Not having been raised religiously, I've also felt that my belief in "science" was similar to a religious belief. In both cases, there is a model of the world which you take on trust because someone in authority tells you "this is so". There is little difference between believing that the world was created in 6 days because your priest says so, and believing that the universe was created in a "big bang" because your science teacher says so. In both cases, you choose your own world model, based on what feels "right". The closest I've had to a "religious" relevation was on reading a Scientific American article on Chaotic Inflation - the theory was so elegant, and fit so well with my model of the world that I've chosen to believe it to be true, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Of course, Scientists tell you that their story of the world is different, since you can apply the "scientific method" and test it for yourself. However, how many of us actually take this option? In practice, 99.9999% of people take it on trust. How is this any different than taking it on trust that Moses parted the Red Sea, that thunder is created by the Hammer of Odin, or that when we die we will be reincarnated as a dragonfly? And a lot of religions have equivalents to the "scientific method": if we pray enough, or drink the shaman's "special potion" , or meditate, or enter the cave that is the gateway to Hades, then we will have proof of their story of the world.
However, now I've spoke to various religious people, I've realised that the "story of how the world is" is only one part of a modern religion. There is also the "how we should live our lives" (eg morals / "christian values" / burning the heathen etc), the "day-to-day worship" (eg not mixing meat and milk / eating the symbolic body of god / sacrificing goats to ensure a good harvest / etc), and the "what will happen if you're bad" (eg go to hell / lump of coal in Xmas stocking / perpetually pushing a boulder up a mountain).
Science represents the "how the world is" aspect of a religion. As a non-religious person, that aspect of a religion is what you are taught at school, so I naturally felt that it was the most important part of a religion. However, speaking to various current (and ex-) religious people, I have found that a lot of them equate "religion" with the "day-to-day worship" aspect, and ignore the other aspects. Others talk about the "how we should live our lives" aspect. However, a moral code cannot be the entirety of a religion: most western "non-religious" people live by the same moral code as western Christians. And this moral code is a lot different from the moral code of earlier Christians ("burn them, God will know his own" etc).
In summary, I feel that science has some aspects of religion. I also feel that the vast majority of people take science "on faith", in the same way as we might take religious teachings "on faith". However, science doesn't have the "day-to-day" aspects of a religion, which many religious people identify as being the core of their faith. Neither does it have a set of moral values, nor a "what will happen if your're bad" viewpoint. As to which parts are necessary to form a religion, I don't think that it's possible to make a firm line in the sand. Many so-called "religions" are missing one (or more) of the above aspects, making classification as a "religion" a matter of semantics.
no subject
Of course, Scientists tell you that their story of the world is different, since you can apply the "scientific method" and test it for yourself. However, how many of us actually take this option? In practice, 99.9999% of people take it on trust. How is this any different than taking it on trust that Moses parted the Red Sea, that thunder is created by the Hammer of Odin, or that when we die we will be reincarnated as a dragonfly? And a lot of religions have equivalents to the "scientific method": if we pray enough, or drink the shaman's "special potion" , or meditate, or enter the cave that is the gateway to Hades, then we will have proof of their story of the world.
However, now I've spoke to various religious people, I've realised that the "story of how the world is" is only one part of a modern religion. There is also the "how we should live our lives" (eg morals / "christian values" / burning the heathen etc), the "day-to-day worship" (eg not mixing meat and milk / eating the symbolic body of god / sacrificing goats to ensure a good harvest / etc), and the "what will happen if you're bad" (eg go to hell / lump of coal in Xmas stocking / perpetually pushing a boulder up a mountain).
Science represents the "how the world is" aspect of a religion. As a non-religious person, that aspect of a religion is what you are taught at school, so I naturally felt that it was the most important part of a religion. However, speaking to various current (and ex-) religious people, I have found that a lot of them equate "religion" with the "day-to-day worship" aspect, and ignore the other aspects. Others talk about the "how we should live our lives" aspect. However, a moral code cannot be the entirety of a religion: most western "non-religious" people live by the same moral code as western Christians. And this moral code is a lot different from the moral code of earlier Christians ("burn them, God will know his own" etc).
In summary, I feel that science has some aspects of religion. I also feel that the vast majority of people take science "on faith", in the same way as we might take religious teachings "on faith". However, science doesn't have the "day-to-day" aspects of a religion, which many religious people identify as being the core of their faith. Neither does it have a set of moral values, nor a "what will happen if your're bad" viewpoint. As to which parts are necessary to form a religion, I don't think that it's possible to make a firm line in the sand. Many so-called "religions" are missing one (or more) of the above aspects, making classification as a "religion" a matter of semantics.