Soumendra Nath Thakur
January 22, 2025
The statement, "According to Pew Research, 85% of people identify with a religion," provides valuable insight into the distinction between science interpreted through a scientific lens and science influenced by religious bias.
The high percentage of religious affiliation among individuals in the scientific community raises concerns about the potential introduction of religious biases into scientific discourse. Religion, being inherently authoritarian, contrasts with the evidence-based and falsifiable nature of science.
In some cases, renowned scientists are venerated to the extent that their work is considered final and beyond question—an approach that contradicts the core scientific principle of continuous scrutiny and revision. This phenomenon can occur when religious authority influences scientific inquiry.
"A fundamental characteristic of science is that its truths remain constant, independent of personal beliefs. Science relies on empirical evidence and rigorous methods to uncover facts about the universe. These truths exist objectively, unaffected by human opinions or perceptions. This objectivity ensures that scientific discoveries and principles—such as the laws of physics or the theory of evolution—hold true regardless of individual acceptance or cultural perspectives.
This inherent objectivity underscores the importance of science in understanding reality, providing a reliable framework for exploring and explaining the natural world, free from subjective influences or belief systems."
====
Consideration of Scientific Work as Final and Beyond Question:
The statement in my above post,— 'In some cases, renowned scientists are venerated to the extent that their work is considered final and beyond question...' — was intended to highlight how certain scientific concepts, such as time dilation and curved spacetime, are often accepted without scrutiny due to the near-religious reverence afforded to their proponents.
For example, time dilation, as described by relativity, can be more accurately understood as time distortion—a physical consequence of influences such as heat, mechanical forces, motion, and gravitational potential differences. These relativistic effects impact the oscillation of clocks, leading to measurable differences, but they do not imply that time itself is a physical entity. Similarly, gravitational lensing, often attributed to the curvature of spacetime, can be explained as the bending of light due to energy and momentum exchange within the gravitational field, rather than an actual warping of spacetime itself.
The idea that space and time are physical entities stems from a misunderstanding. In reality, time and space are abstract, mathematical constructs, not physical entities. Time emerges as a consequence of existential events—events invoke time, not the other way around. Likewise, spatial dimensions such as length, height, and depth are abstract extensions, and neither space nor time possess inherent physicality. Clocks, for instance, merely provide a physical representation of the abstract concept of time.
Despite these clear distinctions, certain scientific figures are often revered in a way that makes their work seem beyond question, much like religious doctrines. This cultural phenomenon can hinder the necessary scientific process of continuous scrutiny and revision, reinforcing preconceptions that should instead be subject to rigorous analysis and falsifiability.
