[Conigman]

No its not. Science answers one form of inquiry while religion answer another inquiry.

To say it is replacing it is to confuse agency against mechanism.

Five rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science:

Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science.  Science presupposes logic and math; to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Metaphysical truths such as that there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method.  You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists did anything in the camps that is evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.

Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.

Science itself.  Science cannot be justified by the scientific method.  Science is permeated by improvable assumptions.  For example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction from point A to point B, it must be assumed.

[alancalverd]

Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science.  Science presupposes logic and math; to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Uses, not presupposes. The test is in  experiment, not calculation.

Metaphysical truths such as that there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.

A statement is not a truth. Demonstrations of forward causality suggest that the past goes back a long way, and radioactive decay suggests it is continuous. Only Health & Safety Executive inspectors think the laws of physics vary from day to day and place to place. If there were no other mind but yours, who would be arguing with you right now?

Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method.  You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists did anything in the camps that is evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.

No problem. 1.Define evil. 2. Look at the evidence of what was done. And don't ever forget that Nazi Germany was a democracy - ask Donald Trump! 

Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ask the beholder.

Science itself.  Science cannot be justified by the scientific method.  Science is permeated by improvable assumptions.  For example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction from point A to point B, it must be assumed.

Never mind "justified" - that's an ethical or emotional judgement. And a working assumption is nothing to be ashamed of. What matters in science is whether your hypothesis stands up to experimental scrutiny, and SR seems to do so remarkably well. In such cases, either we have been extremely lucky in assembling an enormous random set of assumptions, or they were actually correct. The superiority of science over religion is that if it turns out that one of your assumptions was wrong, you just say "bugger" and think again. In religion, if your unprovable assumption is different from mine, I have to kill all your male relatives and rape all the females.   

By their deeds shall ye know them.

[evan_au]

we're just one stage removed from animals and we're still trying to throw off our bestial nature.

I agree - most human problems are internal, at their basis.

"democracy and human rights and justice and equality" generally change our outward environment.

Some of these things can help reduce inequality, which it has done in Nordic countries; but not nearly as much in the USA, for example.

They don't address the inner cause of most of our problems.

We've invented ... science and a host of other things that make us more civilised

The real explosion since Galileo has been in the "hard" sciences - physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, medicine, imaging, mechanical, civil, electrical and aerospace engineering, etc. This has been assisted (and enabled, in many cases) by rapid developments in computing.

Medicine has helped us live longer, and less troubled by pain.

The most successful medical advance has been plumbing, which became fairly effective in the Roman era, and even more effective with the application of the steam engine. This has done more to help human health than most medical endeavours, but it's hardly modern.

But none of these really address the inner beast.

For these you must look to the "soft" sciences - psychology, sociology, economics, etc.

For Psychology, we are still very much in the infancy phase, with theories in the last century driven mainly by guesses and hypotheses, with little objective information until the development of Functional MRI - and it's still a fairly coarse tool, unable to resolve volumes smaller than millions of neurones, or timescales faster than a second.

We still have the problem that even today, most experimentally verified psychology is actually based on a study of first year university students. They are forced to participate to pass their course. This has resulted in psychology becoming a WEIRD science - it is very much the study of Western, Educated, and from Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries. This is hardly representative of the human population.

Economics is still very much a black art. Everyone hangs on every word from the US Reserve about their guesses this month. And economists try to predict the reactions of other people who have also studied economics - a situation very likely to produce chaotic behaviour!

But most of our problems are still driven by human greed. It is said that if you want to find the cause of something, follow the money. Certainly large amounts of advertising money have managed to stall any progress on major scientific findings in several important cases.

So it's not surprising that it was a religious figure who commented that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

[puppypower]

Science is not self sufficient in terms of resources. Science,is more often than not, beholden to others; third parties, for the money and resources needed to do science. What that means is there is subjective wildcard behind science, attached to resources. If you do the math, the financial foundation of science, is based on the inner man of those who have and provide resources. It is also dependent on the inner man of the scientists who are willing to play by this system.

This means not many scientists are willing to take a stand, if their data goes against the goal of the moneymen, or the prestige of the consensus who follow the moneyman. Religion helps this by quotes like, even though I walk in the valley of shadow of career death, I am not afraid. The example of the Wright Brothers shows how money and prestige can bog down new science. They needed someone; layman, in high places to overcome the bog down. Students begin with idealism, but learn the ways of the world when they start to work for living.

