I have written quite a few posts about science and religion. I know some people who call science their religion, and whereas I do understand their intention behind saying this, I don't subscribe to that idea, for me it is very clear that science is NOT my religion. I say so because of one basic fundamental difference, religion demands total surrender and requires complete faith (blind faith), it allows questions but only to a certain limit and there are certain areas in almost all religions that are unquestionable and their authority is considered as supreme, but science has none of these things. Science is not my faith, I don't believe anything that comes from that field blindly, I need data to accept or reject anything no matter who is the scientist behind that theory or experiment. This basic difference is the key to understanding why both of these disciplines are poles apart from each other.
So, when someone says that science is their religion, they might mean that they believe in science in the same way people believe in religion. But then there is one basic problem in this argument, science does not demand any belief or faith, rather it teaches us to be skeptical about everything. One of the basic requisites for being a good scientist is the ability to question things around us and challenge well-established facts to test if they are still right or if we need to update them. There is nothing in science that demands any belief or surrender, experiments and data collected from those experiments supersede any rules or theories. Anything can be proven right or wrong by experimental evidence. Scientists don't believe in the validity of one of the most famous scientific equations, E=MC2, just because a great scientist like Albert Einstein proposed it, they accepted it because it was proven to be true by experimental data. The same is true for theories proposed by Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist of any era. Certain statements or theories might get some recognition in the beginning just because some famous or successful scientist proposed it but eventually, it has to pass the test of experimental validity. Someone needs to produce the data to prove or disprove them and this can be done by anyone without being threatened or heckled by supporters of that theory. Any such effort where a certain theory is proven right or wrong by experimental evidence is welcomed by the entire scientific community, even students of the scientist whose theory is proven wrong welcome any such effort as it improves their knowledge. This is the basic reason why there is no enmity between different branches of science. There is competition between various branches but at the same time, there is a vast amount of inter-disciplinary collaborations.
Challenging well-established theories, questioning hypotheses, and demanding data to prove any claim are some of the basic things that people learn in science but it is exactly the opposite in religion where one is taught to accept the supremacy of some entity and then asked to follow certain book (or set of books). Questioning is highly restricted and often sensitivities of followers of that religion get hurt if anyone questions their beliefs beyond a certain point. At the same time, there is tremendous tension between various religions. Human history is full of gory violent incidents because of communal conflicts between two or more religions. I do understand the need to have religion for many people, as many of us need some emotional support and religion acts as a pillar of strength for many. Maybe science partly does that job for me as it answers many questions that I get from time to time. Actually, science is a very useful tool for me to navigate through my life but nothing more than that, it can never become a religion for me just because I don't agree with the way religion is practiced in today's world. Even today religion fails to come any close to science as far as openness and tolerance are concerned. Because of this tolerance which I learned during my training as a scientist, I don't mind people questioning whatever I say or write, they have the freedom and right to do that. My sensitivities and beliefs are my problem, and people don't have to worry about them while questioning me or criticizing me. That is why I can categorically say that science is not my religion.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
So, when someone says that science is their religion, they might mean that they believe in science in the same way people believe in religion. But then there is one basic problem in this argument, science does not demand any belief or faith, rather it teaches us to be skeptical about everything. One of the basic requisites for being a good scientist is the ability to question things around us and challenge well-established facts to test if they are still right or if we need to update them. There is nothing in science that demands any belief or surrender, experiments and data collected from those experiments supersede any rules or theories. Anything can be proven right or wrong by experimental evidence. Scientists don't believe in the validity of one of the most famous scientific equations, E=MC2, just because a great scientist like Albert Einstein proposed it, they accepted it because it was proven to be true by experimental data. The same is true for theories proposed by Newton, Galileo, or any other scientist of any era. Certain statements or theories might get some recognition in the beginning just because some famous or successful scientist proposed it but eventually, it has to pass the test of experimental validity. Someone needs to produce the data to prove or disprove them and this can be done by anyone without being threatened or heckled by supporters of that theory. Any such effort where a certain theory is proven right or wrong by experimental evidence is welcomed by the entire scientific community, even students of the scientist whose theory is proven wrong welcome any such effort as it improves their knowledge. This is the basic reason why there is no enmity between different branches of science. There is competition between various branches but at the same time, there is a vast amount of inter-disciplinary collaborations.
Challenging well-established theories, questioning hypotheses, and demanding data to prove any claim are some of the basic things that people learn in science but it is exactly the opposite in religion where one is taught to accept the supremacy of some entity and then asked to follow certain book (or set of books). Questioning is highly restricted and often sensitivities of followers of that religion get hurt if anyone questions their beliefs beyond a certain point. At the same time, there is tremendous tension between various religions. Human history is full of gory violent incidents because of communal conflicts between two or more religions. I do understand the need to have religion for many people, as many of us need some emotional support and religion acts as a pillar of strength for many. Maybe science partly does that job for me as it answers many questions that I get from time to time. Actually, science is a very useful tool for me to navigate through my life but nothing more than that, it can never become a religion for me just because I don't agree with the way religion is practiced in today's world. Even today religion fails to come any close to science as far as openness and tolerance are concerned. Because of this tolerance which I learned during my training as a scientist, I don't mind people questioning whatever I say or write, they have the freedom and right to do that. My sensitivities and beliefs are my problem, and people don't have to worry about them while questioning me or criticizing me. That is why I can categorically say that science is not my religion.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]
No comments:
Post a Comment