We should start a science religion

[SeanDamnit]

So, reading some posts around here it's clear that there are those whole believe that a skeptic's faith in science is similar to a religious man's faith in God. Some even suggest that skeptics form some kind of cult and rally against anyone who question the "Widely accepted understanding of ___________"...as if there is some sort of secret society of scientists trying to prevent the world from knowing the "truth" they're too afraid to admit. If only the suppressive hand of Big Science wasn't there!

Do I beleive such a evil conspiracy exists?
No.
Do I think one should?
Mos Def.

I figure that if the accusations are going to be flying around, we may as well unify and suppress certain things - and do a better job of it than what we are accused of.

Think about it, if we actually unify and become part of some elaborate conspiracy, we can finally destroy all thoughts and "research" of ID, psychics, plasma cosmology, ghosts, and my personal favorite: growing earth. Plus much much more! The world would be measurably less annoying!

What do you all think? Unify with me! And lets take down the woo woos....somehow....

[Wowbagger]

Not a Science Religion, but a Science Education Initiative. That might work better. The word "religion" has too much stigma, and too much historic implications of fallacy.

[SeanDamnit]

I don't know...Education Initiative doesn't scream suppression and mob-style knee cap bustin as much as I'm envisioning this.

[learner]

Im al for the initiative. doesnt religeon require "faith" of some sort?

[MattusMaximus]

Sorry, between Buddha, Cthulhu, the FSM, and Google, I'm all booked up with gods and religion thank you very much. ;)

[Spud1k]

I've always been against scientific dogma, but if it means annoying a zero pointer... well maybe.

[Zeuzzz]

Curious here; How would you exactly destroy all thoughts and "research" of the subject areas that you dont beleive in?

Would it not be more productive to put forward a scientific reason to disagree with the material you dont like?

I would prefer to stick to the scientific method and the peer review process personally. Let the actual science do the talking, not peoples preconceived opinion of it. Trouble is that in the case of ID, psychics, ghosts, etc, you have to have some hard science to begin with, or its not even worth considering as a science in the first place.

[JFrankA]

Actually, I had toyed with the idea of this. Just to piss of the more annoyingly religious people.

I had the idea that since part of the ideal of religion is supposed to be the search for truth, what could be more truth than science? This would mean that we can call god simply "Truth".

So the more that is studied, the more that is experimented, the closer we get to "Truth" (and therefore god), we get more "holy". Therefore, scientists, teacher, mathematicians, etc. which would be the high priests. Books like science text books would be honored as bibles.

The general dogma wouldn't be that there is a heaven or hell, but to strive to know "Truth" so much, that we do find a way to fly to another world - for real. Save people by discovering a cure for a disease - for real. Or discover something that helps all humans in general - for real. And since "Truth", needs concepts that have been proven, anything like ghosts, psychic ability, etc would be seen as those forces pulling us away from "Truth". They wouldn't be the devil or evil per se, (because they don't exist) but something called a "Misguide". With this, I had the thought that this would bring a philosophy that all people are equal, but may be following a "Misguide". So through a ritual called "Edu" they can be converted to learn "Truth". Of course, there will be a few people who cannot be "saved" and they will never know the beauty and peace of mind that "Truth" brings.

There will be differences in what is "Truth" within that which is not "Misguides". The pursuit of pushing out "Misguides" from "Truth" is ongoing struggle. One we may never achieve, so that if there are two church goers on opposet sides of such a struggle, the solution is not to fight, but to do a ritual called "Reach". Where all parties involved test their own views to try to disprove it. The more it stands up, the closer it is to "Truth".

I actually had more details, including "masses", other rituals, even a symbol and a catchy phrase: "Knowledge, Equal, Truth" (written out as "k, =, T"), but I never went through with it.

......and yeah, I did have a lot of time on my hands.... :)

[Cuddles]

Curious here; How would you exactly destroy all thoughts and "research" of the subject areas that you dont beleive in?

