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

I am not going to get into the details such as what SD pointed out.

But to answer the simple question buried in the OP, the "Church of Science" would worship Man.

Science is the hubris of believing that you have seen the "eye of our Creator", or figured out how things work. Each successive generation believing they are the pinnacle of achievement, laughing at those cretins that came before them for their funny beliefs and customs.

It is an orgy of ego.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

It is an orgy of ego.

I'm not sure where you get your opinion here. You make it sound like science is the art of spitting in the face of God when in actuality it could be better summed up as the study of God's Universe. You make it sound as it simply because it bases its conclusions on EVIDENCE that means it is mocking faith based belief - well GOOD, faith isn't something to be praised, faith is believing in something for no good reason and without any evidence. But I assure you not every scientist mocks faith in fact many are men and women of faith themselves but they do not let what they KNOW from the evidence be trumped by what they BELIEVE in their religion.

And by the way, modern medicine and technology - all the product of science. Science has revolutionized our way of life and made us live longer and happier lives than our ancestors even a few hundred years ago could ever have dreamed. The average lower-class American lives a life that is LUXURY compared to the upper class of the 1700 and 1800s and all thanks to science and what it has learned by studying nature (not too mention our massive leap in lifespan). So how can you think advances in medicine and technology that help EVERYONE live better lives are selfish orgies of ego? Scientists aren't locked away in bunkers living with their achievements and keeping them away from everyone else. Science is just as interested in helping people as modern religion is and the strides science has made have been infinitely more important.

Science does not arrogantly announce that it knows EVERYTHING, that is what RELIGION does and religion does so without any evidence at all (often times in the face of evidence that directly contradicts their beliefs). Science is a self-correcting self-adapting process. New hypotheses and theories emerge all the time and are either vindicated by evidence and become widely accepted or remain on the fringe due to lack of evidence or the weight of evidence for a different idea. Science doesn't pretend to know everything there is to know and admitting what they don't know or are not sure of is what brings scientists a thrill. Admitting that we don't know much about Dark Matter or what the Universe is truly made of or where the matter came from before the singularity and big bang is what makes science honest where religion would just say "God did it" and move along.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

How about we chill the old science vs. religion and return to the OP question, as bigfatfurrytexan suggests?

From what I've seen of people, they don't worship what they understand. It is what they don't understand that fills them with wonder, fear and awe, and inclines them to worship. When we know what makes the thunder, we cease to worship Thor.

Now, as we all know, science is capable of some pretty wonderful things. To a savage, or even to a mediaeval peasant, the ability to fly through the air, to cure deadly diseases with the jab of a needle, to throw your voice across the world at will, or see things happening in faraway lands - such powers are magical. Yet these are examples of mature technologies that we accept without thinking twice about.

How many of us really understand what goes on inside a TV set, or a mobile phone, or know how an aeroplane flies? Not many. Yet compared to what contemporary science can do, these are very simple devices. Even to us, accustomed as we are to the power of science, the ability to do such things as breed glowing rabbits, see the brain at work, detect the motion of planets light-years away or pick pieces off comets and bring them home to us seems magical. The science behind such technologies is intrinsically recondite and complex, well beyond the average person's ability to understand even if he or she were to try. Science has advanced so far it has left the majority of us behind. We may never catch up.

In the world today, we have a small intellectual elite that drives science forward, a substantial class of engineers and technocrats who turn science into usable technology, and a vast populace of scientifically illiterate or semiliterate folk who consume those technologies without understanding them, dependent on the technicians and marketeers to keep their machines working for them or replace them when they break down. As science advances, the intellectual separation between these classes grows.

Do you not see the potential here for making a religion out of science? I find it easy to imagine a future - is it even the future? - in which scientists, in their distant ivory towers, pursue researches and concerns so specialized, advanced and far removed from public concerns that, to the average man or woman, they become incomprehensible, almost godlike beings. There may come a day when these beings become the object of worship on account of the wondrous goods they make available and the fearsome powers with which they threaten us. A scientific cargo cult will grow up, and people begin to attribute godlike powers to scientists, making myths about them and turning various scientific apparatus into cult objects. Science becomes religion.

What can prevent this from happening? Clearly the answer is widespread understanding of what science actually is, what it can do and what it cannot. Key to this, obviously, is scientific education. By this I don't mean learning how genes are engineered, necessarily, or how an MRI scanner works -- although such knowledge should be readily available to the curious -- but education, above all, in how to do science. Of course, this already happens in schools, though the quality of it varies both around the world and within individual countries. Overall, I think the world should be doing more of it, extending the reach of scientific education to more children, young people and even adults, and improving its quality.

