"Top 10 Reasons Science is Another Religion" Response

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

My response 

"10. Science thinks humans are special"

Here’s a hasty generalization about the nature of science: Oh, some scientists/people are fixated on the anthropic principle, therefore all science thinks humans are special. The anthropic principle is an observation, or even speculation, that if the physical constants that govern the universe were changed, life would be less likely, if not impossible. I am a scientist (in a philosophical sense), and I believe we should value our species over any other species, but there is no dogma in science that states the universe was designed for humans. 

We are more likely to go extinct before cockroaches - they have been around longer than our species, after all. The Bible on the other hand suggests that the earth is the center of the universe, and that book is supposed to be the TRUTH. People actually were killed and imprisoned for suggesting that the earth was not the center (Galileo, Copernicus)http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#scripture

"9. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions”

“If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination.” 

Seriously?! Wow. I do not believe this crap. I don’t think he was at a science convention when he tried this out. I would like to know what science convention he went to! LOL! I would think that most scientists take the Stephen Jay Gould approach and ignore religion or keep it separate from science. I think at any non-religious convention, if someone asked everyone to join in prayer, they would get some pretty funny looks. At an atheist convention, if someone was seriously asking people to join in prayer, they would definitely hear some expletives. Why would someone ask people to join in prayer, an action that has no effect, at a science convention, a convention about research that is actually making a difference in the world? 

Damn, this is going to take a while. I sure went off on that last one.

“8. Science Reveres its own Saints”

“Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.”

I just had to quote the whole paragraph this time because there is so much wrong here. The last sentence totally ignores how shit went down. It may be hard to grasp this concept right now, but the internet was not invented until about just 20 years ago. Information did not get around as easily as it does today, and somehow the documentation for heliocentrism was lost or ignored. Galileo and other scientists brought it up again by their own observations. Galileos major contribution was not minor, he challenged the intuition that more massive objects would fall faster. It’s not just his discovery, but it’s the way he went about it, by observation and experiment, the heart of science. The heart of religion is faith, belief without evidence.

“7. Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins”

The only origin story he mentions is the Big Bang theory, but there’s a picture of biological evolution. It’s a bad picture, too, and I’m not talking about the artwork; I’m talking about the scientific accuracy. Biological evolution is not just some story dreamt up by a wizard. I am not going to explain biological evolution here. 

I’m starting to think the author of this article is joking. It’s really hard to believe this guy has a PhD in neuroscience. You can’t even look the author up! He is almost doing too good of a job at doing a bad job at making a good argument for science is a religion.

“6. Science has its own code of ethics.”

I’ll just give him this one. I still think he is oversimplifying here.

“5. Science has its own priesthood.”

I’ve read about this happening many a time in the history of science. You may get ridiculed for challenging the work of scientist who is well known in his field, but at least you aren’t burned at the stake by the Church like in the old days. This author overlooks the fact that scientists that challenge the work of well known scientists, and succeed, in providing a better theory, are rewarded! Try challenging your church’s interpretation of the Bible, and see if they will reward you. You’ll have better luck just starting your own religion. 

“4. Science is Based on Established Dogmas

But, blood-letting is not practiced anymore. I guess science isn’t based on established dogmas after all. 

Try religion, though. Every year there are several cases of parents that will not take their children to the doctor for their illnesses, that could be easily cured given the proper medical treatment, because it’s against their religious dogma. 

“3. Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends” 

Homosexuality wasn’t quite the trend 1986, either. 

“2. Most of Science is Unfounded”
Dark Matter is the authors example. The author claims that dark matter is a faith based belief. It’s called dark matter because we are in the dark about it. However, there has been some observations of the effects of this thing we are calling dark matter, so it can’t be faith based. http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm

Yeah, there is something on and we just don’t understand it. Astrophysicists aren’t just believing in it because it fills their spiritual void. 

“1. Science Requires Faith.”

“Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science... When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer...”

Well, I can’t speak for all atheists, of course, but I can explain evolutionary biology, and I have a basic understanding of the Big Bang theory. This is all besides the point. The point is that we don’t know everything. Science does not claim to know everything. Religion claims to know everything that science is still trying to figure out (e.g. origins of matter, origins of life). If anyone is arrogant in the room, it’s religion. Religion is on one side saying “Hey, don’t understand something? Use me. I’m easy. All you have to say is ‘God did it!’” meanwhile science, on the other side, is saying “Well, I don’t understand this. I’m not going to invent any explanations to fill in your gaps of knowledge, but I will try my best to find the answer to your question!” 

I do not find any comfort in the god of the gaps.