Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

Indeed it is, the parallels are stunning.

In some ways, I feel it is superior to past belief systems. However, in some critical ways, it is inferior.

That said, when it comes to control mechanisms, it is vastly improved pretty much across the board. The lack of a personal search isn't just cemented in ideology alone, much is inhibited by access to resources as well.

Of course, it has taken hold so successfully partly because the new social group is directly and openly at odds with what is called "religion" (usually meaning Christianity exclusively). Because of that contrarian base, few will be able to see the similarities.

But, just like any method of searching for the "Truth" throughout history, it must be designed so that knowledge is metered out by the "arbiters of reality." The appeal to authority must be maintained for efficacy, and any alternative paths must be impotent. In the past, it was generally done through literacy, now, it is done in much the same way; the general public sees Googling as participation in the same way peasants of olde would appeal to priests.

When it comes down to it though.. I'm starting to feel that humanity not only wants to be manipulated, but has an actual need for it. Perhaps after millennia of active control, it is so deeply embedded that its as integral as trade of goods, or common languages. Society is just encouraged to move on to the next system when influence of the current one starts to wane, using whatever system is starting to gain hold as opposition to the establishment.

I think the term "religion" is misapplied. I think religions, establishment science, and establishment law (as well as many other things, like statistical reporting, accounting, etc) are all akin to religions. You have a priest class to knows the incantations and spells to make the magic happen.

in the past, math was a religion. Im sure it still is.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

So you can work with the scientific method in your career and adhere to a region.

Not a big deal...?

Did I ever state that a scientist couldn't be religious? No.

What I am saying though is that the scientific method is not a religious institution, nor does it have any kind of metaphysical "God" or deity that people pray to in order to be absolved of their wrongdoings.

Do we kneel and pray to the great god of Einstein to keep us safe from his wrath? No.

Do we try to telepathically send our wishes to Carl Sagan in the hopes he's some kind of cosmic genie that grants wishes? No.

a reply to: masqua

So there's guesses, assumptions and hypothesis? That makes it a "religion"?

At any time more observational data is gathered those views, assumptions and hypothesis can/do change.

Within the last 2,000 years our best minds told us the world was flat. Once we learned more we discarded that belief. Even plate tectonics and other "Earth sciences" you mention have drastically changed and continue to change the more we observe, test, and learn.

And in that 2,000 years the Abrahamic religions of Mesopotamia have stayed the same.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There's also mystery, and The Mysteries figure hugely in religion.

For instance, how is it that a sub-atomic particle can pop in and out of existence? They do that regularly. Does it come from an alternate universe and immediately returns?

How many alternate universes are there and will we one day be able to access them somehow? Are Heaven and Hell alternate universes? I don't know. Makes one consider the Spirit Realm as a possibility. That not rather religious in context?

Who here can disavow the existence of an Underworld which shaman speak of? Will it someday be proven through science?

Hmmm... that particle that dropped in for a visit.

a reply to: UniFinity

Even though there is evidence about subtle a bit more hidden nature. Chakras, Aura and such concepts are in modern science mainly treated as quackery, yet to a person who regularly meditates and lives and eats naturally and in a healthy way, it is obvious and normal phenomenon. Shaolin monks, every buddhist, hinduist or other religious person who put meditation above philosophy can atest to that also... than their is Chinese acupuncture treatments based on meridians, also some ayurvedic treatments based on subtle energies. ghosts and other mysterious unexplained phenomena, etc...I could go on and on about evidence...

Boy did I get that wrong when I was younger. I was sure there was a fake trick to Reiki (lamp or something else generating heat) and did not understand the nature of energy distribution between bodies. Also was annoyed that people that can do it many times are not interested in explaining it logically.

Then I played around with some empaths who can push more than a drop thru. I cannot handle the amount of heat they create in my body when 3 of them push energy thru. I do not really like heat in my body but lower level vibrations are ok. I want a body that is colder than 36.5C.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

a reply to: masqua

Do they (the particles) really have to come from any where if it is just a probability field manifestation?

If you set up an experiment in a specific way you create a specific field that forces reality to manifest energy in a specific shape depending on the field.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Well...

Let’s go to a speculative news outlet for some ‘woo hoo’ science:

But next week’s experiment is considered to be a game changer.

Mir Faizal, one of the three-strong team of physicists behind the experiment, said: “Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions.

“We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.

"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.

"This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.

“This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.

www.express.co.uk...

And then to some not so woo hoo news outlets:

Scientists will be watching for the existence of mini black-holes when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator becomes fully operational this spring, because the detection of those black holes could change what we know about how gravity works, according to a new physics paper.

The existence of the mini black holes would lend support to string theory, which posits that different dimensions could exist and parallel universes are possible, according to a paper by physicists Mir Faizal, Mohammed M. Khalil and Ahmed Farag Ali, published in the current issue of the journal Physics Letters B.

www.cbc.ca...

Bottom line: Your guess is as good as mine.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you practice 2 religions at the same time? Because there are millions of x'tians, x'lims and x'dus that also believe in and practice science.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Very lengthy article, but accurate in the premise, at least. The way that modern science treats peer review alone is a good indication. Checking on work? Great! Duplicating experiments? Sure! The idea, though, that only an accepted core group is allowed to say whether or not some new idea is valid is no different from a cult mentality, in my book.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: BO XIAN

Please tell me which deity scientists pray to and hope to please in order for their metaphysical and non-material "soul" to be saved through?

