AGW is a religion, right?

From History For Kids http://www.historyforkids.org/2009design/religion.jpg

One thing I read in the comments at WUWT is that climate science/anthropogenic global warming is a religion.  I know this comment is old but it is representative:

Wondering Aloud says:

November 4, 2009 at 9:24 am

Well maybe he is right? It clearly is a religious rather than a scientific belief. Of course maybe the law is dumb…

 Problem is, of course, what is a religion?

The Free Dictionary defines religion thus:

1.

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The Free Dictionary definition #4 might admit that climate change science is a religion but that definition clearly puts lots of things in the realm of religion. My devotion to cricket, for instance, would make it onto the list as a religion when clearly it is not. So #4 reallly isn't describing a religion at all but fanaticism of a sort.

Here is a list of defining descriptions:

• Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
• A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
• Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
• A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
• Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
• A social group bound together by the above.

This is more like it so let's take them one at a time and see how climate change science scores in the religion stakes. 

• Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

Science does not permit of supernatural explanations - those need to be replicable.  Deniers, on the other hand, quite often link their views on climate change to supernatural beings

• A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

Science has no sacred or profane objects. Evolution deniers claim that Darwin's On The Origin Of Species is a sacred book without realising that it is totally out of date, has things we know are untrue and has been superceded by more modern research. It is read because it is an introduction to the subject and one of the clearest descriptions of natural selection there is. However, you can understand evolution without reading a single word of it. 

• Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

Science has a "method" of sorts, much discussed by philosophers and sociologists, but there are no ritual acts as such. 

• A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Scientists are expected to behave ethically and adhere to good standards of evidence and research but there is nothing about any gods that apply these standards.  Peer review and publication often root out the good from the bad. 

• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

Awe seems to be a human trait and anyone can be in  awe of many things.  However, scientific awe seems unconnected to sacred objects, ritual or anything else that characterises religions as most people understand them.  I feel awe each time I see the Saturn V rocket at the Kennedy Space Center.  Does that mean spaceflight is religion?

KSC's Saturn V http://www.johnweeks.com/spacecraft/isaturn/saturn_v_ksc_1.jpg

• Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

Science doesn't need prayer to continue.

• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

This might include science as religion but honestly no one would seriously entertain that idea.  Science provides information and understanding about the world but it does not explain an over-all purpose to life beyond that suggested by evolution and that, as many of its critics say, is entirely materialistic.

• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.

Science is a job in the end. You can take it or leave it.

• A social group bound together by the above.

Scientists are bound as a group by the common bond of trying to understand the Universe.  They are not bound by prayer, ritual or the need to believe in anything supernatural.  There are religious scientists, and some famously atheist ones, but following where the evidence leads is an unlikely version of religion.

 

The suggestion that one form or another of science is a religion is merely there as an insult.  Adherents to the chosen scientific field, be it climate change or evolution, are characterised as religious adherents because it suits their enemies to so describe them. It is truly unintelligent or uninformed to think otherwise.

So what claiming science as a religion is about is mere rhetoric and has no basis in actual reasoning. It is meant as an insult, even by those who are religious.  No one would truly claim science is a religion except perhaps under the trivial definition #4 above. That won't stop deniers using the term.