What I'm talking about is worshipping the ideals of science, logic and reason. Kind of a la Vulcans from star trek, but not so pointy-eared or boring.
What I pretty much got stuck on were where science and religion tend to clash. Science is my domain for sure and I've never been a church-goer or otherwise religious as defined by any mainstream religion. For instance:
- is it 100% necessary to have a component of blind faith to your religion or some kind of unconditional acceptance of a universal truth? This of course goes against the very basis of science and logic and is the major impasse in the evolution vs. creation argument. Is it possible to worship just the idea and method without having some kind of omnipitence behind it.
- Who would be the revered saints of science-ology. Famous scientists
- I suppose you could treat scientific books like Newton's Principia and Einstein's theory of realativity as your holy texts, but science requires that such things can be modified, changed or thrown out entirely at any time. Would that jive with the other book-having (bible/qu'uran) religions where the holy texts are infallible and created by god?
- Ritual practices like meditation, prayer and such are pretty common in many religions. Is it necessary to have that ritual for something to be a religion. Would such a ritual just be a properly conducted scientific experiment?
I guess what I'm getting at is how far would we have to modify science and its methods before they could be considered a religion? How would the followers of science-ology run or change their lives? Would you need holy structures or icons for people to relate to? Any thoughts?