I think a better question is what is the new religion? The need for dogma, simple world view, something to explain the things we cant, ascribe meaning externally, and pursuit of values do appear to be central to human nature. Is this why we "science" chanted like a prayer "the science is definitive! it says (whatever point is beneficial for my tribe)?
Maybe to some degree, though I always personally shy away from these comparisons because certain breeds of anti-intellectual seize on similar lines to dishonestly make a point by saying that "science is just religion for atheists" or some other absurd comparison meant to diminish the value of scientific information (e.g., those who fought tooth-and-nail against COVID restrictions, mask wearing, and vaccination). While those of us who are inundated in science can talk about the nuances of "science" and the fallacy behind saying "the science is settled," I do think we have to be careful to thoroughly elucidate what we mean when say that, else we risk some dunderhead saying, "See, even scientists admit the science isn't settled! So climate change may very well
be a myth!" Of course we mean nothing of the sort, only that no body of work, even one as robustly replicated as climate science, can ever offer a 100% accurate picture of reality and that
some question or
very slim doubt exists regarding a model's ability to perfectly predict the future. Inevitably, someone comes along and says "See, even scientists have doubts!" without bothering to educate themselves on what we mean by "doubt" and what we mean when we say "it isn't
completely settled" (by which we mean, "We are virtually certain that x is occurring, is caused by y, and will have z negative outcomes, but some of the fine details are still under investigation,"
not "We aren't sure this is even real"). Of course you and everyone here knows this...I'm just spouting off. Still, I find it a tricky line to walk to try and explain to some less-than-well-informed folks how close to absolutely certain we are about some things (climate change, to continue the analogy)
even if some questions (which are
minor in comparison to recognizing the enormity of the climate situation; e.g., "Is it 1.3 degrees or 1.5 degrees warming over the next decade?") remain open. Anyway, it is growing late on the east coast and my thoughts are kind of muddy and incoherent, so I may have done a poor job explaining myself...suffice it say that while I agree it is important for scientists to recognize the limitations of science and not "religify" it, it also makes me nervous to think about how to navigate presenting that message to the public clearly so as to avoid further harming some folks' faith in the enterprise and causing as much harm as good. No doubt there are those who will take scientific nuance out of context simply because they can (
ahem, looking at you, young-earth creationists) and continue pushing the narrative that "science is just faith for atheists" or whatever bilge they will spew, but I fear the potential of giving them ammunition. And I know that's not what you were getting at here, it's just something my brain went to when reading this.
