Is Science a Religion?

[beam me up scottie]

by Richard Dawkins

Published in the Humanist, January/February 1997

The 1996 Humanist of the Year asked this question in a speech accepting the honor from the American Humanist Association.

***

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven -- and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith -- and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science -- I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.


http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

[shenmue]

1. Is science a religion? In a word...

No.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Simple, isn't it?

It's hard to believe people are still claiming that it is.

[spancks]

3. Nice post.

Hi, BMUS!

I especially like the reference the author makes to doubting Thomas. One of my favorite paintings is Caravaggio's "Doubting Thomas," it's also the only "religious" painting my atheist math PhD friend admires.

I love it every time one of the IDers calls science "an other kind of faith." I want to print up this article and leave copies of it next to the piles of religious trash the Xtian groups leave around my campus.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Thanks!

Fixed it.

I think Mr. Dawkins would approve of your idea.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. I have faith in science and pray for its well-being every day.

Ok, now seriously.


When the Vatican, twice in one month, makes a broad statement supporting evolution, that tells you just how serious the problem is. (of course the interjection by the Rat between the two statements did not help, but the Rat is what he is. A rat by any other name still bites as hard and craps where he lives)

I do fear for our country's scientific base of knowledge and the inroads made by faith-based initiatives which destroy our future.

[PsychoDad]

6. Like anything one is willing to put blind faith in

It can become one.

Pure science may not be religion, but what is science to the person who cannot understand it, but is willing to accept what it's "priesthood", the scientists, dictate to be the truth without question? Doesn't that fall into dogma?

And what of the scientist who will not abondon his or her favorite theory, even when presented with strong evidence to the contrary? Again is that not dogmatic?

Like anything in this life we wish to place great value into, it too can become an idol.

Peace

[CarbonDate]

9. Then it's not science.

An institution that thrives on constant testing and analysis is not a religion. Simple. What you describe is the death of science. What you describe is pseudo-science. E.g., creationism, the "aliens built the pyramids" crowd; all pseudo-science.

We understand the scientific method, correct? If someone strays from the scientific method and falls into dogma, then it is no longer science. Why? Because science is not a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

12. I disagree.

Accepting scientific explanations without understanding them is not "dogma", nor is it "blind faith".

And a scientist's refusal to abandon a theory is not dogmatic, at least, not in the religious sense.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. Gee, Thomas is my middle name

No wonder I became a scientist. :-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. It is not by definition a religion

but I know many scientists who behave as if it is. It frames their world view. And that's fine with me.

[CarbonDate]

10. "It is not by definition a religion..."

"...but I'm going to call it one, anyway."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Did I say that?

gosh, this dementia is getting on my nerves.

But no... I will gently explain...

I did not call it a religion, I said I had friends who acted as if it were.

I don't see where the one statement leads to the words you ever so cleverly inserted into my virtual mouth.

[NMMNG]

13. No

Enuff said.

[Midwest_Doc]

14. No ...

...Science is the opposite of religion

[BurtWorm]

15. Praise Einstein, sister, no!

Can I can get a "Eureka" somebody?

[Goblinmonger]

16. Eureka!

Testify!

[kwassa]

17. The problem is Dawkin's definition of faith

quoting Dawkins:

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence,"

Um, no, faith has many other definitions, and there lies the problem. As with many words in these discussions, I find that atheists may use the word faith differently than many others, which creates misunderstandings, of course, and the usual heated round of discussions where people use common words in completely different ways.

To recapitulate, please note that Dawkin's definition fits under #2:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.


In how I define faith, which also fits here, one can have faith in the scientific method. It is simply a different type of faith.

[BurtWorm]

18. You didn't tell us which definition of faith you're talking about.

Which is it?

[kwassa]

19. the first definition

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Faith in the scientific method would fit under this.

[BurtWorm]

20. So you're not arguing that it's a religion.

:thumbsup:

[kwassa]

21. Nope.

I think there are some that treat it that way, but no, I do not.

[BurtWorm]

22. Great!

But as to your objection with Dawkin's definition of faith, isn't that a fair distinction to make between a scientific approach to truth and a religious one? Scientific searches for truth are necessarily based on evidence. Religious search for truth is quite different. Don't you think it's reasonable to say that religious faith is based on the kind of leap Dawkins is talking about?

[kwassa]

23. There are different kinds of "evidence"; this word is just as tricky.

There is a scientific meaning to the word, there is a legal meaning to the word, and a theological meaning, as well as probably others.

I have a similar reaction to it as I do to how "faith" is used.

Here is a general definition of evidence

ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
1) A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2) Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3) Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

this URL goes on to list some 40 types of evidence, most legal forms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

[BurtWorm]

24. What evidence would religious faith be based on?

Out of curiosity.

[kwassa]

25. A personal life experience for most people

Some event or feeling that would be significant to a person as having very deep meaning. A spiritual experience is often a sensation that is difficult to explain because it different than any other. It is sometimes expressed as "the peace that passeth human understanding". It can be quite powerful.

