how to get around the fact that evidence is often subjective in the ordinary world.

Cool.

There are a few disciplines that are structured around reducing ambiguity as evidence is evaluated. The sciences and law are two that come to mind.

That's exactly my point. Science differs in that it values getting past those limitations of human thinking, and focuses on 'tricks' that limit our biases and provide something of a probability on how likely it is a given idea will bear fruit. But in spite of those values, there is no simple concept that will turn an observation into evidence. It comes down to an individual's own values - most of us here, for instance, will agree that stone bones in the Earth is evidence of animals that died millions of years ago. That's not because the observation carries an objective qualifier making it evidence, but because we share a similar enough system of evaluation that determines it as such.

Once again, I agree completely that it seems trivial and pedantic. Amongst ourselves we get used to using the word evidence objectively. But when it comes to communicating how science works to people who don't share those values, it starts to make sense why accusations like 'you have no evidence' or 'the evidence is convincing' won't work. Instead, a different tact of addressing their method of evaluating observations for evidence should (and does) work more diplomatically.

All that having been said, evidence remains the essence of modern science. Evidence can be experimental, observational, mathematical, structural, etc. But there is no other source of scientific knowledge. Non evidence based statements within the sciences remain opinions, speculations, hypotheses, etc.

Again, not to say I disagree, but the essence in science is less that we deal with evidence, but that observations are evaluated according to rigorous systems of thinking tools before they are determined to be evidence. Religion, on the other hand, will evaluate observations according to a completely different system of thinking tools before determining they amount to evidence of their own beliefs.

This is a difficult area. As you know, our brains are wired to see structure, so our remote ancestors created entities to explain their universe.

I feel the nature of the structure is what is significant. It's not just that we're social and intelligent - our intelligence evolved driven by social forces. It's why for most of human history we told stories that brought nature into our social group. I'm a big fan of Robin Dunbar and his work on the social hypothesis of human intelligence. Well worth looking up.

Why does it persist in the modern world? In many cases, people have no alternative due to their lack of exposure to scientific explanations (Brazilian tribes-people, impoverished urban dwellers). In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives (creationists come to mind).

Keeping your bias in mind, I seriously think you do yourself a disservice by calling it a mental disorder. It's an unsupportable position, full of emotional judgement rather than clear reasoning.

But you are correct when you state it comes down to social forces once again. Even in terms of science, we didn't just 'see the light' any more than God really fills born again Christians with some Holy Spirit. We're influenced by people we love and trust as we develop. It's certainly complicated, especially in today's world where we have numerous social groups that change constantly as we grow up. Science isn't exempt from the social forces that drives religion; we simply have values that attempt to reduce its impact on how we determine evidence.

Intellectual limitations also are a factor; unfortunately some people are simply not capable of understanding scientific explanations of the universe and find religious ones accessible. I would be interested to learn of any other explanations you may have.

While I'm certain there are cases where it's just 'too hard' to learn science, I can't say it's supported by my experience. I've found students who have been extremely intelligent who are also very religious and constantly try to rebuke anything that might conflict with their views, and I've found students who struggle immensely with grasping even basic concepts who are atheists.

The literature is also unconvinced on any causal links between intelligence and belief system or willingness to appreciate science.

Sorry, I do not follow your use of "intensionality" in the context above.

No problem. The wiki article on intensional logic explains the logical origins of the term, but I think it's pretty hard going. In theory of mind research, an entity that holds knowledge but displays no awareness that it is doing so is zero level intensional. It doesn't know it knows.

First level intensional refers to those who know they know, but that's it. Like a small child during their egotistical years, basically. Second level is when they begin to learn that other people know stuff too. This is a critical point in our evolution that allowed us to become empathic. Third level is knowing that other people know that other people know. Such as I know that you believe that he understands the world is flat.

This sort of thinking was an important social evolutionary step as far allowing us to do science, as it means we're capable or conceptualising the thoughts of others as being different.

Athon

 

[tsig]

No, I find them hard to understand. I'd rather not assume your meaning - I'd rather it was clear so you couldn't obfuscate it later.

