It’s said that science is a religion. This notion can confuse those who don't grasp its depth. Many scientists recoil at the term "scientific religion." They see it as a misrepresentation. Science, they say, is impartial. It seeks only the truth of what we observe. It is cold, factual, devoid of faith. They claim that if science were a religion, it would be a religion without faith.

But if science has faith, it is a religion. If not, then perhaps those who claim scientific religion are mistaken. Perhaps they fear science overshadowing all else as mere speculation. Which is it?

Is Scientific Religion Real?

Scientific religion is real, and it stands clear today—especially after the Big Bang discovery. The Big Bang was exactly what believers expected science to find, mirroring Genesis. Yet science was startled. Many scientists still are. Their reactions were not just awe. Some rejected the evidence, some even tried to hide it, and the community was frustrated.

Robert Jastrow, an esteemed astronomer and physicist, observed:

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions . They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."

Albert Einstein, a pillar of modern physics, was so disturbed by the Big Bang that he tried to negate it. His own Theory of Relativity confirmed it, yet he wrote, "This circumstance irritates me." He created the “cosmological constant” to argue for a static universe. Without it, Genesis seemed undeniable. Did he try to cover it up? Consider this:

  1. Einstein was irritated by the Big Bang discovery.
  2. He introduced the “Cosmological Constant” by dividing by zero, a known impossibility—a form of cheating.

If you believe Einstein didn’t try to hide the evidence, then you must believe he didn’t know dividing by zero is flawed. This is scientific religion in its essence.

Jastrow further noted:

"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

The evidence of scientific religion is vast. It’s been this way for centuries. Scientists resist certain truths. They get angry. Why? If science were not a belief system, why would a scientist, especially a “pillar of science,” become so emotional? Isn’t science about facts? Isn’t it a dispassionate method? No, it’s not.

There are many making unfounded claims in science's name—claims based purely on faith. A popular physicist invents notions, not rooted in science, to counter theological support. Others in this scientific congregation eagerly applaud. It doesn't matter that these stories are not science. They are lifelines in a storm, gathering the hopeless.

These claims include imaginary time, non-space, and parallel universes—fantastical ideas that distract willing audiences. It’s akin to a magic show, denying scientific facts that conflict with scientific religion. It mirrors what scientists accuse believers of doing.

Others cling to the belief that science will explain everything. This belief is not tempered by logic. They leap to conclude science will eventually answer all, dispelling God. This reasoning is so flawed, it’s hard to believe anyone, especially scientists, could embrace it. Yet they do. Scientists who embrace God are often dismissed by their peers.

These believers proceed with the assumption that God does not exist, claiming to seek truth. Is that truth-seeking? No. They desire only the truth that leads them where they wish to go. Their religion is passionate, and to protect it, they must first destroy all others. It is their first principle.

They hope that science will replace God with answers for creation. This faith in science mirrors worship. They cling to faith, make assumptions, and hold to hopeful prediction. When logic yields to faith and hope, it is the mark of religion.

Science meets all criteria for scientific religion. It is not the cold, dispassionate journey to truth. It is not merely methodological or firmly rooted in evidence. It transcends these, into passion and faith. Despite objections, scientific religion exists—and its followers are transparently religious.

The Plain Truth of It

Science, my friend, is not the neutral ground it claims to be. It is steeped in belief, in faith, in hope. It seeks to answer the mysteries of the universe, yet stumbles when faced with the divine. It is a religion, unspoken, yet fervently followed.

Consider this: the evidence of a beginning, the whispers of Genesis in the cosmos, the discomfort of those who profess only reason. Science has its faith, and it is a faith that mirrors the very thing it seeks to deny.

So, where does this leave you? Look beyond the veil of scientific religion. Seek the truth that stands firm. It is there, waiting, with open arms.