How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[pnerd]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it? I get so annoyed at that "argument" that I usually get rude and sarcastic. But I wanted to know how I can counter that without being sarcastic. How can I construct a reasoned argument against that? Should I start from how axioms in maths and science are self-evident truths and belief in them is not even remotely close to belief in a religion.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[BenBurch]

Tell them "If it were a religion, scientists would all be trying to bugger young boys like ministers do."

 

[pnerd]

Tell them "If it were a religion, scientists would all be trying to bugger young boys like ministers do."

Although that made me smile, that's not the kind of answer I'm looking for. As I said, I don't want to sound rude or angry or anything like that.
.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Religion is a system based upon unevidenced faith and subjective experience.

Science is a system based upon evidence and objective experience.

Therefore, science is not (a) religion.

People can be religious about science but that doesn't transform science into religion.

 

[Hindmost]

Just a bit to add...

Science will change when the evidence changes. Light was considered a particle, then a wave and now we know it is both. (Thanks Al Einstein)

Religion rarely or doesn't change its dogma. (The Pope did delete limbo recently, but that doesn't 'change the base dogma.)

glenn

 

[Rasmus]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe;

Punch them in the face. Hard. Explain that you reject the scientific evidence for the assumption that this would hurt or injure them rather than see your point of view.

and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it?

Right, so may I don't punch people in the face. But if someone outright rejects rationality, it's usually fairly pointless to continue talking to them...

I get so annoyed at that "argument" that I usually get rude and sarcastic. But I wanted to know how I can counter that without being sarcastic.

Boy, I'm really not the right person to answer this. I would suggest a long list of scientific facts that they belief and rely or benefit from.

Ask them why they are not chained to the ground and why they chose to belive that Gravity isn't going to fail any moment now.

Or take the boring route: Explain what science is and how it works. (I'm sure you will find threads here discussing that very question.) Explain to them that there is no question about believing something after the evidence is in. Relying on Gravity is not wishful thinking!

How can I construct a reasoned argument against that? Should I start from how axioms in maths and science are self-evident truths and belief in them is not even remotely close to belief in a religion.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This is not really my field, so I'm certain others will correct me ...

axioms in math are not self evident, they are defined to be true. They might not be. (And I think there are systems that use other axioms than the ones you and I are probably familiar with.)

Science is actually different from math and it shouldn't make any assumptions like that at all. Things in science are not self-evident. They are tested and proven.

It might be self evident that light moves like a straight particle beam - when experiemnts showed that this could not be so, however, that notion was modified.

I am not sure if it is much help to contrast science and religion - to me, they are two totally different things - not like apples and oranges but like tomatoe soup and a roller skate.

 

[Meed]

Just a bit to add...

Science will change when the evidence changes. Light was considered a particle, then a wave and now we know it is both. (Thanks Al Einstein)

Religion rarely or doesn't change its dogma. (The Pope did delete limbo recently, but that doesn't 'change the base dogma.)

glenn

This may be a good point, but it wont be sufficient if they claim that it's the scientific method that is a religion.

I would just point out all the benefits that have come from science in the fields of medicine and technology. Nothing like that has come from religion. If they still call it a "religion" then they'll have to concede at least that it's an immensely useful one.

 

[pnerd]

axioms in math are not self evident, they are defined to be true. They might not be. (And I think there are systems that use other axioms than the ones you and I are probably familiar with.)

You are right. I was just thinking about one of Peano's axioms ("for every natural number x, x = x") - which is pretty self evident - when I wrote that. What I'm trying to say is that axioms are sometimes self-evident. and their truth is taken for granted. Am I wrong?

Science is actually different from math and it shouldn't make any assumptions like that at all. Things in science are not self-evident. They are tested and proven.

Right again.

This may be a good point, but it wont be sufficient if they claim that it's the scientific method that is a religion.

That's the problem - they often claim that the scientific method itself is a religion.

 

[Fnord]

I ignore them. This is based on my opinion that people who try to discredit something for no particular reason (i.e., Science-Bashers, Anti-Vaxers, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, et cetera...) are merely seeking attention, and are doing so from a greater desire to be believed rather than to actually impart the truth.

Ignoring them denies them the attention they seem to crave so greatly. Eventually, they either go away or find something else to bash on.

 

[Elvis666]

I quote the Bible to them, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”, then explain that science is just the opposite.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Religion dictates what you should believe is true. Science provides reasons why you should believe something is true.

 

[seayakin]

I got in a discussion on facebook once with someone and he turned it a little more. I was trying to present Dawkins argument in the God Delusion about how the simplest explanation is that God does not exist based on current evidence. The discussion eventually broke down to why do you believe in the scientific method and the use of occam's razor. He tried to equate it with belief no different than belief in the divinity of Jesus. So the conversation ended up something like:

Seayakin: Occam's razor indicates that when you have two competing theories that explain a phenonom then the simpler one is the best to use (these are my words and I realize it may not be the best explanation of occam's razor)

Preacher: Why do you believe in occam's razor and scientific method

We then proceeded to go around in a circle where every response I had he said why do you believe that.

 

[Dancing David]

When they want to study religion withe the scientific method then it is teh science of religion.

But ask them "What does science take on faith?"

When they give you an answer then explain that theories are approximate models and that if they fit the data they are good models, other wise theya re tossed.

No faith, it is all about predicition and testing.

When they then explain where the faith lies point them to the data.

Now this is often unproductive.

 

[Dancing David]

I got in a discussion on facebook once with someone and he turned it a little more. I was trying to present Dawkins argument in the God Delusion about how the simplest explanation is that God does not exist based on current evidence. The discussion eventually broke down to why do you believe in the scientific method and the use of occam's razor. He tried to equate it with belief no different than belief in the divinity of Jesus. So the conversation ended up something like:

Seayakin: Occam's razor indicates that when you have two competing theories that explain a phenonom then the simpler one is the best to use (these are my words and I realize it may not be the best explanation of occam's razor)

Preacher: Why do you believe in occam's razor and scientific method

We then proceeded to go around in a circle where every response I had he said why do you believe that.

Because there isn't a demonstration that the scientific method does not work?

 

[Skeptic]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it?

Tell them to jump out of a high building. It is just a RELIGION that gravity works -- it says it is the THEORY of Universal Gravitation. It's only a theory! As a gravity atheist, they should be able to fly.

 

[ctamblyn]

Because there isn't a demonstration that the scientific method does not work?

Nor is there one that it does. We choose to believe that it works, that nature is consistent, because we don't really have much choice. But I'm not aware of any reason for it to necessarily be true. It's the old problem of induction.

I would never normally describe it in this way, but perhaps belief in the scientific method is indeed a form of faith, albeit the most minimal and successful one.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When they want to study religion withe the scientific method then it is teh science of religion.

But ask them "What does science take on faith?"

You mean besides inflation, dark energy and mythical forms of matter?

 

[Hindmost]

This may be a good point, but it wont be sufficient if they claim that it's the scientific method that is a religion.

I would just point out all the benefits that have come from science in the fields of medicine and technology. Nothing like that has come from religion. If they still call it a "religion" then they'll have to concede at least that it's an immensely useful one.

You are right. I was just thinking about one of Peano's axioms ("for every natural number x, x = x") - which is pretty self evident - when I wrote that. What I'm trying to say is that axioms are sometimes self-evident. and their truth is taken for granted. Am I wrong?



Right again.



That's the problem - they often claim that the scientific method itself is a religion.

I would then counter that the scientific method is a procedure and not bound by any formal or informal restrictions...Most significantly, it must provide evidence that is repeatable.

glenn

 

[Eyeron]

I quote the Bible to them, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”, then explain that science is just the opposite.

Sorry, but I have mixed feelings about that statement.

For example, hope drives people to turn to science in order to make things better for people, such as say finding the cure for cancer, or the hopes of finding the secrets to how life started. These are also things not seen until science develops or discovers it.

So science does indeed seem to have at least one thing in common with religion.

 

[m_huber]

Science does make fundamental assumptions that you must accept to be a scientist. For instance, as a scientist, I think that observations made of the material world reflect something that exists outside of my own mind and apart from any delusional state I may be in. We assume things like uniformitarianism, which states that the same processes going on here and now operated in close to the same way at other places and times, unless there is evidence otherwise, and that these processes will continue to take place in the future.

In that sense, science is a "belief system," but it is one that can easily be defended. Dr. House was once pointed out to a patient seeking faithhealing that "You still look both ways before you cross the street." And basically, that is what science boils down to. Make observations and act on them.