With a pointy stick.

[Zeuzzz]

With a pointy stick.


ohhhh....

I was thinking take out all their research labs and work with a series of airstrikes and nukes, but using a pointy stick will certainly save a bit of money I suppose, and staff costs. Genius.

[Ladewig]

Your idea would be hardily welcomed by the Young Earth Creationists who would insist that the Bible be given equal footing in all science classes. Right now they are trying to get into just the biology classes, but your plan would encourage them to jump into astronomy (age of the Earth), human health (ages of antediluvian humans), and geology (Flood, age of Earth) classes. Therefore, your idea will not achieve its desired goal.

[RenaissanceBiker]

We must only use our powers for good.

[Jimbo07]

We must only use our powers for good.

Meh... what good are powers that I can't use for my own amusement?

[Ocelot]

Im al for the initiative. doesnt religeon require "faith" of some sort?

Yes, I have faith that the universe exists beyond the realm of my own sensation and that it opperates according to fixed rules whihc may be determined by observation.

These are the unfalsifiable axioms of my belief system anfd the abreset minimum to which I have managed to pare down the role of faith in my world view.

BTW http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

[Ocelot]

We must only use our powers for good.

Is there a scientific measure or test for "Good?"

[SeanDamnit]

I think I may have started with one idea in the beginning and ended with something slightly different.

I guess I am going for more of a science conspiracy - a secret order that will control the science world and crush anyone who opposes our will. Many already make accusations that something like this exists when trying to explain why EVERYONE doesn't already know about (insert your favorite woo here). Lord knows HOW exactly this imaginary Super Secret Science Coalition managed to organize and acheive this - but apparently they don't do a good enough job to wipe out all thoughts on (insert your favorite woo here) all together.

I figure that if we actually organize and...conspire I guess...that we can do a much better job than the imaginary organization does.

How would we do this? No idea. For some reason I envision a cartoonish supervillan like organization with a science theme. You know, like test tube bombs, math-shaped weaponry, and as many lasers as we can cram in.

[Wowbagger]

I don't know...Education Initiative doesn't scream suppression and mob-style knee cap bustin as much as I'm envisioning this. Well, China's "Great Leap Forward" did not sound like it would involve all those things, either... ;)

[I Ratant]

Is there a scientific measure or test for "Good?"
.
Dilated pupils, a total flushed appearance to the skin, general muscle relaxation, a good feeling of lassitude, and a wet spot.

[Eos of the Eons]

FSM is about as science-related as I would want a religion to be. Satire is awesome.

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, between Buddha, Cthulhu, the FSM, and Google, I'm all booked up with gods and religion thank you very much. ;)

Come on, this religion is wafer-thin, surely you can squeeze it in :)?

[blauregen]

In my opinion science as a religion has shortcomings as a provider of hope.

If i had listened to the prophets of science in my youth - notably authors of hard science fiction and futurologists - i would be disappointed that i am still not living in a L5-habitat, supported by a vast stream of ressources harvested by autonomous robots from the asteroid belt and with a life expectancy of 300 years. Instead of this promised land i got spam mail, information overflow and global warming.

From this it would probably be fair to say that the religion of science so far is as bad as the more traditional approaches, when it comes to delivering on their promises. But at least the other religions -doomsday prophecies not-withstanding - didn't try to give an ETA for it. So there is still hope.

Science has to work on this if it strifes to be a religious alternative.

[CapelDodger]

I figure that if we actually organize and...conspire I guess...that we can do a much better job than the imaginary organization does.

We could certainly introduce some clarity. Believers have consistently failed to do that, even when they've associated Science with Satan. They're not that clear about Satan, after all.

How would we do this? No idea.

I'd start with studying the market. What features do believers look for in a science-religion, with associated conspiracy? It must be actively against gods, of course, but what it's for (Satan aside) is hazy at best. Give them that and they'll dive on it.