Nice to accuse me of lying in advance.

 

[athon]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. That's the whole purpose and beauty (and necessity) of having actual "control mechanisms" in active experiments. As long as we build the experiment in a way that allows us to control it, we can establish empirical "cause/effect" relationships. I can plug and unplug (or use the switch on the side) the plasma ball on my desk to establish that it requires "electricity" to make it work.

You can doubt that assertion if you like, but I can unplug the unit and ask you to "make it work" without plugging it in if you doubt my opinion about the need for electrical energy.

But you didn't observe a cause at all. You observed a flicking of a switch and the changing of an event. Now, it'd be useless to presume another cause for the event if it is induced over and over again, and under different circumstances etc. You could be left with no real practical doubt, i.e. just provisional doubt. But that's not the same as having observed a cause. You still have only deduced it from your observations. It is 'established' only on the grounds that we both agree on the relationship, not because you've managed to somehow make a cause magically manifest as a direct observation.

Athon

 

[BenBurch]

I think it all comes down to epistemology.

Most religions cannot be falsified by any observation you could make in the physical world. Faith not only needs no evidence, but actively rejects it. A given faith is a single theory of reality, a "Theory Of Everything." And as faiths differ in the details of that theory, if any one is correct, all of the others must be wrong.

Science seeks predictions made by theory to test, and then makes those tests, sometimes at great expense and bother, and based upon those results will reject theory and find a new one.

 

[athon]

So you keep saying--completely at odds with anything at all that I've been saying. Hence the 'redefinition' part of your fallacious thinking.

Why don't you repeat yourself a few dozen more times; then your fantasy might come true.

MM's issue seems to be that to him, science is purely empirical. Hence why I accused him of fitting in nicely with the Vienna Circle, who tried to suggest a very similar thing.

Yet empiricism also has its limits. Namely that we can never observe a 'subject', just as we can never observe a 'cause'. We can only observe properties and presume the thing that lies beneath it as well as the nature of its interactions.

When seeing a red ball, you're seeing something that has the properties of a solid, occupies a spherical volume and is red in colour. Historically, there was often great debate over whether the subject was its properties or whether they were distinct.

Today, science is unconcerned with subjects and we treat them as if they are the same as their properties. In and of themselves, they are useless concepts (no scientist would ever use Plato's archetypes, for instance). Yet it also means acknowledging we can never do more than relate properties to one another.

So why is this relevant? Many properties are observed independently of one another. It's like seeing an animal has been in your room because of its giant muddy footprints. You don't know the other properties of the beast, but you can guess that it has four feet, is bigger than your dog and has been outside at some point.

This is why mathematics and logic are so damn useful. It allows you to take a number of such observations and deduce new properties.

Pure empirical science was a brief affair in the history of science. It fluttered in and out of existence, dying as it became obvious that science was crippling itself within its strangling parameters.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

Again, not to say I disagree, but the essence in science is less that we deal with evidence, but that observations are evaluated according to rigorous systems of thinking tools before they are determined to be evidence. Religion, on the other hand, will evaluate observations according to a completely different system of thinking tools before determining they amount to evidence of their own beliefs.

Evidence within the sciences is contextual. Consequently, as the body of evidence grows, the context matures. A rock falling to the earth from the sky for a Brazilian tribesman will have none of the context for him to understand that he has seen a meteor fall to the earth.

Keeping your bias in mind, I seriously think you do yourself a disservice by calling it a mental disorder. It's an unsupportable position, full of emotional judgement rather than clear reasoning.

I don't agree. A well educated creationist demonstrates some kind of undefined mental disorder in my view. How else can you explain the blind clinging to illogical thinking and fantasy in light of overwhelming evidence.

While I'm certain there are cases where it's just 'too hard' to learn science, I can't say it's supported by my experience. I've found students who have been extremely intelligent who are also very religious and constantly try to rebuke anything that might conflict with their views, and I've found students who struggle immensely with grasping even basic concepts who are atheists.

The literature is also unconvinced on any causal links between intelligence and belief system or willingness to appreciate science.

