Isn't science merely another religious doctrine?

Question

Originally science developed as a means of understanding the workings of our observations and surroundings. It attempted to assign logical sequences to observational processes, to test them and to reject, or to build on the conclusions reached through testing. It was an attempt by individuals to find the truth.

Scientists weren't running through the streets yelling, "Eureka". They weren't knocking on doors trying to impose their beliefs on others. They were sincerely trying to discover something they could call truth.

When did science become corrupted, evangelical?

Was it when a dollar-value came into the picture? When textbook sales, publication and tenure cast a shadow? When the need for grants added agenda in the science departments?

Were the scientists who built the atom bomb trying to discover truth?

Were those who developed DDT or cloned-sheep seekers of truth?

Or were they just following the scientific religion to go where the grant money leads?

Answer 1

I don't think so. Science deals more with this reality than religions do, even if the manner in which it's presented is sometimes as self-serving as a religion is. The fundamentals of scientific belief have to change over time as new discoveries are made. They may or may not be trying to seek the truth. Naturally, money is a big part of how much progress is made.

Religions, even though they are sometimes money-making businesses, still ostensibly try to make connections between the body and the soul, and some of them do try to serve the poor and help the community. They definitely aren't trying to seek the truth, as they all claim to have already found it. Doctrine is already set in stone when someone joins up. If someone discovers that a religious teaching isn't true, that doesn't change the religion, it just excludes the person from that belief. In science, as the new discoveries become more obviously true over time, the beliefs of the public change gradually as they're accepted as fact.

Answer 2

You know I don't know much about these things...but I have an idea. Maybe there are 2 different groups in Science...the ones who are truly scientists trying to find the truth...and the ones who are like you said. I'm sure the same goes for the paranormal people. This second type of group discredits the real scientists and the real believers in the paranormal..who are just trying to get to the truth. (I wanted the "truth" about something too years ago.You can't imagine what it cost me!)

  I've said the same thing about the psychiatric "community". ..that it's a "religion". That's what drew me to your question. Talk about $$$....Think what some of them do to their victims for $$$...especially insurance $$$. I'm sure there are some good ones....somewhere. I go to the M. H. Section and see how many kids are being victimized and it makes me sick!  ..Even the kids in primary school .! What's the next generation going to be like after part of them are "doing drugs" and part of them are "being drugged"? And, they 've gotten into the "mental" thing like it's a "religion"..diagnosing themselves...cutting etc (which they never would have done if it hadn't been "advertised" so much)  Seems to be the "in" thing to be "emo" these days! Just go over there sometime and you'll see what's happening to some of our youth!

Answer 3

No. Science is both a body of knowledge and a method for examination (attempting to find out).

However, people with their belief systems have corrupted it into doctrine. One of the basic premises of science is that all findings are tentative (waiting for more evidence to overturn the conclusion) and the knowledge is incomplete.

Unfortunately, what Martin Truzzi (a co-chair of CSICOP that resigned when disgusted by the anti-scientific attitude of the other leadership) calls psuedoskeptics have done a great job of media/publicity blitzes making people think that science is a complete (and material/reductionist) infallible body of knowledge that is hostile to the examination of the paranormal.

Yes, science is practiced and preached as a religious doctrine by these people but not by all scientist and they (psuedoskeptics) hold the responsibility from driving the public away from science not science itself.

Of course funding has played a part in the corruption of science this is simply an economic and political reality. Science is not objective as so many people would like to believe because it is practiced by human beings.

Psi

Answer 4

No.  Science is what science is, and you wanting to make it into something it's not will not change the fact.

And for the rant, it is out of place.  You want to accept science when it benefits you (medicine, food, IT, your car etc.)  but want to reject that which does not suit your morals? That's a New Agers mentality and cannot be applied to science.

As for Archimedes, he actually wasn't looking for any truth.  He wanted the favour of his king.  How noble is that?

Answer 5

Wasn't science born out of some form of alchemy? I think religion was stronger than science at one time - religion being the real profit maker back in the day. I could see the danger of science cutting into the profits of religion back then, but when religion finally realized it could double it's profits just by backing science - it became the biggest supporter. Still to this day religion has it's arguments with science - so I don't know how science could be considered a doctrine.

There are a few scientist who are not controlled by profit, religion and government, but oftentimes scientist must complete their "real" work in secret while doing the dirty deed for the entities that support their work.

Answer 6

Being a Carl Sagan fan I found a good quote.

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?"

Carl Sagan

US astronomer & popularizer of astronomy (1934 - 1996)

Edit: Sagan was not only very pro-science but also promoted critical thinking. Something everyone should learn. My favorite book The Demon-Haunted World is one of the best written on the subject.