Why would we do this? For fun. And to upstage the Pope.

[CapelDodger]

In my opinion science as a religion has shortcomings as a provider of hope.

Good sense and an observant nature are the best hope. I hope so, anyway.

Science has to work on this if it strifes to be a religious alternative.

Fortunately, Science doesn't. Science and Religion are entirely separate domains. They only get in each other's faces when Religion invades Science turf, and Religion always loses.

[blauregen]

Good sense and an observant nature are the best hope. I hope so, anyway.


I suppose it depends on what you hope for. My irrational hopes are quite conservatively for immortality, bliss, growth of consciousness and similar goals, and science refuses even to promise me this. This disqualifies it as a religion in my eyes.

However, as it is presented by many skeptics, it already has the key ingredient of a successful ideology, namely the one valid approach to find the truth (not to be confused with working theories, which only have to be isomorph to reality in their scope of application, not necessarily fundamentally true). So maybe this would be a more viable avenue for the purpose of suppressing other beliefs.

[CapelDodger]

I suppose it depends on what you hope for. My irrational hopes are quite conservatively for immortality, bliss, growth of consciousness and similar goals, and science refuses even to promise me this. This disqualifies it as a religion in my eyes.

I can understand that.

However, as it is presented by many skeptics, it already has the key ingredient of a successful ideology, namely the one valid approach to find the truth (not to be confused with working theories, which only have to be isomorph to reality in their scope of application, not necessarily fundamentally true).

Religion is, of course, a subset of ideology. Ideology can hold out hopes just as religion can, and claim the one true way to achieving those hopes.

Science isn't about hope at all. It's a way to find truths, just as experience is a way to find the practical limits of hope.

[Earthborn]

There already is a science religion. Even its name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) is quite sciencey. :p

[blauregen]

Science isn't about hope at all. It's a way to find truths,

To assess this statement i actually looked up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth. Can we please define the term for the scope of this discussion?

[Fnord]

Im al for the initiative. doesnt religeon require "faith" of some sort?

That, and a martyr or two ... also a messiah or enlightened figurehead ... an apocryphal account of unverifiable events ... several crusades, pogroms, and jihads ... a few "sacred" or "holy" sites know for inspiring epiphanies ...

[Complexity]

To the OP:

No, we shouldn't.

[CapelDodger]

To assess this statement i actually looked up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth. Can we please define the term for the scope of this discussion?

You might be more comfortable on the Philosophy Forum ;).

What's incontrovertible is that hope and truth are very different things, however loosely we define them. For one thing, truth can appear ugly; hope never can.

[CapelDodger]

That, and a martyr or two ...

Galileo, Fra Bruno ...

... also a messiah or enlightened figurehead ...

Darwin.

...an apocryphal account of unverifiable events ...

That's the tricky one. Science does rather depend on reproducible observations.

... several crusades, pogroms, and jihads ...

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Deeply regretted now, of course.

a few "sacred" or "holy" sites know for inspiring epiphanies ...

The Royal Society, the Leaning Tower, the Jeffersonian ... :)

Easy except for the the apocryphal stuff, but that is a deal-breaker.

[TrueSceptic]

There already is a science religion. Even its name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) is quite sciencey. :p
Science Fantasy, yes. :)

[theMark]

I suppose it depends on what you hope for. My irrational hopes are quite conservatively for immortality, bliss, growth of consciousness and similar goals, and science refuses even to promise me this. This disqualifies it as a religion in my eyes.


While science itself may not offer this, the results of applied science should be able to at least create the illusion of reaching those goals. I'm thinking certain mood-altering chemicals and/or brain electrodes should do the trick, shouldn't they? :)

No need to mediate for decades once we've perfected the iHappySwitch™ ...

[INRM]

NO!

Science should NOT be made into a religion. It is NOT a religion nor was it ever meant to be.