You haven't met my family.

No problem. The wiki article on intensional logic explains the logical origins of the term, but I think it's pretty hard going. In theory of mind research, an entity that holds knowledge but displays no awareness that it is doing so is zero level intensional. It doesn't know it knows.

First level intensional refers to those who know they know, but that's it. Like a small child during their egotistical years, basically. Second level is when they begin to learn that other people know stuff too. This is a critical point in our evolution that allowed us to become empathic. Third level is knowing that other people know that other people know. Such as I know that you believe that he understands the world is flat.

This sort of thinking was an important social evolutionary step as far allowing us to do science, as it means we're capable or conceptualising the thoughts of others as being different.

Thanks

 

[athon]

Evidence within the sciences is contextual. Consequently, as the body of evidence grows, the context matures. A rock falling to the earth from the sky for a Brazilian tribesman will have none of the context for him to understand that he has seen a meteor fall to the earth.

I'll agree with that. Religious evaluation doesn't value internal consistency, as per any mythopoeic system. Two conflicting stories can both be considered true.

I don't agree. A well educated creationist demonstrates some kind of undefined mental disorder in my view. How else can you explain the blind clinging to illogical thinking and fantasy in light of overwhelming evidence.

For one thing, it's something of an argument from ignorance. Second of all, not all variations in brain function would be regarded as mental disorders. And thirdly, you're again committing that same fallacy of treating evidence as objective. If somebody is evaluating those observations according to a completely different system, where the most important things are a-priori beliefs and social thinking (which, remember, is how our brains evolved in the first place), they won't call it evidence. You can call it 'overwhelming' and smack your head against a wall all you want - they're not using logic, reason or a scientific context to view that observation in the same way you are.

You ask why not; it's simple. The social group from which they get those values isn't the same as yours. Through life you learned how to evaluate observations systematically, using a scientific approach. You did this because other people who you associated with positive things (people you identified with) did things this way. I guarantee you didn't live in a void and come up with those same values on your own, and you certainly weren't born with a scientific mind, even if it has the capacity for logic and reason.

My stepfather wasn't brought up in a religious household, but his mother is a complete nutjob. In his adolescence he was drawn to a community where he found he didn't have to think for himself, where people seemed to be loving and accepting without the cost of having to defend oneself. The values that came with that group were fundamentally religious. It's only in recent years that he's come to soften his religious attitude and adopt different thinking skills because his most influential social group (namely his wife, my very critical and skeptical mother) changed.

You haven't met my family.

I have my own as an interesting case study.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

For one thing, it's something of an argument from ignorance.

And that is a statement from arrogance! Ignorance of what? You do not know what I know and don't know. You are demonstrating your own ignorance.

Second of all, not all variations in brain function would be regarded as mental disorders. And thirdly, you're again committing that same fallacy of treating evidence as objective. If somebody is evaluating those observations according to a completely different system, where the most important things are a-priori beliefs and social thinking (which, remember, is how our brains evolved in the first place), they won't call it evidence. You can call it 'overwhelming' and smack your head against a wall all you want - they're not using logic, reason or a scientific context to view that observation in the same way you are.

When we deal with a relatively educated creationist, who has studied evolution so extensively that he can debate (however futilely) the fossil record, genetics, etc. in detail -- and yet clings to his beliefs -- a mental disorder is a likely cause. TAKE A LOOK I am aware that this view is not "politically correct" for many social relativists. For lack of a more accepted psychobabble term, I have something like brainwashing in mind. The evidence that there exists some sort of mental disorder in such people is quite strong -- if not overwhelming.

 

[athon]

And that is a statement from arrogance! Ignorance of what? You do not know what I know and don't know. You are demonstrating your own ignorance.

Whoa, settle. It's a logical fallacy - it's an argument from ignorance. 'I don't know why people would think in such a fashion, therefore it must be a mental problem'.

What else would you call that? Geeze.

When we deal with a relatively educated creationist, who has studied evolution so extensively that he can debate (however futilely) the fossil record, genetics, etc. in detail -- and yet clings to his beliefs -- a mental disorder is a likely cause.