I certainly don't want to see every kid turn into a scientist. I don't even believe that's possible. But I would like to see every kid understand what science is, how it's done and how important it really is to human civilization, how it stands behind us, supporting as well as threatening the world we have made for ourselves, yet how it is always amenable to human control, and how to control it.

If we could achieve that, there would be no scientific cargo cult.

Sadly, I think it will also have another effect. If everybody were scientifically literate, few, I believe, would be religious at all. Understanding drives out faith; knowledge makes belief redundant. The greater penetration of science into culture has always been at the expense of religion, and I don't see this changing. To me the two have always seemed naturally antipathetic.

Why do I, an atheist, think this is sad? Shouldn't I rejoice at the withering-away of religion as scientific rationalism spreads like a calming, cooling infusion through society? Perhaps I should, but I don't think it's going to happen. Religion is a very powerful force in society. It has many powerful and influential institutions to protect and promote it, as well as armies of foot-soldiering faithful numbered in the billions. Many of these institutions and congregations agree with me on the incompatibility of science and religion, and will oppose the spread of scientific literacy and education with far more energy than we poor atheists, even with the allegedly godlike powers of science on our side, could possibly muster.

Today, we see Luddism and fear of the dangers posed to religion by science well entrenched in American political culture and growing stronger. In the Muslim world, too, science is understood as a threat to religion and treated with suspicion, in many cases with downright opposition. Much of the third world, including my own country, still exists in a pre-scientific condition; religion powerfully dominates culture and science has almost no place in it, though technology is eagerly embraced. The dangers facing science in these places - including the danger that it will become a religion, which would be fatal to it, you understand - are all too real.

*

reply to post by BeyondDoubt

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

I am a writer. My education and interests are scientific.

[edit on 12/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull




Before i start, i would like to correct you on one thing. I don't make anything sound like anything. That is your own perceptions being reflected. While you may infer it, i most certainly do not imply any such thing.

What i mean by "ego" is that science is ego driven more often than not. It is less about discovery for the sake of discovery, and more about discovery for the sake of renown.

Now many scientists do you know who would be happy toiling away in obscurity? Not many, although i am sure there are some. It is all human nature.

Then, when you try to break into that "club", you are often treated with contempt and disdain. Ask a question, get called stupid. You see it here all the time. And you see it with the "blacklisting" that happens with those who do such things as suggest a pre-Clovis culture (even if their data does support it...there are actual cases and i assume you are aware of as a member of ATS).

Science has done nice things for people, no doubt. As the next evolutionary step to religion, you would expect such. It was religion which gave us culture and agriculture (religion began as a study of nature, too....the cycle of the seasons, life and death, so on and so forth). But don't fool yourself. The current state of science is the result of some lucky guesses and 1 or 2 brilliant minds making breakthroughs along the way. without Newton, Einstein would have never had his chance, so to speak. And just about everything we have achieved since Einstein is based on his model. A model which we know is flawed, but still works well enough to give us our current results.

True science? Yeah, i am all about it. But i don't see much of that out there. I see a lot of people with prejudice emanating from how deeply vested they are in the current models. I see real breakthroughs stifled, especially by our own government (who sweeps any really good breakthrough away from public view as quickly as they can). You talk about diseases being cured....tell me what diseases we have developed cures for in the last 50 years? I would be interested to see any list, even if it only had 1 disease on it.

I do not argue that religion is a corrupt institution. What i DO argue is that science is, too. Perhaps the key is that anything that is an institution is corrupt? No one should take their orders solely from another person just because that person has seniority. That stifles innovation and promotes perversion.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

What i mean by "ego" is that science is ego driven more often than not. It is less about discovery for the sake of discovery, and more about discovery for the sake of renown.

Hey bfft ... a point worth noting, a better characterization of what you are conveying would be to replace "science" with "scientists" in the above statement. Egos are a human possession whereas science itself, as in all "things" has no inherent nature or position, it is a neutral concept by definition.

Perhaps a small and pedantic notation on my part, nevertheless an important one in my humble opinion. For if the ego is in control of one's travels, the vehicle hardly matters, be it science, religion, or any thing else.

It is an orgy of ego.

I went to a couple of those in the 80's ... not as much fun as it sounds.

