belief in science as religionWatch this thread
Sociology paper 2 - beliefs in society
can anybody help me out with this and what to write in each paragraph and i am really stuck(((
On one definition, science is a method that tests hypotheses through experiment and observation and religion is a system of propositions about the world based on the authority of God. On these definitions, religion and science are very different and not commensurable with one another.
You can say this is shown by science lacking a belief in a transcendental authority i.e. God, who guarantees the truth of propositions about the world. Instead, the truth status of propositions in validated by experimentation and 'falsifiability'. You could say that, unlike religion, science is 'falsifiable' i.e. its claims about the world are open to refutation. Can the same be said about the claims of religion e.g. God? Is there any experiment that we could perform to test the claim of God's existence?
On the other hand, you can say that science does share with religion a belief in a 'transcendental value' e.g. truth, i.e. that the world is amenable to beings like us, we can say things about it, know things about it, in essence, that it comports to our understanding. This argument, it could be said is a religious anthropomorphism insofar as it accords to humans a 'particular', special, status in relation to nature. That is in contradiction with evolution by natural selection(I digress). I think this is inevitable either way, whether you are a realist or relativist. The point is that this idea of 'truth', that truth is in some correspondence with reality is a belief assumed and not justified- truth is a relative i.e. measured in terms of utility, not an absolute value.
These are the philosophical arguments.
Anthropologically, you can say that science, as a community is religious i.e The Latin verb religare means to 're-bind'. The Latin noun religio referring to obligation, bond, or reverence is probably based on religare. If we define, religion as both belief and praxis i.e. ritual. then members of the scientific community adheres to a set of practices which functions to include and exclude deviations from he right and proper method. Think about what claims about the world are called science and what are called 'denial' or 'pseudoscience'. You can compared this to the way the Catholic Church adjudicated claims of witchcraft and magic i.e. heretical belief (the Catholic Church practiced magic it was just the right and authoritative magic)
You can also say that, because of the complexity of modern science, and its hyper-specialisation, that knowledge is esoteric e.g. only the community of science can understand the community of science. With that, there is a sense in which science relies on the same hermeticism, casuistry, and obscurantism as the church, I mean what the hell is the Holy Trinity? Science therefore has to have a part in which it depends on authority, in this case legal-rational rather than charismatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational-legal_authority
Last point, science excommunicates people it believes are heretics, it then turns them into Gods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell (doesn't say it here but mitchell was derided for years)
If you flesh out my points, I think you have a good essay.