It it replicable? not in the scientific sense. Have many experienced it? yes. Can it be completely undertood? no.

all of this represents my opinion of it.

[BurtWorm]

26. By what criteria can that event be called "evidence?"

That would be stretching the word to the breaking point, wouldn't it?

[kwassa]

27. It is incontrovertible evidence to the person having the experience

There is no requirement that it be evidence to anyone else.

[trotsky]

28. Hmmm

There is no requirement that it be evidence to anyone else.

There is, in science.

[BurtWorm]

29. I had one of those experiences--actually more than one, many years ago.

I called them mystical experiences at the time. In retrospect I began to think of them as quasi-manic episodes. The more I thought about them, the more I realized that they could easily have been explained by chemistry. I was not taking drugs at the time of these particular episodes, but seratonin or other neurotransmitters may have been causing the sensations that I took to be "oceanic" and "mystic."

I don't think it's legitimate to call those events "evidence," unless everything is evidence and evidence is everything. Are they, like smoke to fire, an indication of some cause? How can I know if I don't compare them with similar experiences others have? And even then, how can I know if their experiences refer to something outside their own bodies (let alone outside of this world)? How can they possibly work as "evidence" for anything if their meaning is so hopelessly ambiguous?

(Oddly enough, these experiences work better as evidence for pathologies. From a scientific point of view, anyway.)

[kwassa]

30. I have them now, and they are not hard to invoke.

Burtworm:
"I called them mystical experiences at the time. In retrospect I began to think of them as quasi-manic episodes. The more I thought about them, the more I realized that they could easily have been explained by chemistry. I was not taking drugs at the time of these particular episodes, but seratonin or other neurotransmitters may have been causing the sensations that I took to be "oceanic" and "mystic." "

On some level, can't everything be explained by chemistry? But, what does that tell you? Your brain or your psyche or your consiousness is giving you some type of informational experience. You can regard it as interesting and worth examining and experiencing, or you can disregard it as nothing more than chemistry. To do this is to make the judgment that these are experiences of little value before you look for the explanation of them, it seems to me. I regard them as having great value, and have felt my life enriched by them.

There is no definitive answer as to what it is, right now. That it might have some other scientific explanation in the future does not help any of us explain it in the here and now. I regard it as the religious impulse, which has been present in virtually all humans and culture in history. It seems to be a universal human quality.

What I have felt as mystic experiences have never been manic at all, by the way, more a sensation of deep serenity and connectedness to life and the universe. It is deeply peaceful.

[BurtWorm]

31. I guess my point is that something that requires so much interpretation

is not very good evidence, if it's evidence at all. Usually evidence leads to a limited set of conclusions--and more limited with each addition of evidence. Mystic experiences do not fit those criteria--unless you stretch the meaning of the word to the point of meaninglessness.

[kwassa]

32. Meaningless to whom?

What has meaning to one person may have little to another. I think that the value that evidence has to you is that it is replicable with a guaranteed result, if I interpret what you are saying correctly. That is essentially a scientific form of evidence.

Evidence of a spiritual nature is important to me and many others. I place value on it. To you, I think, it is not evidence at all, as it doesn't fit into what you see as important in evidence. This is a value judgment of yours, neither right or wrong, simply different than my values. This also does not mean that I disregard the importance of scientific or other forms of evidence.

We haven't even touched on the legal definitions of evidence, which are a whole world of thinking unto themselves.

[immoderate]

33. Most arguments are over the meaning of words.

I think that's where this has descended too. What one might call evidence of some mystical manifestation another might see as evidence of pathology. This is not what evidence is in science. It must be unambiguous.

The dictionary cannot be decisive here.

--IMM

[kwassa]

35. I think the argument ascended, not descended. It clarified the premise.

You are correct that the argument is over the meaning of words, but this clarification of word meaning is important if the two arguees are to be talking about the same thing. Otherwise, they will just be arguing past each other.

You seem to coming down on the side that only scientific evidence is evidence, but both the word "evidence" and "faith" are used differently in different settings. Not to mention "atheist".

[immoderate]

36. Why confuse the issue?

I should think that when discussing science, you would use scientific evidence. When discussing religion, you would talk about religious faith.

What's wrong with that?

--IMM

[kwassa]

37. Nothing, but in this forum we really talk about both because

many of the participants use the scientific definitions of these terms.

[immoderate]

38. But that makes some sense.

At least we should be on the same page. But you do have me thinking.

Personal evidence only applies to the person who experiences it. If I know something because a voice told me it's so, it's hard to transfer that to another person. But a reading on a calibrated meter should be apparent to everyone.

Faith, I would read from context. I guess.

Anyway, in debating situations, I usually try to get terms defined before I get into it.

--IMM

[johnaries]

34. Nice post. I had a College Physics Prof who was also a Minister.

He said that many people asked him if his career as a science teacher contradicted his career as a minister. I loved his answer!

He said Science and Religion could not be compared, because they sought to answer 2 entirely different questions:

Science sought to answer HOW?

Religion sought to answer WHY?

I wish we had more Science teachers and more ministers like him!