Buzz
As a biologist with a PhD in Neuroscience, I understand that this is a highly debated topic among both scientists and religious individuals. For scientists, the idea that science, a pursuit grounded in logic and reason, might have similarities with religious beliefs seems preposterous. On the other hand, the faithful may find it hard to accept that science, a human construct, could be likened to a divine institution.
However, let’s take a moment to compare the two: approach this with an open mind and an objective viewpoint—although not necessarily from a scientific lens—and let’s see if the distinctions are as clear as they may seem.
10. Science Believes Humans Are Unique
It makes sense that religion might place humans at the center of the universe, but for science to do so seems unjustifiable. Yet, many astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to discuss how the universe aligns with the "anthropic principle."
There is no scientific justification for why human comprehension—superior to that of slugs, dolphins, and monkeys—should be expansive enough to grasp the entire universe. Anthropocentrism—the belief that humans are the focal point of existence—is prevalent in the sciences, much like it is in religion.
9. It Rejects Heretics and Suppresses Other Beliefs
Like the God of the Old Testament, science zealously defends its position against any rival belief. It tells its adherents: "You shall have no other gods before me."
If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific conference to join you in a prayer. From that moment on, you’ll be labeled a theist-scientist, a heretic, a contaminant, an abomination. Just research how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.
8. Science Holds Its Own Saints in High Esteem
The ranks of scientific martyrs may be few, yet those within are revered as far more accomplished than they truly were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious institutions. In reality, his contributions were minimal: most of his achievements were technical, like altering telescopes. The idea of heliocentricity had been known since the 4th century BC.
7. Science Constructs Narratives to Explain Our Origins
The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of these civilizations had their own creation myths, likely created around a campfire. They all took their creation stories seriously. Now, however, we have science to explain our origins.
Do you know the latest version of this narrative? In the beginning, there were immense membranes. These membranes came into contact, sparking something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.
6. Science Possesses Its Own Ethical Code
There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are 'laws of scientific conduct.' Countless atrocities are carried out in the name of science – consider a doctor, for example, who must administer placebo pills to several patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will likely suffer or die much sooner than if they had received the proper treatment.
But scientific progress often takes precedence over personal morality. And – unless you're an extreme advocate – its ethical framework will likely clash with your own personal code of ethics.
5. Science Has Its Own Priesthood
Newton, Darwin, and Einstein form the holy trinity of Western science. Beneath them are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennett, Chomsky, Penrose, and Sagan. Then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize laureates, the bestselling authors, and the media stars.
Their opinions are accepted as gospel, and their words are cited as if they were sacred scriptures. Ordinary people are mocked if they question the teachings of this scientific priesthood. Even for scientists, challenging someone from a higher tier is a risk. After all, all scientific work (from research papers to grant proposals) undergoes peer review, remember?
4. Science Is Grounded in Established Dogmas
Ever wonder how, for centuries, the best doctors could insist on bloodletting as a cure – even though their patients worsened? The reason: bloodletting was considered part of the scientific dogma at the time.
Anything that contradicts this dogma is simply dismissed, ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus possesses all the features of a fully-fledged religion.
3. Science Demands Faith
Even highly-specialized scientists often follow a particular line of thought, exploring the implications of certain theories while dismissing others, based on little more than intuition and a sense of what seems elegant and correct.
Most individuals who abandon the religion they once adhered to will claim they did so in favor of the clear, logical answers provided by science. When asked about the origins of the universe, they’ll reference the Big Bang and M-Theories; when asked about the origins of humanity, they’ll mention evolution.
However, when pressed to elaborate on any of these, they quickly realize they understand very little. What they are demonstrating is blind faith – accepting theories without fully grasping them. If you accept something as true without understanding it, then you are simply a Believer – and, much like science, you will find yourself deeply entrenched in the realm of religion.
2. Most of Science Lacks Concrete Evidence
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings, and Ego – all of these may sound like reasonable concepts. But can anyone actually pinpoint the location of Ego in a dissected brain? Or use Dark Energy for anything other than explaining the expanding universe – another scientific theory? There is no definitive proof for any of these ideas.
That's right – we lack proof for 96% of what science believes the universe is composed of – and yet we treat the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) as truth. Why, you ask? Because we have faith – which leads me to my final point.
1. Science Will Adapt to Embrace Contemporary Trends
If you believe scientists are unaffected by societal pressures to align with public opinion, think again. I'm not even addressing statements made by scientists under authoritarian regimes (such as racially biased 'conclusions'), as I view those as coerced distortions.
Instead, let’s examine the scientific perspective on homosexuality. It was classified as a personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 1973 edition. It was then removed, only to be reclassified in a similar form the following year, before being entirely removed in 1986. What was the basis for these shifting decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder? Public opinion, backed by conveniently 'empirical evidence', played a central role.
