Is science just another religion? (and so much more..)

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
#2
I'm not sure about "just" another religion but I had an interesting thought today about how it appears to parallel religion in its structure. Classical science deals with "laws" and structure while Quantum Mechanics deals with the more mystical stuff behind it all and its proponents argue much over correct interpretation.
 
#3
I think the basic of science is sound, as far at is goes for materialism. For most of the disciplines there is a well-defined structure with tangible methods and "laws" for everyone to reach a conclusion that mostly everyone can agree with, regarding to; idea > research > test > hypothesis > replication > present hypothesis, result & methods of testing, for others to confirm. It's not 100% foolproof, as we see - otherwise we wouldn't have the disagreement we see on different scientific topics. But I cant say it's a religion per se. Religion is based around faith, self-experienced revelations, and/or - for most people - conformation to a set of rules/laws/guidelines - that you feel are right, or are brought up to adhere to, - but are not a proven fact to be so.

On the other hand is the scientific community on a crusade on anything that lies outside their set of rules/laws, and say that anything that cant be "put in a bottle or a petri-dish" is "blasphemy" according to their "priests" (scientists), and should be "banished", and dont leave room for any other "religion" than that. So in that sense is science a religion. But there is of course lot of hypocrisy inside the scientific community where there is lot of room for speculations, and adherence to lot of things that cant be seen, researched, quantified, and is as much a belief as religion is.

PS: I cant watch the Vibby video, and the other one wasn't a link to a specific video.
 
Last edited:
#4
I think that as science has encroached on religious/spiritual questions, it has inevitably acquired some religious characteristics. The fight over ID, assertions that consciousness is all in the brain, extreme 'explanations' of NDE's, etc all now have a religious zeal about them.

In so many ways, science is betraying the trust and respect people (used to) have in it.

David
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#8
I think that as science has encroached on religious/spiritual questions, it has inevitably acquired some religious characteristics. The fight over ID, assertions that consciousness is all in the brain, extreme 'explanations' of NDE's, etc all now have a religious zeal about them.

In so many ways, science is betraying the trust and respect people (used to) have in it.
The fight over ID is due to science encroaching on a religious question? You really don't think it's the other way around?

The idea that consciousness is all in the brain is a religious idea that science shouldn't tackle? Why?

Science shouldn't try to explain NDEs?

I'm at a loss to understand your point. Surely you could just as well say that science pushing the heliocentric model was also encroaching on religion, as was the idea that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, as was the idea of common descent, as is any idea that contradicts what people make up as knowledge given by their gods.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#10
The religious zeal is in making those subjects heresy. The outcry from the zealots is to ban them from open discussion and to misinform the public that they have already been explained away.
I haven't seen any action to ban, say, ID from open discussion. I've seen lots of laughing and sarcasm, but that's different.

I haven't seen any action to ban various ideas about consciousness.

I certainly haven't seen any action to ban NDE research.

~~ Paul
 
#11
The religious zeal is in making those subjects heresy. The outcry from the zealots is to ban them from open discussion and to misinform the public that they have already been explained away.
This more or less echoes a comment I made regarding NDE/.OBE research
That was from the days when the BBC would allow such subjects to appear on a television science programme. Nowadays it's more likely to appear in the religious slot on radio - with the added bonus of an obligatory debunker.
The idea of allowing scientific subjects to be studied and discussed on a science programme is nowadays considered heresy - hence the relegation to the 'religion' slot.
 
#12
I haven't seen any action to ban, say, ID from open discussion. I've seen lots of laughing and sarcasm, but that's different.

I haven't seen any action to ban various ideas about consciousness.

I certainly haven't seen any action to ban NDE research.

~~ Paul
There are other ways to shut down debate than a formal ban but the effect is the same. This is nit-picking, we all know that such coercion happens in the mainstream. Speaking of zealots ...

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/03/guerrilla-skeptics.html
 
Last edited:
#14
On-topic:

No, I disagree. Science is just a collection of very useful tools. There's not even a all-encompassing scientific method. The research in psychology is very different from the research in microbiology, which is very different from the research in high energy physics. I believe people worry too much in classifying something as science or not, as if just because something is "certified science" then it must be true (just see cases of cargo cult science, fraud etc).

Also, I do think however that there's a lot of social-cultural pressure to which role a scientist must have in society and which ideas he should endorse. But I think this is not a problem of science itself, but it's a society problem.

