If science if become new religion, what's the thing that it worshipped?

The idea that Modern science worships Human Ingenuity is came from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So if the Mainstream science become religion that Worship Human Ingenuity, what kind of human ingenuity that worshiped by science?

reply to post by masonicon


I think you are blurring a few very distinctive and different elements under the "science/worship" umbrella ...

The term scientism describes the position that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[2] or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology. scientism wiki

And ...

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth. scientism pbs

However:

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless. scientism sd

Basically there are some people who view science as the definition of their existence beyond all others ... that does not mean that everyone who considers science in their reasoning and/or every scientist, is a "scientismist."

Personally it has been my observation that whatever path one chooses to pursue and whatever vehicle they wish to drive, they eventually all point to the same realizations ... but that's for another thread.

Just wanted to point out the fact that just because someone pursues the virtues of science, doesn't make them a disciple of science.

[edit on 7 Jun 2010 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by masonicon
The idea that Modern science worships Human Ingenuity is came from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So if the Mainstream science become religion that Worship Human Ingenuity, what kind of human ingenuity that worshiped by science?

No good scientist, nor anyone who understands how the scientific method works would ever "worship" science as a "new religion."

Worship suggests faith in something that cannot be proven. Science seeks, through theory and experimentation, to discern the facts about how existence behaves. It's always about coming to a finer, and closer understanding of how nature works - but nothing is to be taken on faith - you arrive at your understanding through a very long, lengthy process of research and experimentation which must be peer reviewed by other scientists.

Human Ingenuity "just is," it's not something that is to be worshiped. Science is merely the method we've derived of tapping into that ingenuity and using it to answer questions about nature, improve and expand technology and generally advance civilization.

[edit on 6/7/2010 by LifeInDeath]

Mathematics !


2nd line

CHANGE.

I would not say it is being worshiped though, more like embraced. It was always going to happen to religion, as culture felt it first. We now mostly have a culture of change in Western countries. And science is the perfect reflection of change.

It is a form of humanism, what is worshiped is the human mind and capabilities of that mind to understand the nature of reality.

Worship of yourself,.. how is that for an ego trip.

reply to post by slane69


Haha. I agree.

The scientific method or process is created by you. Internally.

Where as religion has you worshiping a god or deity. External.


Now, to make it more interesting I wonder if most Christians believe science is none other than a by product of the holy spirit. Since scientific thought and theory is created from within your own mind. Is that now not a gift from God? haha.

The problem here is that 'science' isn't a religion, nor is it really a belief system, no matter how much people try to conflate the two.

So people don't 'worship' the concept of science like they would a deity.

reply to post by BeyondDoubt


It is a gift from God, but so is my John Thomas, alas if I worshiped it, or what came out of it for that matter, I would also be a d*#k.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!
The problem here is that 'science' isn't a religion, nor is it really a belief system, no matter how much people try to conflate the two.

So people don't 'worship' the concept of science like they would a deity.

How about we define religion.

The root of the word "religion" is usually traced to the Latin religare (re: back, and ligare: to bind), so that the term is associated with "being bound." One is "bound" by choice or by commitment to the tenets of a particular belief system. Ones religion affects "how one lives one's life" or or, in popular vernacular, one's "life style."

I'd say science can be a religion, as could many other things. In the bible (if your into that thing) these are identified as false idols or false gods.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by slane69]

Originally posted by BeyondDoubt
Now, to make it more interesting I wonder if most Christians believe science is none other than a by product of the holy spirit. Since scientific thought and theory is created from within your own mind. Is that now not a gift from God? haha.

A Christian who agrees with the scientific method and the embraces the fruits of scientific endeavor (I would never say "believe in science," which is a nonsensical statement because science is not a belief), would probably say that it's God's gift to mankind that we have a mind capable of achieving at such endeavors. In that way a belief in God and the practice of science are in no way incompatible.

Originally posted by slane69
I'd say science can be a religion, as could many other things. In the bible (if your into that thing) these are identified as false idols or false gods.

Anyone who starts treating scientific endeavor as a religious experience, rite, practice, etc. has ceased doing science. The minute you bring absolute faith or belief into science, it no longer is that thing. The process of peer review and duplication of experimentation and observations should, if done properly, eliminate or prevent such practices taking hold.

When the scientific community agrees with a theory that later proves to be false, this isn't a matter of faith in a false belief so much as a misunderstanding of data, or bad data collection in the first place. Science doesn't rely on belief, which is why bad or incomplete theories are eventually overturned and replaces by better models. Religions doesn't allow for such a thing.

The minute you bring absolute faith or belief into science, it no longer is that thing.

Exactly my friend and science takes on absolute faith that human observations can or will someday be able to comprehend the entirety of reality. Hypotheses, theories, and laws all based on the assumption that the observations are correct or will someday come to a point of truth,.... that is a leap of faith as extraordinary as believing in an all powerful creator.

In chasing the white rabbit on absolute faith in the scientific method and the human mind, science is not what it is purported to be. I am trained as a scientist, a Masters degree, I see the value in science but I am also not blind to the leap of faith taken in my own discipline.

reply to post by LifeInDeath


Well put, the moment you put faith, ritual or belief into science is no longer science, I agree.

Because science is a system, that was built almost in a way to counter religion. To demystify. For instance, In the middle ages, when people were sick, doctors would bleed them out, until biology proved that theory wrong.

