Suppose that any drink which starts with the letter C hurts you. Suppose that any drink that starts with the letter W heals you. Suppose that humanity is ignorant of this fact. Here we go ...
Scenario 1: 200 years ago, coffee was the beverage of choice of the people of Planet Mirth. Eventually, coffee fell out of favor -- no particular reason, it just wasn't doing it for people anymore -- and in came chocolate milk. This remained the #1 drink of choice for many years until it was discovered that chocolate milk causes colon cancer. People quit drinking it, and their new drink of choice became coconut milk.
Scenario 2: 200 years ago, coffee was the beverage of choice of the people of Planet Mirth. Eventually, coffee fell out of favor -- no particular reason, it just wasn't doing it for people anymore -- and in came chocolate milk. This remained the #1 drink of choice for many years until it was discovered that chocolate milk causes colon cancer. People quit drinking it, and their new drink of choice became watermelon juice.
In Scenario 1, a young man says on a webforum, "Coconut milk is the new chocolate milk." And he is correct.
In Scenario 2, a young man says on a webforum, "Watermelon juice is the new chocolate milk." And he is also correct.
But the key thing here is this: the young man in Scenario 1 has pointed out that a new evil has replaced the old evil, but the young man in Scenario 2 has pointed out that a new good has replaced the old evil.
If you want to say that science is the new religion because people believe in it (just like people used to believe in God), scientists are almost treated as infallible (just like priests used to be), etc, then I'd say that while your argument isn't 100% solid, it's solid enough in my book: I would agree that in the 21st Century science is "the new religion." It is what most people put their faith in. People trust science.
But if what you want to say is that science is the new "opiate of the masses," or that science is "the new cultural lie," then you're either uninformed or uninformable. The core principle behind true science (true science!) is this: do not blindly accept claims as true. Demand evidence. Demand reproducible evidence.
People used to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea because they were told so. End of story. It's not a very convincing reason to believe in Moses's purported divinity.
People used to believe that the dinosaurs were rendered extinct after a colossal meteor smashed into the Earth. And they still believe this. Why? Because this time the theory actually backed up its claim with good evidence:
- concrete evidence like the massive crater near/part of the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico
- logical evidence like noticing what the effects are when large meteors hit Earth today (they produce cold years b/c of the ash which enters the atmosphere and blocks the sun's rays; same thing with massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa) and noting the differences between dinosaurs, based on the fossil evidence we have, and the ancestors of today's animals -- ancestors who clearly did survive the theoretical meteor collision.
If somebody says that it's a fact that a meteor killed the dinosaurs, then he is NOT a true scientist. Maybe he is a child. Maybe he is ignorant. Who knows. But he's not a true scientist. A true scientist would say, "We don't know what killed off the dinosaurs, but the evidence we have today most strongly points towards extinction resulting from an enormous meteor colliding with the Earth and generating several years of darkness and cold which decimated many of the Earth's ecosystems and rendered the physically-large dinosaurs S.O.L. in times of food scarcity."
It's the opposite with religion. If somebody says, "Maybe Moses parted the waters, and maybe he didn't," then people will say of him, "He is not a true believer. He is not a true Christian. A true Christian would have no doubts about Moses's divinity." The only person who gets to be called a true Christian is the guy who says, "Jesus is the Son of God, end of debate."
Religion: afraid of critical thinking, especially when it backlashes.
Science: embraces critical thinking, especially when it backlashes! (e.g. Albert Einstein, Max Planck)