You state this as a qualified psychologist? Or is it easier for you to judge somebody who doesn't see things your way as mentally deficient?

TAKE A LOOK I am aware that this view is not "politically correct" for many social relativists. For lack of a more accepted psychobabble term, I have something like brainwashing in mind. The evidence that there exists some sort of mental disorder in such people is quite strong -- if not overwhelming.

Well, let's see it then. Show me this 'overwhelming evidence' as to why you believe religious fundamentalism stems from a mental condition.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

You state this as a qualified psychologist? Or is it easier for you to judge somebody who doesn't see things your way as mentally deficient?

It does take a physician to see an open wound?

Well, let's see it then. Show me this 'overwhelming evidence' as to why you believe religious fundamentalism stems from a mental condition.

Is this another intentional attempt to knock around a straw man? I did not say religious fundamentalism stems from a mental condition. However, I did say some people, who cling to religion in spite of their education, do suffer some kind of mental disorder. For example:
Georgia Purdom earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She has been exposed to the massive amount of geological, morphological, taxonomic, genetic, embryological, etc. evidence that supports evolution. She accepts Genesis as literal history, including believing in a young earth. Since she is clearly intellectually up to the task of grasping evolution -- the evidence points to a mental disorder. She is one of many. You can dance around this all you like; Purdom's mind is damaged!

 

[athon]

It does take a physician to see an open wound?

You're not seriously equating visible wounds with psychological problems, are you?

Is this another intentional attempt to knock around a straw man? I did not say religious fundamentalism stems from a mental condition. However, I did say some people, who cling to religion in spite of their education, do suffer some kind of mental disorder.

Ugh, ffs.

You said, 'In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives.' Now you're saying I shouldn't read that as religious fundamentalism doesn't stem from a mental disorder? You're either being forgetful or dishonst, PS.

For example:
Georgia Purdom earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She has been exposed to the massive amount of geological, morphological, taxonomic, genetic, embryological, etc. evidence that supports evolution. She accepts Genesis as literal history, including believing in a young earth. Since she is clearly intellectually up to the task of grasping evolution -- the evidence points to a mental disorder. She is one of many. You can dance around this all you like; Purdom's mind is damaged!

Still waiting for evidence that this makes her brain (or mind...unless you're trying to suggest that the two aren't the one and the same thing) 'damaged'. You've only given me an assertion as somebody with zero psychological experience. Imagine if somebody asserted scientists suffer from mental conditions - wouldn't you demand something by way of supporting evidence?

Athon

 

[pnerd]

When we deal with a relatively educated creationist, who has studied evolution so extensively that he can debate (however futilely) the fossil record, genetics, etc. in detail -- and yet clings to his beliefs -- a mental disorder is a likely cause.

.
Or maybe Morton's demon is at work there.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You said, 'In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives.' Now you're saying I shouldn't read that as religious fundamentalism doesn't stem from a mental disorder? You're either being forgetful or dishonst, PS.

Athon

Do you often have reading comprehension problems? Are you joking? In your view, the statement, "In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives" means "religious fundamentalism stems from a mental disorder"?
Look at the context:

"Why does it (religion) persist in the modern world? In many cases, people have no alternative due to their lack of exposure to scientific explanations (Brazilian tribes-people, impoverished urban dwellers). In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives (creationists come to mind). Intellectual limitations also are a factor; unfortunately some people are simply not capable of understanding scientific explanations of the universe and find religious ones accessible."

So, I stated that there are several causes for the persistence of religions (note that I did not say that above was intended to be inclusive of all possible causes). Georgia Purdom is likely to be suffering under some kind of mental disorder, and other fundamentalists may very well cling to their beliefs due to a mental disorder; however, my guess is that most have not been adequately exposed to scientific explanations and reject evolution out of ignorance. You, however are beginning to show signs of some kind of...

