The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too

[intaglio]

146. Having read the blogpost I can say nonsense

Essentially the author is declaring that the purpose of Stonehenge was "scientific." What we actually know about Stonehenge is that it was, probably, used for observation(1), may have had ritual significance(2) and could have been used ceremonially(3); I have hedged all of these statements because we do not know for what that monument may have been used.

Similarly the Alien archaeologist would not know that the LHC was constructed using sound and rationally based engineering, that some repetitive activity occurred and that some ceremonial features (plaques, decoration) are there. If enough infrastructure and documentation was also found the alien could reconstruct the whole matching the reconstruction to the remains. They would then know that the structure was used for observing the interactions of sub-atomic particles but they could not say for what reason the observations were carried out as the context would be lacking.

Fairly obviously observation, ritual and ceremony can be associated with scientific endeavour but they do not define science because it ignores the speculation, argument and reasoned interpretation that follows as well as the motivation that precedes it. To declare that the motivations of religions that prompt the study of the precession of the equinoxes and the lunations are scientific is specious. The observations and rituals used by the faithful are designed to serve other rituals that have magical significance and we know this from the magical uses modern religions apply to such rituals.

_________________________________________
(1) The solar and stellar alignments seem not to be accidental
(2) Small sacrificial items and burials have been found associated with these stones and at other, similar, structures
(3) The Cursus the associated monuments near Stonehenge and, perhaps, the sonic environment produced by the stones are indicative of ceremonial