Science is often perceived as a rigid structure—an objective discipline built upon unshakable theories and irrefutable evidence. The language of research papers deliberately eliminates subjective opinion, giving the impression that scientific truths are final and unquestionable. But if science becomes something we accept without critical thinking, how different is it from religion? This is not to undermine science or exalt religion, but to explore an important perspective: if we do not question, then our scientific practice becomes just another belief system.
The Ritualistic Nature of Science
In scientific research, citations play a crucial role. Papers often cite those that have been widely cited before, forming an intellectual echo chamber. Theories are built upon previous theories, and deviations from established thought are met with skepticism or outright rejection. This self-reinforcing system resembles religious rituals where scriptures are cited to validate beliefs. The gatekeeping by scientific societies and institutions further solidifies this structure, sometimes discouraging true skepticism.
Karl Popper’s philosophy of science revolved around the idea of falsification. According to him, a scientific theory should never be accepted as an ultimate truth; instead, it should always be open to falsification. The moment we stop attempting to disprove a theory, we slip into dogmatism. Consider the classic example: observing 500 white swans and formulating the theory that “All swans are white.” If we were content with this, we would never venture beyond our locality to challenge our assumption. However, upon discovering a black swan in Australia, we are forced to revise our theory. The more accurate statement would then be, “Some swans are white, but not all.”
But in reality, do we practice this principle? Often, we are content with verification rather than falsification. We replicate studies to validate existing knowledge but rarely attempt to dismantle prevailing theories. This lack of critical questioning makes science, at times, resemble a belief system—one that is upheld by the authority of institutions rather than constant inquiry.
Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts: When Science is Truly Questioned
Thomas Kuhn, in his theory of scientific revolutions, argued that most scientists practice “normal science.” This involves routine work within established frameworks, using accepted equations and methodologies. Only when anomalies accumulate to a breaking point does the scientific community engage in “extraordinary science,” leading to paradigm shifts.
For instance, Newtonian mechanics was the cornerstone of physics for centuries until Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics disrupted it. The shift was not immediate—it required persistent questioning and anomalies that could no longer be ignored. Once the new paradigm was established, however, science returned to its normal state—operating under new assumptions until the next major disruption.
If we blindly adhere to scientific principles without questioning, we engage in a ritual no different from religious practices. Critical thinking and creativity are exercised only during revolutionary phases. The rest of the time, we accept the knowledge given to us without deeper reflection.
A Balanced Perspective: Science, Religion, and Belief Systems
This is not an argument against science or an endorsement of religion. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that humans operate best within belief systems. Science is one such system—one that has undoubtedly propelled human progress, just as religious frameworks have historically provided moral and social order. However, the moment we stop questioning, we become just as dogmatic as those who refuse to challenge religious doctrine.
At its core, science should be about curiosity, skepticism, and the pursuit of knowledge without rigid adherence to accepted truths. Likewise, religious belief provides meaning and structure to many lives. If one replaces the other without the willingness to question, then fundamentally, nothing has changed—we remain creatures of belief, merely swapping one system for another.
So, the question is not whether science or religion is superior. The real challenge is whether we dare to think critically, question assumptions, and embrace the discomfort of uncertainty. Only then can we truly claim to be different from those who accept things without question.