Why Is Science Trying to Become a Religion?

In this blog post, we’ll discuss why science is trying to become a religion!

 

Science and religion have been at odds up until modern times. In the past, Galileo was persecuted by the Inquisition for supporting Copernicus’ geocentric theory of the Earth revolving around the Sun instead of the heliocentric theory of the universe revolving around the Earth. In modern times, however, as science has advanced, it has become less influenced by religion and more threatening to its position. A new wave of atheists has emerged who advocate scientific universalism, claiming that science can explain everything. They believe that religion is the opiate of the ignorant and that science will eventually push religion out of the way. But contrary to their expectations, religion is still alive and well, and the world’s religious population is actually growing. Why hasn’t science pushed religion out of the way, and is there something wrong with their argument?
Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most famous of the new wave of atheists who have emerged in this era in favor of scientific universalism. In his books such as The Selfish Gene and The God Who Made Us, he criticizes religion. In particular, he argues that Darwinism is a universal theory of humanity that goes beyond biology, and that religion can be explained through Darwinism. But is it possible to explain religion, which is composed of metaphysical beliefs, through science, which is devoid of metaphysics? Dawkins tries to solve this problem by cleverly putting a metaphysical interpretation on science. In his book, he says that genes are in us and control the world by remote control, and he argues that protecting them is the ultimate cause of our existence. However, the only part of his argument that has been confirmed by the rigorous scientific method is the statement “genes are in us”. Other statements, such as “genes control the world” and “the preservation of genes is the ultimate cause of human existence,” are Dawkins’ metaphysical interpretations wrapped up in the guise of science.
In his book, Dawkins also advocates a new theory called meme theory, which proposes that just as organisms evolve through genes, religious beliefs evolve through the existence of memes. According to the theory, just as genes transmit biological information through self-replication, memes transmit individual thoughts and beliefs from brain to brain through mimicry. Memes evolve through the same processes of mutation, competition, natural selection, and inheritance as genes, and are transmitted both vertically and horizontally. Dawkins uses meme theory to package his explanations for religious beliefs as if they were scientific facts. However, there are no facts in meme theory that have been verified by the scientific method, and it is therefore not science, but Dawkins’ own metaphysical interpretation. The existence of memes and the mechanisms by which they are transmitted are not scientifically observable, nor is it possible to define with scientific precision what a meme actually is. Some might argue that Dawkins is simply conceptually analogizing the transmission of religious beliefs through the fiction of memes. However, in his book, Dawkins states that memes have a physical existence, as he writes

“Memes should be considered living structures in the strictest sense, not as metaphors. When you plant a reproductive meme in my head, you are literally saying that you are parasitizing my brain. My brain becomes a carrier for the meme’s reproduction, similar to how a virus parasitizes on the genetic machinery of a host cell. This is not a simple analogy. For example, the meme ‘belief in life after death’ is physically realized millions of times in people around the world as a structure in the nervous system.”

His claim that religion arose because of the existence of memes, which are similar to genes parasitizing the brain, is more fiction than science. This practice of hiding metaphysical interpretations under scientific facts and claiming them as science, or claiming that metaphysical interpretations are themselves science, is precisely the problem with the claims made by scientific universalists like Richard Dawkins today. Such behavior destroys the very essence of science, and is tantamount to packaging science as a new religion. Just as religions have used science as a tool to emphasize their beliefs in the past, such as during Galileo’s Inquisition, times have changed and the new atheists like Richard Dawkins are now using science as a tool to emphasize their anti-religious beliefs.
Science, when used correctly, is neutral toward religious or anti-religious beliefs. This is because science can only answer questions of fact, not questions of value and meaning. Science can prove that humans die, but it cannot explain what kind of death is valuable or what it means to humans. So if we use science correctly and in accordance with its nature, without using it as a tool of religion or as a tool of anti-religion, science leads us to questions of meaning and value that science cannot answer. That is the role of science, and science should stop there.