Science should not be a religion

By demeaning Hmong animism and mischaracterizing Christianity, Paula Ann Costis’ Sept. 20 letter calls for “scientific inquiry and confirmation” to assess “all unsubstantiated” beliefs. While science’s limited application can assess the viability of some naturalistic aspects of truth claims of religions, Ms. Costis does not state that, rather elevating science to the position of arbiter of truth, a position that, by definition, science is not qualified to occupy unless it accepts a position as a religion itself.

There is an increasingly outspoken faction within science seeking to expand it beyond what science was developed originally to do, investigate and understand natural phenomenon (what Christians call God’s general revelation) and move it into a domain above other mere religions. It has its own hierarchy, demi-gods, laws, commandments and liturgy. Rather than stealth proselytizing for what it is often called – scientism (Scientology and Christian Science are taken), its adherents are encouraged to at least be honest about it, a tenant of most religions.

This story was originally published September 24, 2015 at 7:00 AM with the headline "Science should not be a religion."