Replacing Religion

In the not-really-all-that-distant past, certain members of the group that were known as the logical positivists vocalized the notion that we could do away with religion and replace it with science and/or logic.  There have been a not insignificant number of others within the Western intellectual tradition who hold views opposed to faith-based perspectives and have suggested much the same thing, either explicitly or by implication.  After all, if they hold the belief that Zeus was simply an early pre-scientific attempt to explain natural phenomena that are more correctly explained by scientific theories, it would seem to follow that such theistic explanations have been made obsolete by scientific investigations in the areas of physics and meteorology.  And if the Big Bang theory and evolutionary biology provide us with correct explanations for our origins, it would seem to follow that a demiurge who created the universe (whether from the primal chaos or ex nihilo) would be an unnecessary component of our belief systems, to be quickly removed with a bit of shaving cream and the ever-sharp Razor left to us by Ockham.  We might as well just stick with science because we don’t need all that ritual mixed in with our methodology.

So we observe that religion (whether in the form of Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, or Christianity) provides us with an explanation of our origins and our basic nature, that it provides us with a community of people who hold similar beliefs, that it provides us with a methodology for improving ourselves and our quality of life.  We observe that religion generally makes a distinction between a person living the dedicated religious life (as well as special communities and institutions for them) and those who are “laypeople” and are understood as such even though their knowledge and/or strength of character might be equal to those in the dedicated religious role.  We observe that religions often have competing views within that religion’s adherents as to how the religion should be understood and practiced.  We observe that religions often hold sway in the educational systems of the societies in which they are practiced.  We observe that there are often disputes among the members of the religion as to which members are the true practicioners of the religion based on specific beliefs they do or do not hold or practices they do or do not partake in.  We observe that religion provides us with a means of coping with the world around us by giving us a means of making decisions based on its stated creeds.  We observe that religion has basic unproven assumptions on which are based all its other propositions.

We then note that science can fulfill all these functions of religion.  We have physics and biology to provide us with an explanation of our origins and nature.  We have a distinction between scientists and laypeople that is often adhered to despite many “laypeople” being quite well-educated and capable of investigating issues competently.  We have various scientific organizations to provide scientists with special communities and institutions for them.  We have plenty of clubs and organizations aimed at increasing interest in science. Science has a highly privileged place in our educational system, along with its supporting subjects such as mathematics and logic.  Science has competing views within its adherents as to how it should be understood (scientific realism, instrumentalism) and as to how it should be practiced (positivist, Popperian, Bayesian).  We observe that there are disputes as to who the true scientists are (psychologists? historians? librarians? astrologists?  what are their methods?) and how we determine whether or not to include them in the social privilege that comes with being given the official stamp of science.  We observe that many rely upon the latest scientific study to cope with life (what does scientific research say about transfats or carbon emissions or bacterial infections?) because science gives them a means of decision-making based on its findings.  We observe that science has basic unproven assumptions (e.g. induction) upon which all other propositions rest.

In fact, science seems perfectly equipped to provide all the common functions of religion.  Of course, it leads us to wonder…if a thing has all the mechanisms and functions of a clock, ain’t it a fair bet that it’s essentially a clock regardless of our calling it a timepiece?  Interestingly, most religions don’t initially have an awareness of themselves as religions.  For example, Buddhism was known simply as Dharma (truth).  Islam sees itself as an expression of a true faith that has existed from the beginning, not merely as a religion like all the others. 

I have to consider that if we can use a thing to functionally relace another thing in all important respects, it belongs to the same class of things, and in that light I must admit that science appears to be a religion.  It’s an admission I make reluctantly, because if I am to be consistent in my views (which include not privileging any religion in our educational system) I must face the fact that I need to reduce my level of support for science in education to the same level of support that I have for religious education. 

A larger problem is that using science as a replacement for religion would seem to be self-defeating.  What’s the point of replacing religion with something that does all the same key things as a religion if we have a problem with religion?  It’s not as if we would go buy a shiny new watch because of our general rejection of watch-like objects.  Personally, I don’t have any particular objections to religion, so this last problem is not all that problematic for me.  But for those who reject religion in favor of science, it might be a troubling hypothesis.

This entry was posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Replacing Religion

  1. sumeoj says:

    well, there is one thing that i’ve noticed about logic and methodology- it’s awesome when everything’s going well but once a perosn is thrown into a stiuation with no hope, there’s really not much that science can offer imo. religion gives hope in times of dire need and when things are completely out of your control

  2. religion’s fine, as long as it’s confined to individuals or peoples. go ahead, spend your sundays going to church and singing for jesus, it’s cool. however, when you start enacting legislation opposing gay marriage or a women’s right to an abortion based on what a really old book or a really old guy told you to believe, that’s when i have a problem. at the least, in science, theories and research have to stand up to intense scrutiny from the scientific community. with religion, every sect starts off with similar ground and only emerges as a result of popularity.and the hope argument always makes me chuckle. religion’s great, because it pleases the people and makes them feel good. sounds more like religion is a tool of the state to satisfy the people and prevent unrest. i just started civ4 and one of the only reasons to found a religion is to make your people happy. hahaha. XD as an atheist, i guess that means that i wallow in eternal despair whenever i HOPE that a girl says yes when i ask her out, that i HOPE i passed that test that would bump me to an A, that i HOPE i don’t get shot walking through a neighborhood just because i don’t have a god to pray to.

  3. Nous_Apeiron says:

    @Chinese_Sait0u – I’m glad you mentioned that scientific research faces intense scrutiny whenever it develops a body of propositions like a theory.  It’s true that scientific theories are evaluated in light of the methodology used and in light of their consistency with other findings.  These are certainly valuable approaches.  But they are not unique to science.  Religions can also have these patterns of scrutiny.  For example, when a Catholic theologian develops a theological proposition or a body of them, it is given scrutiny by other theologians wherein they check his or her work for good methodology (i.e. hermeneutics,logic) and consistency with the findings of other theologians.Also, sociological research into how science is actually performed found that science is subject to some very normal human failings.  People tend to agree with the lead researcher who has the most authority even when the evidence could be interpreted otherwise, the research is often driven by what will get continued funding and/or make a profit if testing goes well, and some people go into science because it’s prestigious and generally makes for a good salary rather than out of a genuine passion for honest inquiry.Science is an incredibly useful program, and perhaps a case could be made that it is a better religion than others despite its limitations.  I would be interested to see someone make that case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.