It is a tool for gathering knowledge. That's all it was ever meant to be, it should *never* be modified past that form.


INRM

[CapelDodger]

NO!

Science should NOT be made into a religion. It is NOT a religion nor was it ever meant to be.

It is a tool for gathering knowledge. That's all it was ever meant to be, it should *never* be modified past that form.


INRM

That's remarkably defensive. Are you feeling encroached upon?

[Fnord]

Yeah, there can be no religion of science or science-based religion, simply for the fact that science is firmly rooted by repeatably verifiable events, while religion - all religions - are firmly rooted in unverifiable legends and non-repeatable events.

Hmm ... maybe Atheism is not a religion after all...

:dio:

[INRM]

Fnord,

I'd have to say you pretty much got the point.

[thesyntaxera]

Yeah, there can be no religion of science or science-based religion, simply for the fact that science is firmly rooted by repeatably verifiable events, while religion - all religions - are firmly rooted in unverifiable legends and non-repeatable events.

Hmm ... maybe Atheism is not a religion after all...

:dio:

Well, if you want to forsake the human ability to have an imagination then yes, no science could ever be a religion. However, all a dedicated individual would have to do is preach science as a religion, complete with it's flexible theories, repeatably verifiable events...etc

Yes, all current religions utilize mythology. How does that make science immune from being turned into a religion...or rather how does it prevent people from viewing it as a religion in place of some other belief system? Look at how many radical atheists were once die hard believers, and now defend their beliefs in science with the same fervor that they defended their beliefs in god...scientism anyone?

That doesn't even factor in all the new agey types that cherry pick from science whenever it's convenient.

[AkuManiMani]

If I get the OP correctly the end goal is to criminalize being wrong?

[GreyICE]

Yeah, there can be no religion of science or science-based religion, simply for the fact that science is firmly rooted by repeatably verifiable events, while religion - all religions - are firmly rooted in unverifiable legends and non-repeatable events.

Hmm ... maybe Atheism is not a religion after all...

:dio:
It's a religion. And fasting is a diet. :p

[SeanDamnit]

If I get the OP correctly the end goal is to criminalize being wrong?

Something like that.

[INRM]

Anyone ever seen that episode of South Park when Eric Cartman managed to freeze himself so he could pass two weeks by to get a Nintendo Wii?

Either way in that episode a few hundred years go by and there are a bunch of atheistic groups all fighting and killing each other and they're all saying "Our science is right!" and stuff...

Bad example I know, but I think making science into a religion would end up turning into that. It would begin to take on all the ugly traits that religion has.


INRM

[Fnord]

It's a religion. And fasting is a diet. :p

If atheism is a religion (which I now doubt), then it is a religion of omission.

If fasting is a diet, then it is a diet of omission. But aren't they all?

:confused:

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, reading some posts around here it's clear that there are those whole believe that a skeptic's faith in science is similar to a religious man's faith in God. Some even suggest that skeptics form some kind of cult and rally against anyone who question the "Widely accepted understanding of ___________"...as if there is some sort of secret society of scientists trying to prevent the world from knowing the "truth" they're too afraid to admit. If only the suppressive hand of Big Science wasn't there!

Do I beleive such a evil conspiracy exists?
No.
Do I think one should?
Mos Def.

I figure that if the accusations are going to be flying around, we may as well unify and suppress certain things - and do a better job of it than what we are accused of.

Think about it, if we actually unify and become part of some elaborate conspiracy, we can finally destroy all thoughts and "research" of ID, psychics, plasma cosmology, ghosts, and my personal favorite: growing earth. Plus much much more! The world would be measurably less annoying!

What do you all think? Unify with me! And lets take down the woo woos....somehow....

Bad idea. It reinforces the false comparison.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Enthusiasm and passion for something is not the equivalent of worship.

[CapelDodger]

Enthusiasm and passion for something is not the equivalent of worship.

But arguably equivalent to love :).