Ah, it might have been a good idea to specify exactly what I’m talking about when I say “religion.” I didn’t even think of that. Maybe in the followup article! Thanks.
That’s a good point about evidential/experiential ideas turning into religion. One example, I guess, might be Buddhism: people have told me that the Buddha only meant it as a philosophy of life, and would never have wanted to be worshiped. But time goes on and people deify the founder of the religion, make their words holy, create dogma and rituals, etc…
Just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that science fits the definition of a religion because it requires belief in the ungrounded assumption that the observer is different from the object being observed? I’m not entirely sure I follow. Would you mind giving an example?
Most definitions of religion I’ve seen involve belief in a supernatural entity, which pretty much automatically excludes science from being a religion. We could redefine religion to include the assumptions that are inherent to science, but at that point I think we’re just talking about a different word than religion — like philosophy, or worldview, or groupthink.
I think another major difference with science is its willingness to adjust itself in response to new information, and the possibility to re-examine claims that were made before. You don’t just have to take Newton’s or Einstein’s word for how gravity works; you can run your own tests and decide for yourself. The claims being made are only about observable things, not immaterial ideas.
I could even argue that science has been willing to adjust its assumption that “the observer is not part of what’s being observed”, notably in the case of quantum mechanics, where it has long been accepted that the act of measuring certain experiments changes the outcome.
I wrote a longer essay about faith vs. science one time, curious what you’d think about that one. Thanks for the comment.