For example, say you worked for a cigarette company and your objective science research could undermine the commercial goals of your company. This company pays you a super premium salary, provides you a state of the art lab, and first class accommodations to all symposiums, where you are a big shot. Your research may need to be placed on the shelf, by management, since it is inconvenient truth. A good soldier for the company, who wishes to move up, may even bring this to management attention for brownie points.

On the other hand, if you speak out, you will bite the hand that feeds you. This could result in you losing your job and all your gravy. You could be also be discredited, as a scientist, since the money involved is huge. All the other,s who are willing to look the other way; career ambitions, will not like you upsetting the cart. One can see this affect in global warming science, where fudged data was ignored by the consensus, while anyone not with the program became subject to ridicule by laymen; henchmen. Inside every objective scientist, is a frail subjective human, who is not fully calibrated to defend the truth all the way. Many will stop with such a defense impact them in a personal and/or financial way. Sometimes all that is left are tenured professors to fight for truth, since they have a defensible career fortification.

If you look at the science of homosexuality and abortion, not all research is allowed. PC pressure and resource allocation will slant the allowable data, so the conclusion is the one decided by politics; moneyman, in advance. Fully objective science is about seeking the truth. This means no goal in advance. Rather all possible paths will be explored, and when all the science is done, we let the truth fall from the data. Religion helps levels the field, since God is placed as the referee; rational determinism needs all the facts. Atheism will place a human as the god, therefore, allowing subjectivity into science; steering currents. This is assisted by a random universe which does not need all the facts.

I often write about water as the copartner of life. This means that water has an equal role to the organics. For example, the DNA has a double helix of organic polymers, as well as double helix of hydration water, with this hydrating water needed for DNA activity. A quadruple helix is the reality of the DNA. The DNA is not active, as shown and taught in textbooks, using only a double helix. This provable truth does not matter. Biology is modeled using statistical assumptions; randomness. However, it was shown, over 50 years ago, that proteins fold with exact folds with probability equal to 1.0. This 50 year old observation, contradicts the  random claim, yet science has not changed. The inner man is afraid of the herd, less you be trampled. Nobody wishes to put it on the line, until the money man is willing to invest and steer.

[puppypower]

There is another consideration connected to the difference between applied and pure science. Pure science tries to define and model reality as it is. Applied science is about extrapolating the laws of pure science to create manmade things. Sometimes, the line between the two becomes blurred with applied science being used to generate pseudo-pure science, defined as pure. This can allows artificial to called natural. It can be used by scientists to appease the subjectivity  of the moneyman.

For example, say I had the theory that the oldest oil deposits, were originally made from the polymerization of primal gases like ethylene. The polymerization forms long chain polymers, which are stable enough to be modified, over eons of time, under pressure and temperature.

I can use applied science, to make polyethylene in the lab. This is not hard to do. I then mix this with powered rock and other ingredients and use my hot press and more applied science to make complex solids. I then use my trusty extruder, to make oil from these solids, allowing the dirt to settle out. I can say this simulates earth pressure and the movement of the crust. What I have done is make an artificial reality, using applied science, that is now supported by hard lab evidence. If I had someone with money, who liked the idea of being a spokesman for new science, I might be able to pull this off with his financial backing. If there is lots on money, many scientists will chose to work with us. If we all put aside the premise, and focus on just the technical experiments, good science and engineering will still be done. How do you refute hard data if others can also duplicate our results, because our team took special care to make this easy for others?

One can see the applied science affect, in man made climate science. Many of the observed changes are not following the computer models as closely as hoped for. The computer models are applied science, that simulate what everyone wants to hear. The reality data is not cooperating 100% with the models. Applied science is about solving problems, with sometimes the problems being an expected result. If a company needs a better mouse trap, the goal is set in advance. I may need to invent to get to the goal being paid for.

As another example, particle accelerators operate under low gravitational pressures. If we assume a unification of the forces, under extreme gravity, the parameter of the EM forces will not be the same, as on the surface of the earth, since there will be shifts due to the unified force blending the normal four forces.

The analogy is a phase diagram for chemical matter. In this diagrams, there is not one set of phases. Rather, all materials show different phases based on temperature and pressure. Sub particle data only applies at low pressure. Those who invest $billions to make accelerators, don't wish to wait several lifetimes to generate the entire phase diagram for sub particles; full range of pressure and temperature. It is expeditious to sell this data as almost compete, so the investors maintain enthusiasm for bigger toys.