Still waiting for evidence that this makes her brain (or mind...unless you're trying to suggest that the two aren't the one and the same thing) 'damaged'. You've only given me an assertion as somebody with zero psychological experience. Imagine if somebody asserted scientists suffer from mental conditions - wouldn't you demand something by way of supporting evidence?

I don't have evidence. It is an informed conclusion. There is no other convincing explanation for Purdom's wacko opinions.
Similarly, if I heard a loud bang outside my house and upon inspection saw a hot smoldering rock embedded in a small crater, I would conclude that a meteor struck the ground but I would not be able to prove it since I do not have the training.
Note that I am not a geologist and I am not a psychologist but can have an informed opinion (that is very likely to be correct) in both cases.

 

[BenBurch]

Again, show me where a religious faith has established tenets that can be falsified by experiment or observation, and which if falsified would overthrow those tenets in favor of new ones.

Define for me what tests I can make on the doctrine of transubstantiation that would prove or disprove it?

Is there a test for Original Sin?

Can you produce for me even ONE miracle under controlled conditions?

 

[athon]

Do you often have reading comprehension problems? Are you joking? In your view, the statement, "In other cases, powerful social pressure has resulted in a kind of mental disorder that does not permit the consideration of alternatives" means "religious fundamentalism stems from a mental disorder"?
Look at the context:

No, I'm not joking. And yes, from the context of our discussion it's clear that you're suggesting that religious fundamentalism stems from a mental disorder (in your words, one that does not permit the consideration of alternatives).

You're squirming by claiming it's not always the case, but, whatever. The fact remains that even in some cases, you're claiming that religious beliefs can result from mental illness. Something you're claiming only because you personally believe it is 'obvious'.

You, however are beginning to show signs of some kind of...

For somebody who was upset at the assumption that they were being called ignorant, and that it was out of arrogance, I'm beginning to see a lot of hypocrisy here.

Then again, given you're also clearly stating it's ok to make claims unsupported by evidence, so long as it's clear to you, I'm not surprised. Seems awfully like something a religious person would do.

I think this conversation is done. You've made your point and it's quite clear.

Athon

 

[Perpetual Student]

No, I'm not joking. And yes, from the context of our discussion it's clear that you're suggesting that religious fundamentalism stems from a mental disorder (in your words, one that does not permit the consideration of alternatives).

You're squirming by claiming it's not always the case, but, whatever. The fact remains that even in some cases, you're claiming that religious beliefs can result from mental illness. Something you're claiming only because you personally believe it is 'obvious'.



For somebody who was upset at the assumption that they were being called ignorant, and that it was out of arrogance, I'm beginning to see a lot of hypocrisy here.

Then again, given you're also clearly stating it's ok to make claims unsupported by evidence, so long as it's clear to you, I'm not surprised. Seems awfully like something a religious person would do.

I think this conversation is done. You've made your point and it's quite clear.

Athon

The above pompous and dogmatic response is from someone who thinks that by defining a point as a coordinate, he can avoid circularity.
Yes, we are indeed done here!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Science & Religion

As regards the OP ...

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 would say that, in this context, science is all about knowledge while religion is all about ignorance.

Consider, for instance, lightning. When Ben Franklin's lightning rods began to appear in Paris, lawsuits quickly followed. The argument was that lightning was the will of God and lightning rods were an effort to circumvent the will of God, which would certainly bring down the wrath of God on Paris. That is the ancient ignorance of lighting as simply mysterious bolts from the sky. Lightning was a religious mystery when we were ignorant of its true nature. But once science gained access to it, the mystery vanished. Now lightning is understood; we know where it comes from, we know what it it, and we know what to do about it. The boundary between religion & science moved as our understanding of lightning moved from the mysterious to the practical.

In ancient times there was precious little practical knowledge of anything and religion dominated practical as well as spiritual life. In modern times practical knowledge is extensive and science dominates practical life. Religion is on the defensive & pushing back. Young-earth creation science is an example of that; an effort to re-impose religious mystery on a realm already well understood by science, I think it is born out of a fear that religion is being forced into insignificance.

So people who want to make a "religion" out of science are afraid of it. And fear does breed irrationality.