Surprisingly, religion is a science. It is NOT an experimental or laboratory-based science, but it IS a system of knowledge. This is not the most common use of the word, but it not an inappropriate use either. Thinking this way should not lead anyone to conclude that religious or theological knowledge can be or must be gained by standard scientific methods.

Another PerspectiveReligion is not a science. While it is true that science means 'knowledge' in latin, science is a systematic gathering of knowledge. Religious belief systems are based on faith and not knowledge. To believe is to accept something as true or real. Belief is the acceptance of the truth or actuality of anything without certain proof. Belief is a mental conviction. Religious belief is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny in the complete absence of any proof. That is not science.

Also

Using a broad enough definition of "science" anything one can learn can be considered a "science." This includes:

Physics
Chemistry
Religion
Basket weaving
Philosophy
Reading/Writing (literacy)
Painting
Directing Traffic
Picking cotton

Using such a broad definition of the word renders is meaningless. Instead, a narrower (but still probably too broad in the opinion of many scientists) definition may be of more use:

Science is a logical, dynamic system of knowledge, the purpose of which is to further our understanding, and explain why things are or how they happen.

This definition does not necessarily exclude all non-laboratory-based fields of study.

While religion does make an attempt to explain why and how things are the way they are, the failings of religion are that it is a static system, in which information does not change (only the interpretation of it does), and that religion is not logic-based. In religious thinking, logic need not apply, as faith must always take precedence.

Another key point here is that not all knowledge is equal. There are two general categories of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. A priori knowledge is independent from experience or evidence, it is considered to be obviously or necessarily true. A posteriori knowledge is that knowledge which is based on experience or evidence.

Religion deals almost exclusively with a priori knowledge -- that which is merely assumed to be true. The fickle thing about a priori knowledge is that despite how "obviously true" knowledge may be, because this knowledge is based on rhetoric and reasoning that is subject to human biases, a self-contradictory system may be built from a priori knowledge.

Science seeks to minimize use of a priori knowledge in favor of a posteriori knowledge. Science starts with the assumption that the universe is not self-contradictory (i.e. logic applies). With this assumption, no a posteriori knowledge can be inconsistent with any other a posteriori knowledge (all observations come from the same self-consistent engine), although humans can certainly misinterpret the observations. In science, error and uncertainty only exist due to misinterpretations or ambiguities in the body of a posteriori knowledge, usually because the same observation may be the result of one of several causes.

For example, many early scientists believed the Sun moved around the Earth because it appeared to be the simpler of two possibilities which would both support the observations. Either the sun moved around the Earth, or the Earth spun around the Sun. When more observations were made, particularly with respect to the motions of other planets, it was found that the second explanation was by far simpler, and so today no scientist believes the Sun to move around the Earth.

The short answer is: The only way religion can be considered a science is if the definition of "science" is watered down enough to render it meaningless.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company