Science, is, too me self empowerment. And the only way it can share a religious aspect is if people put faith into realizing that science may have the answer. To inspire, like god inspires so many people. Science can take that place and inspire. So worshiping science in that regard I feel can be beneficial. I guess give hope if you will.

If people who make a religion of science exist, they cannot be scientists. They cannot even be scientifically literate.

To people who practice science or are well acquainted with it, there is no awe-inspiring mystery about it. Science is just a method of finding things out. It isn't magic, it isn't infallible and it only works when applied to certain types of question. We familiars of science are all too aware of its failings and its limitations. There is little danger we will ever elevate it to the status of a religion.

Those who would make a religion of science can only be those who do not understand it. Men do not make gods of what they comprehend but of what mystifies and awes them.

If anyone made a religion of science, that religion would be a kind of cargo cult. Such a religion could only arise if large numbers of people were both highly ignorant of science and also lived in fear and awe of it. Indeed, the great twentieth-century physicist Richard Feynmann once gave a famous talk about what he called 'cargo cult science'.

If the religious right wing succeeds in its crusade to destroy America's leading position among the scientific nations of the world, if it continues to attack science teaching in schools and to teach the masses fear and hatred of knowledge and science, then yes, there will soon come a time when the ignorant in America will come to see science in the light of a religion, and yes, there will be some also who worship. Cargo-cult science will become a faith to some, blasphemy to many others.

The way to prevent this is more and better science education, not less. Legislation to reduce the pernicious influence of religion - any religion - on American politics would help, too.

Originally posted by Astyanax
To people who practice science or are well acquainted with it, there is no awe-inspiring mystery about it. Science is just a method of finding things out. It isn't magic, it isn't infallible and it only works when applied to certain types of question.

You make a good point but I disagree that there is no such awe inspiring mystery to science. There is scientific phenomenon every where around us. I also find it hard pressed that Tesla wasn't inspired by his own work.

Originally posted by BeyondDoubt

Originally posted by Astyanax
To people who practice science or are well acquainted with it, there is no awe-inspiring mystery about it.

I disagree that there is no such awe inspiring mystery to science. There is scientific phenomenon every where around us. I also find it hard pressed that Tesla wasn't inspired by his own work.

I think you mean that the world is full of awe-inspiring mystery and wonder. I agree, and science helps us appreciate this by helping us get 'under the skin' of nature. Science often explains a mystery by revealing a marvel.

But that is not the same as saying that science itself is mysterious. It is not. I can't stress this enough: science is nothing more than a well-establihed method of learning about the world. It is a system of observation, theorizing and falsification: a set of well-understood systems and procedures. At bottom it is nothing more than a formalized version of the things
anybody does when they want to find something out or understand it.

Science is a tool. It was invented by people and is used by people. There is, I repeat, nothing mysterious about it. It is what science studies that is mysterious. The world - that's the mystery, not science.

Your mention of the name Tesla is disturbing. In my earlier post I said science could become a kind of cargo-cult religion. In fact, I have learned from my experience on ATS that there is already a small minority of people for whom it already is. Yes, there are alreay people who make a cargo cult out of science. They are, of course, nonscientists, but they follow the achievements of science in the news and specialist media and discuss them sometimes on forums like this. Their talk is full of misunderstanding, error, speculation and downright confabulation, but that doesn't bother them. What gets them hot under the collar is people who debunk their pseudoscientific gee-whiz 'theories' with real science.

These scientific cargo cultists worship science. They make prophets out of scientists - and also out of charlatans and cranks, since they don't know enough about science to tell the difference. Such people usually make a cult hero or demi-god out of Nikola Tesla.

Tesla was a genuine scientist and something of a visionary. He was also inarguably mad, and as the years went by his scientific genius was twisted and destroyed by his madness. Scientific cargo cultists believe that Tesla's crazier ideas, the ones he came up with after his mind had gone, are actually real and workable, even though Tesla himself could not, in spite of a few spectacular demonstrations, prove them or make them work. The greatness they ascribe to Tesla is based on awe and inspiration, not on an appreciation of his scientific thinking, which they cannot follow and do not understand.

When a nonscientist speaks highly of Nikola Tesla, there is a high probability that the speaker is a science cargo cultist. I trust this does not hold good in your own case.

On a side note :

I do look at Tesla as a demigod. But it's fine by me. The ''real'' scientists can hand out the cargo cult label. I'll accept it because I know where they are coming from.

But I am not the type that spews crazy, pseudo-scientific gee-whiz theories at all. I keep my theories to myself, if any.

But, thanks for the insight, you helped clearing things up.

And if you don't mind me asking, what field do you work in? I assume you are not a non-scientist.

reply to post by masonicon


Science is not a religion. Religions are typically faith based and start out with preconceived conclusions (ie God exists).

Science looks for evidence and THEN draws conclusions while religion has conclusions and then IGNORES evidence.

Science equals: reality, evidence, facts, proof.

Religion equals: invisible characters from fictional plagiarized stories all having ZERO evidence or credibility.

Big difference between the two. One is reality one is fantasy.

Some folks need a crutch of fantasy in order to find fulfillment in their life for some reason. While some prefer reality. In conclusion, Science is not a religion or belief, its simply REALITY.