Phil asked:

Is science the new religion?

============

Ostensibly it might seem so to many, but no genuinely religious person would accept it to be so.
There is also a strong philosophical denial of the possibility. In fact many scientists themselves feel
that the more progress they make the less secure their materialistic views become.

The philosophical challenge lies in the fact that scientists are not creators but discoverers;they
discover things already in existence: therefore, science does not possess the qualification necessary
for a religion. When they seem to be creative they are using already established natural laws and
conditions, and are restricted within set parameters.

After seemingly establishing a sound materialistic basis for science following the advent of Newton,
the scientific world was thrown into some confusion by the theories of Einstein, the ability to make
secure predictions about the universe suddenly disappeared in the ramifications of the quantum
theory; matter itself reduced to light and became known as rest mass energy. Some physicists began
talking about the universe as a great thought rather than a great machine.

We live in a world that is still fundamentally religious; like science, religion continues to seek a
meaning to life. Ironically religion does not succumb to scientific discovery but rather is able to use
the facts provided to reinforce its own beliefs. Strangely, there is an intermediate ground of UFO's,
meditation, the occult, scientology, etc., to which religion gives a mystic dimension, whilst science,
though sceptical, feels bound to investigate what is considered to be natural phenomena.

When we consider that science has been responsible for producing the most horrific weapons of
mass destruction known to man, the idea of it being a religion is contradictory to everything we
understand about religion. On the other hand, we have to look for true religion beyond its
institutionalized facade, its political attachments and its constant participation in violent conflict.
Because the various sects and organizations fail to live up to the standards of morality, peace, love
and virtue, this does not hide the fact that these are the underlying facets of true religion. Science
does not have such a foundation, it can therefore never be considered a religion. Perhaps in this
modern secular age some people may regard science as a substitute for religion; a materialist age
may require a materialist religion, science is probably the nearest approach to this. Another point
worth noting is that the received knowledge in developed countries indicates that science has done
much more for the well being of the population than has religion, for example, drugs and advances in
medical treatment generally has had greater effect than has faith healing and hoped for miracles.
Most people are also unaware of where the border line is between science and technology, hence all
good progress is put down to science.

Probably science will only replace religion when it can be proved beyond all possible doubt that God
has nothing to do with physics, biology and chemistry; and that possibility still seems a long way off.

John Brandon

I must seriously call into question the previous answer.

First, I don't understand the claim that "no genuinely religious person would accept" that science is a
religion. This claim seems always to leave a way out from refutations by saying "Well, that person
might be religious and think science is a religion, but of course he's not genuinelyreligious" — what is
known as the "no true Scotsman fallacy".

Second, it is said that "many scientists themselves feel that the more progress they make the less
secure their materialistic views become". This seems to imply that religion necessarily has to do with
the supernatural. In Buddhism, for instance, there is no demand of allegiance to any supernatural
being. And there are even Christian philosophers, like Don Cupitt, who claim that the Bible is not a
document of a supernatural being's interaction with the world, but a metaphorical story. One can turn
one's feeling of freedom from the supernatural into an idol, just like one can turn one's feeling of
allegiance to the supernatural into an idol.

Third, it is pointed out that "scientists are not creators but discoverers". But the comparison of science
to religion normally proposes to compare scientists to priestsand not gods.What takes the place of
gods in the science religion is not any being, but the whole of reality as viewed scientifically, with
scientists as merely the priests entrusted with the task of interpreting it.

Fourth, there have been actual attempts to found an institutionalized religion which worships the
achievements of science and scientific facts and laws. In fact, Auguste Comte, the founding father of
positivism, founded one such in the 1840s, the Church of Positivism, which is still functioning in Brazil
(and even has a web site).

Fifth, it is said that "science will only replace religion when it can be proved beyond all possible doubt
that God has nothing to do with physics, biology and chemistry". It seems to me that if something like
that were to happen, it would contrariwise take away any need for science to replace religion.

T. P. Uschanov

Research Assistant

Department of Philosophy

University of Helsinki

123