Homework Help

Is Science religious?There have been many examples of the resistance of new ideas in...

user profile pic

truthseekah | Salutatorian

Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:14 PM via web

dislike 0 like
Is Science religious?

There have been many examples of the resistance of new ideas in history.  Each era feels that their understanding of the universe was close to complete and, therefore, new ideas outside the box were resisted and suppressed at all costs.  Many times, the suppression of information was done solely to keep the masses ignorant so they could be controlled.  How are we different now?

There are many studies that contradict the established dogma in various facets of science today.  In archaeology, the discovery of Gobeke Tepi (Turkish site) which predates Stonehenge by 6,500 years flies in the face of our understanding of human civilization origins.  The Electric Universe theorists have accurately predicted the outcome of cosmological events where the Newtonian establishment can't even explain after it happens.  In medicine, we see the suppression of information involving experiments yielding replicable results where cancerous tumors are being shrunk using natural means.  In Physics, the measurement of supposed constants such as the gravitational constant (G) have shown major discrepancies as to when and where a measurement is taken indicating that it is not constant but rather fluctuates at different times of the day and year.

How many of us take it on faith that the E=mc squared or that ancient pyramids were tombs for the pharohs?

 

4 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted February 18, 2013 at 5:19 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

So you are asking if science is faith-based rather than empirical?   First, I would say that some of your examples are not science -- the purpose of the pyramids, the archaeological sites.  As for the rest, scientists are clearly human and will sometimes stick to their positions in the face of evidence against them.  However, science is fundamentally based on empirical evidence, not on faith.  Scientific theories often get overturned by new evidence.  It does not happen immediately, but it happens.  So, science, being a human endeavor, is not perfect, but it's not based on faith, either.  It is based on empirical evidence.

user profile pic

truthseekah | Salutatorian

Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:15 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

So you are asking if science is faith-based rather than empirical?   First, I would say that some of your examples are not science -- the purpose of the pyramids, the archaeological sites.  As for the rest, scientists are clearly human and will sometimes stick to their positions in the face of evidence against them.  However, science is fundamentally based on empirical evidence, not on faith.  Scientific theories often get overturned by new evidence.  It does not happen immediately, but it happens.  So, science, being a human endeavor, is not perfect, but it's not based on faith, either.  It is based on empirical evidence.

In theory, yes, science is based on empirical evidence.  In practice, however, politics have a larger effect than most imagine.  Most scientific discoveries must pass the scrutiny of peer review which are usually a panel of scientists who are recognized for achievement.  Now, let's say a new theory comes along that goes against the panel's collective views.  We have this meme that scientists seek truth at all costs, but in reality egos and the urge to defend the status quo are powerful adversaries.


If one proclaims any empircal evidence to be true or it proves one's theory is correct and it isn't (whether they believe in the data or not) and one tries to get others to believe their views are correct, how is that different from any a preacher/minister/priest/rabi/sheik in a religion?  There are many evidences that justify people's religions in their own eyes.  They view these "evidences" as the truth and scoff at those who ridicule their beliefs or worse.  We make huge assumptions in whatever belief system we follow.  Empirical evidence is akin to gospel.  Each have countless interpretations and both are susceptible to manipulation.  Also, religious belief systems change over time as do scientific views.  That doesn't mean either are progressing toward truth.

For clarity, I didn't say that any theories on the pyramids were wrong.  Rather, that they are not questioned by established archaeology.  I'm not saying they're right either ;)

user profile pic

litteacher8 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted February 19, 2013 at 1:41 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

I do not think you can consider science as a contradiction to religion.  Just because something is accepted as religious fact does not mean that it is.  The Bible is only man's interpretation, through several translations.  Who knows how accurate it is?

user profile pic

truthseekah | Salutatorian

Posted February 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

I do not think you can consider science as a contradiction to religion.  Just because something is accepted as religious fact does not mean that it is.  The Bible is only man's interpretation, through several translations.  Who knows how accurate it is?

Exactly my point. Just as sacred texts are viewed by many as revealing truths or facts, so too is scientism. We are told not to question our faith, but rather to accept the "truths" presented to us by the elite clergy/scientists. We are told that  energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, but how many truly know this? We make huge assumptions that many theories and equations are truths, when they may not be. Logic kicks in and tells us that that couldn't possibly happen because scientists seek only the truth and any corruption or incompetence would be ferreted out. Don't you see the parallels?

 

 

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes