Is Science a Religion?

[lunamoth]

Juan and I and a few others have discussed this point before but I think it has always been buried in other threads. The question is Is Science a Religion? I think we need to look at a few different questions as we examine this.

1. What defines a religion the way we are using it here?

2. How does science fit these criteria?

3. Do you think that many people view science as a religion competing with other religions?

Of course all other comment is welcome, whether or not you wish to address these questions.

For a great starting point I recommend Okie In Exile's excellent essay on this subject, found here:
Science, the Religion

lunamoth

[AletheiaRivers]

Huston Smith describes science that has become a religion - 'scientism'. It's the attitude that science can and does provide every answer we need. Not all scientists are scientismists. lol. Doesnt' flow very well does it?

[Postmaster]

Galileo said that Christianity explained how to get to heaven but science explained how the heavens were made.

[Tao_Equus]

Nice one Luna, this is right up my street

I read Okies post that you provided a link to and first thoughts were that it was a thinly disguised piece of pro-life propoganda. I do not say so in any perjorative sense only as a matter of opinion on a essay that was well written and enjoyable to read. But it has an agenda, and it could not disguise its contempt for embryonic research.

I think a fair starting point of definition of a religeon for our purposes would be to say that religion is a system of belief founded on faith. Science then is not a religion. Science, as defined in chambers dictionary, is: n. knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systemized and brought under genral principles. Of course the biggest difference between religion and science is the 'critically tested' bit.

Undoubtably there are many out there with a fervance and a faith in science that is quasi-religeous, as Okies essay alluded to. But that does not make science a religeon any more than a schizophrenic believing himself to be hearing God is up there on the devine hotline normaly reserved for the Pope. (that analogy was not made carelessly).

From what I have seen it tends to be the religeous that make such claims. They tend to use narrow arguments to support thier views and invariably have an agenda of thier own which they are desperate to push. Dawkins I do not believe to have a religeous flavour to his opinions but a commercial one. He's in the business of selling books and getting paid to speak.

It will be interesting to see where this one takes us.

Regards

TE

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Juan and I and a few others have discussed this point before but I think it has always been buried in other threads. The question is Is Science a Religion? I think we need to look at a few different questions as we examine this.

1. What defines a religion the way we are using it here?

2. How does science fit these criteria?

3. Do you think that many people view science as a religion competing with other religions?

Of course all other comment is welcome, whether or not you wish to address these questions.

For a great starting point I recommend Okie In Exile's excellent essay on this subject, found here:
Science, the Religion

lunamoth

1. Human designed criteria pertaining to rituals and expressions pertaining to a specific belief or set of beliefs.

2. Same as answer 1.

3. Many/majority? No. A significant number? Yes.

For those that discard any other religious concept and embrace Science as the ultimate answer and proof, then to them Science is a religion or a form of worship.

Is that wrong? I don't think so. But I do think that such are missing a significant part of the big picture; especially when they dismiss that which can not be explained by science, as inconsequential and/or irrelevant.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Hi Q,
I apprciate your brevity but could you clarify your answer; I'm not certain I understand what you are saying.

You think that science does qualify as a religion because it is human designed, has ritual, and expresses a set of beliefs?

luna

Originally Posted by Quahom1

1. Human designed criteria pertaining to rituals and expressions pertaining to a specific belief or set of beliefs.

2. Same as answer 1.

3. Many/majority? No. A significant number? Yes.

For those that discard any other religious concept and embrace Science as the ultimate answer and proof, then to them Science is a religion or a form of worship.

Is that wrong? I don't think so. But I do think that such are missing a significant part of the big picture; especially when they dismiss that which can not be explained by science, as inconsequential and/or irrelevant.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

Huston Smith describes science that has become a religion - 'scientism'. It's the attitude that science can and does provide every answer we need. Not all scientists are scientismists. lol. Doesnt' flow very well does it?

Interesting. I have not read much of Huston Smith but the little sound bites I've heard I generally like and find myself agreeing.

Would you see 'scientism' as a belief system that competes with other religions? Do you see this as something being promoted by certain groups or individuals, or is it just a phenomenon that characterizes our modern outlook on things?

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I read Okies post that you provided a link to and first thoughts were that it was a thinly disguised piece of pro-life propoganda. I do not say so in any perjorative sense only as a matter of opinion on a essay that was well written and enjoyable to read. But it has an agenda, and it could not disguise its contempt for embryonic research.

Well, I did not get that out of his essay at all.

I think a fair starting point of definition of a religeon for our purposes would be to say that religion is a system of belief founded on faith. Science then is not a religion. Science, as defined in chambers dictionary, is: n. knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systemized and brought under genral principles. Of course the biggest difference between religion and science is the 'critically tested' bit.

Well, I certainly agree with you there.

Undoubtably there are many out there with a fervance and a faith in science that is quasi-religeous, as Okies essay alluded to. But that does not make science a religeon any more than a schizophrenic believing himself to be hearing God is up there on the devine hotline normaly reserved for the Pope. (that analogy was not made carelessly).

The thing is that I am a pretty average person who has met a fairly representative cross-section of people in my life. I've worked in industry, academia, non-profit, and all in research positions. Neither in my personal life nor in my career life have I met anyone who talked about science as being a religion, being God-like, or doing any of the things religion is generally thought to do.

I think the closest thing in Okie's essay that would relate in science/medicine to religion is the huge emphasis on life-saving and life-extending technologies. Now, I certainly don't argue with these technologies at all, but our 'hope' in these technologies does suggest that we look to them to 'save' us from what would be our natural fate. And in the end they can't make us life forever. BUT, I don't think that this mind-set is coming from science as much as it is coming from MARKETING. The Pharmaceutical companies.

OK, when scientists are writing grants they need to sell their ideas just as much as any sales rep out there (sales is my husbands field). Sometimes it is spun as if they can save the world, but the scientists peer-reviewing these grants and deciding which merit funding know exactly what is going on. The grant puts the best foot forward, and unlike in the open consumer market there actually are people who know which promises are pie-in-the-sky. But this is all kind of an aside.

My point is, it is not scientists who are trying to create an image of science as the answer to everyone's prayers, but the universities and corporations who need to 'spin' the science and make it sexy enough to sell/get funding.

Nevertheless, Okie for certain did not try to imply that it was scientists who are trying to create this image. I'm jsut typing out my thoughts on this for any onlookers who may be of that opinion.

From what I have seen it tends to be the religeous that make such claims. They tend to use narrow arguments to support thier views and invariably have an agenda of thier own which they are desperate to push.

And this very much gets to the heart of my issue about this. I think that it is the new conservative religionists who most want to paint science as a religion. And this confusion then legitimizes the 'debate' (argh!) about teaching evolution and introducing ID into the the schools.

Painting science as a religion seems to pit science against religion, when this is an unfounded dichotomy. Let's go visit Postmaster's thread and talk about science and religion in harmony.

Dawkins I do not believe to have a religeous flavour to his opinions but a commercial one. He's in the business of selling books and getting paid to speak.

You know, I have not read much Dawkins. I've kind of avoided him as a propagandaist. But he sure is not doing us any favors in the promotion of mutal understanding and respect between the religious and those of us who would like to keep our science curriculum in the 21st century.

Thank you for the input!

luna

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Q,
I apprciate your brevity but could you clarify your answer; I'm not certain I understand what you are saying.

You think that science does qualify as a religion because it is human designed, has ritual, and expresses a set of beliefs?

luna

Evening Luna,

I think it can be (if one is devoid of all other concepts of religious belief, but for science). For example, it is said that Carl Sagan was an aethiest. I disagree. Science was his religion. He lived for science and found religion (or faith in the unknown god), to be a burden and a waste of man's time. For Professor Hawkins, or Albert Einstein, that is not quite the case, since they both believe(d) there is something other than science that runs the universe. Science to them is merely a tool.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear, not my intention.

v/r

Q

note: Carl Sagan believed we have all the answers within us (hence we are god). Albert Einstein pretty much said we don't know half the questions to ask, let alone knowing any answers...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Luna, you rascal you!

You would bait me like this right now...that's OK, I love you anyway!

Painting science as a religion seems to pit science against religion, when this is an unfounded dichotomy. Let's go visit Postmaster's thread and talk about science and religion in harmony.

Interesting, I see this exactly opposite. The title of the thread is Science v. Religion, in other words: in opposition to or in competition with. Whereas, my endeavor to show science is another "meme," in pretty much the same sense Dawkins uses his term, is to bring the two to an equal footing with the express purpose of alleviating the poiwer struggle between the two disciplines. Mine is an attempt to make both sides "play nice."

Consider, since I am pressed for time:
Stephen J. Gould
Stephen J. Gould

Spooky Action at a Distance
Spooky action at a distance thread

morality within evolution
Morality in Evolution

Perhaps I would do well to explain somewhat. I recently completed Stephen J. Gould's book "Rocks of Ages" in which he describes what he calls "Non Overlapping Magisteria." This he describes as the respectful separation of science and religion, implying that the two attempt to answer completely different aspects of a given puzzle. In effect, science cannot address matters of faith, and religion cannot address matters of fact.

Now, I like Gould. A lot. And I am in agreement with his assessment that there are two overlapping magisteria, the one cannot realistically hope to address the issues the other is designed to focus on. The problem is, people being people, the two disciplines infringe on each other's territory very often and at inconvenient times. Further, science in its pure form, does not pause to consider the consequences of its actions. This is where ethics and morality enter the equation.

Those of a strictly scientific bent, that is, science at the expense of religion (which thankfully I do not see you as being), resort to some rather thinly veiled sarcasm to mask their distain:

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta...cle_dragon.htm

[juantoo3]

When not comparing religion to invisible fire-breathing dragons, they compare with invisible pink unicorns. But they are to be taken seriously???

The Invisible Pink Unicorn post #9
Invisible Pink Unicorn

And many are the Saganites
Who bow their bright mindsouls in full submission
To priests of science and Saint Carl
Those holy priests who have a bit, and only that, of every Discipline
While labouring as the simpleminded monk in robes of white
In hallowed and ascetic rooms
Slow-inking sacred scripts in obscure languages
Or chanting prayerful notes aloud
With painstaking effort of his clear and holy mind.
And follows his Orthodoxy step by slow and studied step
And flogs himself religiously should one small sin of error or omission
Desecrate the work of any day.
And many of the faithful stand in awe
And sing aloud of Revelations of the
Sacred and Eternal Truths
of Space and Time and Cosmos
With scarce comprehension
Singing the Latin of the Priests
Rather than their own and native tongue.
Their prophets are renowned for clear and startling utterance
In writings that they must put forth or die
And well they know that they are watched for any errant word
required by holy seat to keep the right to seek the Truth
in hallowed and Saintly halls of knowledge.
For any word that might be doom for any false-prophet in an ancient day.
And all these great and holy men alone among themselves
can say to one another that theories are theories and postulates are postulates and not the word of the Omnipotent Cosmos
And chuckle with their brothers over poor misguided fools
Not erudite enough to comprehend but left to
Blindest faith.

Karen Roscoe, known here as phi

I miss phi.

Anyway, the crux of my view lies in this post about Dawkins' memes:
Religion as a Meme post #7
Religion as a Meme

Kindest Regards!

Wow, what an intriguing concept! This one actually is forcing me to consider "outside of the box". If you don't mind, I would like to try applying the concept to another pseudo- or quasi-religious belief system, as an exercise.

Allowing then for these as guidelines, is science a religion?

Quote:
To establish itself in the mind of its host it will use some or all of the following mechanisms:

[1] Promise heaven for belief.

While not promising "heaven" for belief, there are certain rewards for "toeing the party line." Belief brings prestige and scholarly and professional advancement. Belief is not guaranteed reward, but the reward is held out to the faithful as a tentative promise.

[2] Threaten eternal punishment in hell for disbelief.

Scholarly advancement is almost sure to be withheld for any act of "disbelief", inviting ridicule, being ostracized, and dismissal (scholarly and professionally). Without belief, reward is withheld.

[3] Boost the believers' egos by telling them they are 'chosen' or superior to believers in false memes.

Science promotes the attitude that others are not as "enlightened." Religion proper is generally dismissed, as are many conflicting disciplines. The arrogance of certain scholars is legendary.

[4] Disable the faculties of disbelief ('immune response') by claiming that faith is superior to reason.

If that faith is in reason, faith proper then is disavowed, even in the light of specific evidence.

[5] Establish itself as the One True Meme, usually by some sort of holy book containing a circular self-referential argument such as:

X is the one true meme. We know X is the one true meme because The Source of Universal Truth has approved X. We know The Source of Universal Truth has approved X, because X contains statements which say so. We know what X says is true because X is the one true meme.

This is sticky because science contains so many "holy books." Yet the myth perpetuated is that "We are right. Even when we may be wrong, we are still right." This statement is brief and blunt, but is essentially correct in attitude. In effect: (insert scientific text of choice here) is the one scientific truth. We know (text) is the one truth because science has approved (text). We know that science has approved (text), because (text) contains statements which say so. We know that what (text) says is true because (text) is the one truth.

Quote:
Once it has parasitised the mind of its host, a meme needs to propagate itself. A successful meme will contain instructions for some or all of the following:

[6] Holy war - convert or kill all unbelievers.

On the one hand, that "war" tends to be waged with logic and words. On the other hand, science is the source of the very real weapons that are used to wage very real war.

[7] Intimidation and terrorism - threaten and discriminate against unbelievers.

The war of words waged by the more arrogant believers tends to gravitate towards intimidation, and in extreme circumstances towards verbal terrorism.

[8] Enforced social isolation or even death to apostates. (An apostate is a host which has cured itself of a meme-infection. It is especially dangerous to the meme because it might pass on meme-resistance to others).

Scientists who find "God" are too often faced with professional and scholarly isolation.

[9] Fecundism - encourage true believers to breed faster than believers in false memes.

I do not think this applies directly. However, expansion of the population of believers (by conversion) at the age of young adulthood seems a distinct method and motivation.

[10] Censorship - prevent rival memes from reaching potential hosts (a theological doctrine known as 'Error has no rights').

Censorship of religious studies in the education system while striving for an educational monopoly would seem to me an example.

[11] Disinformation - spread lies about rival memes. Demonise them - the bigger the lies the more likely they are to be believed. The disinformation may even include instructions for a meme to lie about itself!

I don't know that science lies about itself. It is not unusual for science to have misguided ideas about religion proper, the better to dismiss and ridicule religion.

Wow! That was fun! I must insist, this was not an attempt to dismiss the discipline of science. Science is worthy and productive, and contributes greatly to humanity. So does religion.

In my final analysis, I come away thinking that if science has provided this vehicle to dismiss religion, it is rather like "the pot calling the kettle black." That is, science is every bit as guilty as those it points a finger at.

In fairness, fundamental self-righteous religions are a source of great discord, and an impediment to discovery. Much of the strife between science and religion (specifically Christianity) is waged by blind, deaf, ignorant arrogance, on both sides. My hope is that one day both will see the virtue in each other.

I wonder if this could be applied to other pseudo-religions; perhaps philosophy, atheism, humanism?

"Can't we all just get along" is trite, yet there is a grain of hope contained within.

[juantoo3]

My point is that both science and religion are philosophies. Different methodologies, but philosophies just the same. For one to point a finger at the other, doesn't matter which, is senseless and pointless. Both are methods of exploring and explaining the mysteries of our world and existence. The qusetions best suited to each methodology are different, but the bottom line is that both are ways of looking at the world.

Your point about confusion for political reasons is well taken. That is a travesty, and a gross misuse of factual truth. Nevertheless, it in no way does away with the underlying reality that both science and religion are mental exercises, memes, philosophies, mental constructs, intellectual roadmaps, psychological methodologies or whatever that are far more the same than not. The only difference is in methodology, and the questions best suited to them. Religion is best suited for questions of "why," science is best suited to questions of "how."

Lumpers and splitters. I suppose I am a lumper in this regard, as I am in most things. I think when we get into splitting, we can get easily carried away until we end up splitting hairs.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Evening Luna,

I think it can be (if one is devoid of all other concepts of religious belief, but for science). For example, it is said that Carl Sagan was an aethiest. I disagree. Science was his religion. He lived for science and found religion (or faith in the unknown god), to be a burden and a waste of man's time. For Professor Hawkins, or Albert Einstein, that is not quite the case, since they both believe(d) there is something other than science that runs the universe. Science to them is merely a tool.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear, not my intention.

v/r

Q

note: Carl Sagan believed we have all the answers within us (hence we are god). Albert Einstein pretty much said we don't know half the questions to ask, let alone knowing any answers...

Hi Q, Thank you for the explanation. Oh, I didn't think you were trying to be unclear--more like I am being dense!

Well, I think Sagen was an atheist. But there are atheistic religions, some forms of Buddhism being a good example. I don't know what Satanists do but I gather that the left-hand path is essentially an atheistic religion. But when I think of a religion I think of something more than a system to look to for answers and solutions. I think of religion as something to help us live life more abundantly and freely, something to inspire me to rise above my animal nature. Something to transform me and life from ordinary to extraordinary.

Science, even medical science, does not seem to offer much more than increasing 'comfort' and in some cases 'security.' Now, I am very much in favor of comfort and security, for example when it comes to having enough to eat and not being in pain or dying for lack of antibiotics. I have the greatest appreciation for the physical and immediate improved quality of life science and technology afford. But comfort and security are not what I find in religion. I don't know know about you, but being a Christian can make me downright uncomfortable, and while I have hope, I do not equate that with material security.

I did not know that about Einsten and Hawkins. While I've read many of the famous quotes, I was still under the impression that Einstein was speaking metaphorically, although he did seem to at least leave the door open to Something More.

Sagen was perhaps not as rabidily against religion as Dawkins seems to be, but he did seem to believe it a hindrance. I would put people like my father in this class of thinking as well. My Dad is an atheist (although the only reason I know is because I asked him point blank one day if he believed in God), but I would never think of him as a 'scientismist' as Allie calls them. He has a rational appreciation for science and technology, and a scientific (and skeptical) outlook on things. He's not against religion, but he is very much against 'magical' and superstitious thinking, which he views as an obstruction to reason and progress. Now Dawkins just seems to find the whole concept of religion offensive to his intellect.

Thanks for the conversation,
luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Luna, you rascal you!

You would bait me like this right now...that's OK, I love you anyway!

Right back at ya Juan.

Interesting, I see this exactly opposite. The title of the thread is Science v. Religion, in other words: in opposition to or in competition with. Whereas, my endeavor to show science is another "meme," in pretty much the same sense Dawkins uses his term, is to bring the two to an equal footing with the express purpose of alleviating the poiwer struggle between the two disciplines. Mine is an attempt to make both sides "play nice."

Well, that is an interesting perspective and I guess I must have previously missed this part of your mission (to make them play nice). I think postmasters thread title is misleading because his first post indicates that where he is going is to say that science and religion complement each other, with science showing us what and how and religion answering why. But I guess I should let him develop it the way he intends.

Thank you for filling in the links to related threads for those who might wish to what's been said before here about this .

Now, I like Gould. A lot. And I am in agreement with his assessment that there are two overlapping magisteria, the one cannot realistically hope to address the issues the other is designed to focus on. The problem is, people being people, the two disciplines infringe on each other's territory very often and at inconvenient times. Further, science in its pure form, does not pause to consider the consequences of its actions. This is where ethics and morality enter the equation.

I hem and haw over whether I agree with Gould on this. I like Gould a lot too. I like J. Campbell a lot too. But I don't agree with everything they say concerning faith and God of course. I agree with the idea of science addressing what and how, with religion addressing why. And my personal study of science is actually very spiritual to me in that it puts me in awe of God's creation. But I think of all of scientific inquiry, which at its foundation is human creativity and ingenuity, as part of God's gift to us. So it all comes from God, tools for understanding our physical universe, tools for understanding our spiritual nature.

Science in its 'pure' form does not concern itself even with what applications it might be put to, much less whether those applications are ethical and desirable. But science is never done in a vacuum and it is driven by human need and greed. Ethics is the answer, but I do not see ethics and morals as stemming directly out of divine revelation or religion. You can have ethics and morals without religion at all. But, we've discussed this elsewhere, no need to get into it here. But bottom line, yes, I agree that science needs to be tempered with ethics, rather than profits, or ego.

luna

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

My point is that both science and religion are philosophies. Different methodologies, but philosophies just the same. For one to point a finger at the other, doesn't matter which, is senseless and pointless. Both are methods of exploring and explaining the mysteries of our world and existence. The qusetions best suited to each methodology are different, but the bottom line is that both are ways of looking at the world.

This seems a lot more reasonable and productive to me than saying that science is a religion. Thank you for this explanation.

Your point about confusion for political reasons is well taken. That is a travesty, and a gross misuse of factual truth. Nevertheless, it in no way does away with the underlying reality that both science and religion are mental exercises, memes, philosophies, mental constructs, intellectual roadmaps, psychological methodologies or whatever that are far more the same than not. The only difference is in methodology, and the questions best suited to them. Religion is best suited for questions of "why," science is best suited to questions of "how."

OK. I know that we are close to agreement on this, and always have been. But I am on my little campaign to try to find a common ground between those who would like to keep the scientific integrity of our school curriculums and those who feel threatened by this. Unfortunately it is political.

Lumpers and splitters. I suppose I am a lumper in this regard, as I am in most things. I think when we get into splitting, we can get easily carried away until we end up splitting hairs.

I've said before, I also tend to be a lumper.

Thanks Juan,
luna