[edit on 12 Jun 2010 by schrodingers dog]

oopsies

[edit on 12 Jun 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

What i mean by "ego" is that science is ego driven more often than not. It is less about discovery for the sake of discovery, and more about discovery for the sake of renown.

How many scientists can you name? How many athletes you can you name? Most could name far more athletes than scientists. The majority of scientists ARE toiling in obscurity and the majority of human beings are entirely ignorant to their discoveries - even the ones that benefit them directly.

And you see it with the "blacklisting" that happens with those who do such things as suggest a pre-Clovis culture

I can't disagree with this, there definitely are some heated issues within science and human migration to North America is one of them BUT without differing opinions wouldn't the entire scientific process be sort of pointless? You can understand why many have a vested interest in certain well established ideas - many have spent entire careers working on the same problem.

Of course science is imperfect as it is a human endeavor and all human endeavors are imperfect but it is the best way of understanding the world and the Cosmos that we have.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


ahh, yes...you are correct. and the difference is ALL the difference in this discussion, actually.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I can name quite a few scientists, actually. But that is just me, not the average person. I can name just a few less priests, etc.

And i can name lots of athletes...but they are not part of the discussion.

But, to my previous point....lets use some scientsts specifically:

To be someone like a Michio Kaku is very rare. People like he, Neil Degrasse-Tyson, and Hawking, are like the "Rockstars" of science. There are others who are fairly well known due to the nature of their jobs, such as Ron Koczor (a NASA scientist). Others, such as Dr. Robert Baker, are well known due to their relative seniority in a field, and connections gained in their career. Or the Hal Puthoffs, who aren't afraid to dabble in the unusual, and bring credibility to it with sound scientific reasoning and outstanding experiments. Too bad much of his work in the 80's made people uncomfortable enough to get him nearly ignored.

But then you have people like Dr. Ning Li. Study an astounding effect, start to unlock its secrets, and then POOF....disappear under a cloak of government intrigue. It is what happened to the legacy of Tesla.

There are lots of well known scientists, to any who even have a cursory relationship within science. However, there seems to be a propensity to obfuscate at a higher level, and this pressure is well defined at low enough resolutions to prevent just about anyone within science from trying to march out of step even a little. Careers seem to ride on the status quo. That is not science, that is an institution.

Science, in its purest form, is mans best bet. In its current form, it will eventually become another way to impose tyranny.

Bah. A really interesting thread topic and all people want to do is argue science vs. religion.

ATS fails again.

Originally posted by Shine71
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.

The problems is: Mainstream science is more like religion than science because it worships Human Ingenuity and pointless universe while the mythology of this 'religion' is: mankind are descended from apes by nothing but the blind and purposeless process that takes eons to complete for no purpose other than craves money and consumer goods then simply perish from Global warming, Pandemic, asteroid impact, and other mundane and mediocre natural disasters while the very last things that we creates before our extinction is: Predator Drone, biofuel, hydrogen fuel cell, solar power, wind power, digital electronics, and other things like that as we still yet to invents Strong AI, alternative energy(not so mediocre ones), and commonplace space travel.

Science is a tool, like a hammer.
Like a hammer it can be used for constructive, or destructive purposes.
Would you worship a hammer?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If science was the religion
then the thing we worship would be .... Technology

(I'm not going to get all philosophical here)

To me science is a lot like religion.
We have hundred year old principals that we use as a base. Principals which are not always right. Many which are not exact and use preset values for calculations. Improvising on approximations to make them presentable. Then we base something new on some hypothesis from the past. Following a one way street that started two thousand years ago. Yes we are. Yes we are.
Isaac Newton is the jesus here

[edit on 10-7-2010 by globuser777]

Science and truth are not a religion : it is fact : nothing to do we faith, or life position

Scientism, transhumanism, geek'ism : are religion, with stupid followers ( they cannot explain there religion, why and where they go).

[edit on 10-7-2010 by psychederic]

with the statement: "Science is the new Religion"


what that statement means is that the older 'Religion' sought to benefit humanity with moral effacy, instill character, etc...
in a path toward community with like minded people seeking the higher authority (God-Heaven-Immortality)

whereas modern 'Science' holds that technology and advanced knowledge of all the intricicies of physics, biology, the human genome, etc...
will lead to the utopian 'heaven' on Earth espoused by the older 'Religions'


Thus 'Science' is the new 'Religion'

Here's a chance for phage to slay God once and for all. Shameless bump. Phage?

Intellectualism will be worshiped.

reply to post by 547000

Nobody is ever going to worship intellectualism. Decent folk rightly despise and revile intellectuals.