The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too

[longship]

13. Utter rubbish argument.

There is always the unsolved (and likely unsolvable) demarcation problem, but that is a philosophical issue, not one that would concern anybody except those deeply steeped in such affairs.

But the argument here just leaves me face-palming.

By any practical definition, science is not a belief, nor does it have priests, let alone authority figures. Truly, there are famous scientists who have made their names, but as any one of them should be honest enough to admit (at least to themselves), the only authority in science is nature herself (personifying the universe).

Also, the article ignores the other fact that science is not a set of beliefs, but a methodology -- and here is where the big difference lies. Both the methodology and the findings of those methods are tentative, subject to revision and verification. (Both are requirements of the method.)

No matter what our preconceived notions of nature might be, the goal of science is to set that all aside and discover models which have sufficient fecundity to be both accurate and predictive. (Again, both are required.) The actual accuracy must also be measured and reported.

To my knowledge, religion does none of these things.

Vive la difference.

It seems what we have here is a theist scientist trying to square a circle, in other words, trying to justify his theist beliefs by redefining science.

However, I may be wrong about that as all the data is not in.

on edit: as usual, my friend, you post things which spurn DU to new heights. Even though I disagree with the article, it helps me, and hopefully others, to come to grips with these issues. Thank you for that.