Religion is useful because even though the moneyman adds subjective goals, it is still not right to deceive him by playing into his fantasy with applied science tricks. Science needs to rise above.

[Semaphore]

we're just one stage removed from animals and we're still trying to throw off our bestial nature.

I agree - most human problems are internal, at their basis.

"democracy and human rights and justice and equality" generally change our outward environment.

Some of these things can help reduce inequality, which it has done in Nordic countries; but not nearly as much in the USA, for example.

They don't address the inner cause of most of our problems.

We've invented ... science and a host of other things that make us more civilised

The real explosion since Galileo has been in the "hard" sciences - physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, medicine, imaging, mechanical, civil, electrical and aerospace engineering, etc. This has been assisted (and enabled, in many cases) by rapid developments in computing.

Medicine has helped us live longer, and less troubled by pain.

The most successful medical advance has been plumbing, which became fairly effective in the Roman era, and even more effective with the application of the steam engine. This has done more to help human health than most medical endeavours, but it's hardly modern.

But none of these really address the inner beast.

For these you must look to the "soft" sciences - psychology, sociology, economics, etc.

For Psychology, we are still very much in the infancy phase, with theories in the last century driven mainly by guesses and hypotheses, with little objective information until the development of Functional MRI - and it's still a fairly coarse tool, unable to resolve volumes smaller than millions of neurones, or timescales faster than a second.

We still have the problem that even today, most experimentally verified psychology is actually based on a study of first year university students. They are forced to participate to pass their course. This has resulted in psychology becoming a WEIRD science - it is very much the study of Western, Educated, and from Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries. This is hardly representative of the human population.

Economics is still very much a black art. Everyone hangs on every word from the US Reserve about their guesses this month. And economists try to predict the reactions of other people who have also studied economics - a situation very likely to produce chaotic behaviour!

But most of our problems are still driven by human greed. It is said that if you want to find the cause of something, follow the money. Certainly large amounts of advertising money have managed to stall any progress on major scientific findings in several important cases.

So it's not surprising that it was a religious figure who commented that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil".

Nice post.

One of the problems with economics is that human behaviour has an unfortunate habit of interfering with the best laid plans. Look at Brexit, who anticipated that result? Markets depend on people being rational which they're not.

To greed I'd add power - maybe they're two sides of the same coin. Just look at the 2-dimensional people who run for public office.

I love your last sentence. How much is the Vatican worth? How much wealth did the monasteries accumulate? The religions lust for power and money just like the sinners they condemn.

[PmbPhy]

David asked the Naked Scientists:
   Is Science replacing Religion as a new means of belief?

In other words, Science proving religion has no place in regards to life, the planet and the Universe?

or

Is religions only purpose and function based on the belief of an after-world as a way of softening the prospect of death? (although, I believe it is more to do with social control of a large population).
What do you think?

No. Science is not replacing religion. It simply can't do that. They each address very difference aspects of the human condition. The purpose of science is to provide a description of nature while the purpose of religion is to provide answers to the meaning of life, to attend to spirituality, etc.

[vhfpmr]

The world-wide occurrence of religion suggests that it confers a significant evolutionary advantage

Pascal Boyer argues that it parasitizes systems that are of evolutionary advantage rather than being of any advantage itself. It's quite an interesting read.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religion-Explained-Instincts-Fashion-Ancestors/dp/0099282763/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476273306&sr=8-1&keywords=religion+boyer

[jerrygg38]

   Science uses experimental data to verify theories that match the data. In this way many scientists can agree that the particular theory is plausible. Where did the theory come from? It came from the inner mind of a particular individual. Religious theories also come from the same place. Often it is the result of extreme stress or drugs. The religious theory is then brought to some people who see the truth in it. Then it is sold to the masses who are taught from early childhood and often from the mother's womb. Then they grow up and preach the same theory. Other then mythological books there is no proof to the original theory.
   I make religious theories and many are quite possible. However all these theories are subjective. There is no way to measure them so that everyone can get a consensus of opinion. So as we search for truth religions tend to fade away. This leaves future man alone without a God. The simple solution is that God is a collective intelligence and we are individual intelligence. As the universe came to be at big bang, homogeneous intelligence (God) became heterogeneous intelligence (man and life). Ultimately we search for the God that was. We are the ultimate form of God today.