Why do " scientists" on YA treat science like a religion?

A good intelligence marker is whether someone is more interested in what they don't know than what they already know. As a result there are some brilliant people striving for a better understanding of the universe on several different levels and they chart new territory on a fairly regular basis. Science seems driven by forces equal to those that drive evolution. As you have noticed this has been a source of nonsensical friction between some religions and science. If a bunch of powerful religious people were attacking science it would seem to some people that science is a competing religion. In reality it is something entirely different but has the misfortune of sometimes clashing with people who may see science as some sort of threat. Scientists really do have to defend themselves and their work at times with an almost religious loyalty.

Any belief system could be classified as a religion. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Communism, Spiritism, and Materialism may all be considered belief systems. Some people have personal experiences or evidence that is convincing to them which enhances their beliefs and causes them to view the world through a biased prism where everything seems to fit into their world view.

Science is a methodology which tries to reduce the influence of personal bias and perspective. The goal is to utilize a specific and tested methodology to identify results that can be reproduced. Events that can be observed by multiple people in multiple controlled environments are considered to be more likely to be independent of personal bias or misinterpretation by any individual.

Many researchers in the world today employ the scientific methodology to attempt to gather independent and unbiased evidence to produce a complete and consistent world view and to help us to understand the world better. If a researcher believes in materialism (the belief that all things have a physical and only a physical explanation), they are likely to view the world through a biased viewpoint. They will accept physical explanations over more obvious explanations and they will reject explanations that are tested and repeatable if they do not conform to a materialistic world view. Not all researchers, even those who use the scientific method, are materialists.

Some scientists could be considered to be religious in their support fo the scientific method and their belief that the "truths" of the world can be discovered through an application of this method. Other scientists regard the scientific method as valuable, but not a perfect (or the only) method to gather evidence. Not all scientists are not religious, but matieralists are religious.

You may not realize a couple of concepts.

1) Its ok to reject an idea that is not supported by evidence and lies outside of what you consider reasonable. Most concepts classified as paranormal fit into this category. Our knowledge base would never progress if we had to accept everything with open arms.

If I told you I could fly by flapping my wings, would you just accept it without question? No, and I don't think you should have to be branded a fanatic if you demand proof, or reject the idea outright.

2) There are quite a few concepts, especially in the realm of paranormal abilities like telekinesis which have been beaten to death by science, only to conclude that they aren't possible. I mean, telekinesis was studied in a 28 year project in Princeton only to conclude, that it might be possible to manipulate a few electrons once in awhile. That kind of wishy washy result tells you one of two things you can conclude from this study. They are eager for more funding, but have no real results and that if telekinesis is real its completely useless for any practical purposes.

I can only compare what I've seen in my lifetime of over 50 years.

Science has brought me, push button phones, wireless phones and cell phones. As a kid we shared a line with the people across the street. We have computers, GPS and copying machines right in our houses. Hundreds of TV channels brought to us in high definition by satelite.

How about microwave ovens and ice makers in our refrigeraters.

In the same lifetime what have we learned about the paranormal. We still don't know what UFOs are, and no one has found bigfoot. Even with half the worlds population walking around with video cameras.

Hans holzer has been replaced by ghost hunting TV shows and still the information is the same. Still no proof of psychic powers either and they were on the verge of that breakthrough in 1969. Where are the paranormal advances? I'm talking about the ones we can see and use practically, ourselves. Sure, we can read about them from the likes of Dean Radin or Russell Targ. I could do that in 1959, only the names were different.

Religion as I understand it is faith based. I can see and use the results of science and I have faith I'll see more in the future. I can't do that with the paranormal.

Science is not a position but a method, that is simply the best we have. Also for better or worse, it delivers.

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

— Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space)

Scientists know better than anyone that science isn't complete. If it were, what would we have to study? There are always more questions to answer. You don't get anything published by confirming what we already know - you get published and known for your science by coming up with something new or overthrowing what we thought we knew. Science is always improving itself. But to do that, it relies on evidence, not faith. Scientists need to question everything. I think you're the one who doesn't understand science. What you described is a religion, not a science.

Science is not a religion...science is the the power of observation and demonstration.

Show me your observations and demonstrate your conclusions when asked to do so...

While I'm at it I'll add that mathematics is an absolute logic and it goes hand in hand with science.

actually, if science was a religion, it would be the only one to accept that it can make mistakes and be willing to correct them.