Off-topic:

There are other ways to shut down debate than a formal ban but the effect is the same. This is nit-picking, we all know that such coercion happens in the mainstream. Speaking of zealots ...

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranormalia/2013/03/guerrilla-skeptics.html
I gave up on wikipedia. I edited Daryl Ben article multiple times, but two persons keep deleting everything. I selected all of his positive findings on ganzfeld and precognition and was very careful to not include anything from SPR, JSE or any parapsychology journal. I included only things from "frontiers", "psychological bulletim" etc. Also, his "Further Reading" session contained just CSICOP articles against him and most of the articles were already referenced on the main text.

Everything was deleted over and over again. And the claim was always the same that I was against wikipedia rules. It was completely nonsense, why Richard Wiseman paper on Ganzfeld is a "valid reference" and Bem's following paper on the SAME JOURNAL is not a reliable source? Also they refused to include a sentence saying that the "ganzfeld debate was still ongoing", since according to them there was no debate, Richard Wiseman paper was the last word on ganzfeld.

I was skeptical about guerrilla skeptics, but they are real. And they are very annoying.
 
#15
Everything was deleted over and over again. And the claim was always the same that I was against wikipedia rules. It was completely nonsense, why Richard Wiseman paper on Ganzfeld is a "valid reference" and Bem's following paper on the SAME JOURNAL is not a reliable source? Also they refused to include a sentence saying that the "ganzfeld debate was still ongoing", since according to them there was no debate, Richard Wiseman paper was the last word on ganzfeld.
Makes you want to puke, doesn't it? Still, as Paul says, you should just "suck it up". I'd suggest that's easy to say for someone comfortable and secure in the consensus.
 
#16
Makes you want to puke, doesn't it? Still, as Paul says, you should just "suck it up". I'd suggest that's easy to say for someone comfortable and secure in the consensus.
Unfortunately, that's the case. I have no problem with some random "skeptic_ifuckinlovescience_42" quoting wikipedia to "debunk" something. However, it sucks that some "open minded" person will probably read wikipedia and be convinced that there's zero evidence for anything "paranormal".
People should be able to at least see the two sides and reach their own conclusion (even if they don't end up "believing" or "accepting" psi phenomena).
 
#17
I haven't seen any action to ban, say, ID from open discussion. I've seen lots of laughing and sarcasm, but that's different.

I haven't seen any action to ban various ideas about consciousness.

I certainly haven't seen any action to ban NDE research.

~~ Paul
I think the meant the hostility the proponents of ID and NDEs receive on a daily basis. If you actually read debates and what the skeptics say you'll realize what David is talking about.

The problem with science is very clear. They can't fit consciousness/free will into their materialist framework, so deny these things exist. These are our most intimate experiences/observations, everything in science and the world are done through these things, but they deny them because they can't explain with materialism. They're willing to accept many world interpretation, extra dimensions, multiverse, all of which have 0 empirical evidence, but they wont accept free will. If this isn't religious zeal, I dont know what is.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#18
I think the meant the hostility the proponents of ID and NDEs receive on a daily basis. If you actually read debates and what the skeptics say you'll realize what David is talking about.
I know there is hostility. It's all over science, just like every human endeavor. I've seen some good hostility from IDers against their critics, too. I haven't seen much hostility against NDE researchers, but perhaps it's there.

The problem with science is very clear. They can't fit consciousness/free will into their materialist framework, so deny these things exist. These are our most intimate experiences/observations, everything in science and the world are done through these things, but they deny them because they can't explain with materialism. They're willing to accept many world interpretation, extra dimensions, multiverse, all of which have 0 empirical evidence, but they wont accept free will. If this isn't religious zeal, I dont know what is.
I think you are oversimplifying the situation. There are plenty of scientists working on the problem of consciousness. I read papers on the subject monthly. It is a difficult problem. If some renegade scientist comes along with a nonmaterialist framework that covers all our observations about consciousness without requiring us to toss out half of physics, people will pay attention. For example, if panpsychism is true, we should see some new physics that describes whatever new fundamentals are proposed.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#19
Is science just another religion? (and so much more..)

Bill Gaede creates his usual entertaining(IMO), latest video relevant to the question.

 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#20
Makes you want to puke, doesn't it? Still, as Paul says, you should just "suck it up". I'd suggest that's easy to say for someone comfortable and secure in the consensus.
I have no vested interest in the consensus. In fact, I think precognition and Ganzfeld are two of the most interesting outstanding investigations in parapsychology.

Still, as with many human endeavors, the Young Turks have to suck it up.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Top