I have yet to meet one scientist who prays to Louis Pasteur by talking to themselves inside their head:

"Please Mr. Pasteur, save my soul and forgive my mistakes and misdeeds! Please help me conduct this experiment correctly!"

*eye roll*

Instead, how about you list all of the world religions, and explain how each and every single one meets the criteria you have listed?

a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm going to have to disagree on this premise.

My reason is pretty simple, sciences questions pretty much everything, and allows for growth.

Religions are typically dogmatic meaning they are a set of beliefs that are not to be questioned, nor changed. Science is far from this mentality, so imo "Science is not a religion"

a reply to: Realtruth

science has dogma.

10 years ago if an archaeologist gave a date that was pre-clovis, they may find themselves out of work.

any institution where peoples legacy is vested within that institution will have dogma. always.

whats worse: scientific dogma is 'sweetened' with terse responses to simple queries. if you don't feel inadequate, just ask a phd a question about their field.

a reply to: BO XIAN

OK for one the article is completely off... There are more than five senses that the brain uses to gain information from both its external and internal environment. So the premise that materialism is based upon a "Five-sense-reality" is already incorrect.

Second we can measure the existence of UV rays and infrared by measuring it's temperature. It's how we discovered the unseen light spectrum to begin with.

Third Scientific theories are not jammed into an already existing narrative like our religious counterparts, if it fails in any aspect(so that includes slight contradictions in terms) it's pretty much back to the math board to figure out where they went wrong.

The problem with science is Money and Politics are too heavily involved in the process of many projects,that today It is hard to find a truly objective scientist who hasn't been bought off by big business or the government.
You also have a a majority of the human population who are scientifically illiterate,this creates a breeding ground for fraudulent pseudo-scientists like Zechariah Sitchin and Andrew Wakefield to exploit the ignorance of these people for monetary gain and/or political influence.

There are indeed problems within the scientific community,don't get me wrong. But to rebrand it as an religious in nature means nothing. In the early part of history of science,many researchers were in fact Muslims,Christians and Jews. Their faith in no way invalidates their findings to this day. So what if science was an actual religion, how does that invalidate all the theories supported by evidence done by competent and objective researchers...? I'm seriously asking here..

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: BO XIAN


The problem with science is Money and Politics are too heavily involved in the process of many projects,that today It is hard to find a truly objective scientist who hasn't been bought off by big business or the government.

Indeed. God money.

On a side note: it does little to help scientific literacy to shut down private science ventures (i.e., garage science). It does even less to teach a test instead of actual science.

I always had a hard time in school when i was asked to memorize facts in lieu of rationale.

originally posted by: Syphon
a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you practice 2 religions at the same time? Because there are millions of x'tians, x'lims and x'dus that also believe in and practice science.

Do Hindus practice Christianity, Muslims Hinduism, of course not
Not all people practice the religion of scientinism, you can be a Christian who studies science as much as you can be a Christian who studies any religion

Their are some people who practice scientism as explained in the OPs article

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

So you can work with the scientific method in your career and adhere to a region.

Not a big deal...?

Did I ever state that a scientist couldn't be religious? No.

What I am saying though is that the scientific method is not a religious institution, nor does it have any kind of metaphysical "God" or deity that people pray to in order to be absolved of their wrongdoings.

Do we kneel and pray to the great god of Einstein to keep us safe from his wrath? No.

Do we try to telepathically send our wishes to Carl Sagan in the hopes he's some kind of cosmic genie that grants wishes? No.

Buddhism doesn't have a god yet is a religion
I guess scientifically the issue isn't as simple as you would have others believe

a reply to: myselfaswell

actually, the main problem with the article is that it doesn't differentiate between science and scientific paradigms. What is commonly referred to as science is ACTUALLY a scientific paradigm. It is NOT science. Science is a process, not a group of beliefs, theories or tests.

Science is good for what it is. Or rather, the scientific PROCESS is good for what it is. The scientific paradigms that are commonly referred to as science ARE religion, host to its' beliefs, dogmas, and irrational fear of being shown to be wrong about ANYTHING.

Jaden

a reply to: BO XIAN

Per Merriam-Webster:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of GOD:

1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
.
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b : Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind

2 : a being or object [emphasis added] believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

3 : a person or thing of supreme value

4 : a powerful ruler

= = = =
www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of WORSHIP

1 chiefly British: a person of importance--used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)

2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also: an act of expressing such reverence

3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual [Emphasis added]

4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem [Emphasis added]

= = =

www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of RELIGIOUS

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality [emphasis added] or deity.

2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS [emphasis added except for b--red was in original]

= = =

www.merriam-webster.com...
.

Full Definition of RELIGION
.
1 a : the state of a religious
b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices [Emphasis added]

3 archaic] : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS [emphasis added except for conscientiousness--where red was in the original]

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith [emphasis added]

I plan to discuss these definitions in light of the OP in my next post.