Drinking the Kool-Aid From the Cult of Science

3 ¾ min

Traditional church buildings are emptying at an accelerated rate in recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. Yet that same pandemic has seemingly caused an explosion of worshippers at the church of science. Science is the new religion, a false god to whom we must pay homage, following its every dictate.

The idea that science is our new religion has been percolating for a while. Author Karl Giberson noted over a decade ago in Salon that science “has the raw material for a new religion,” reallocating trust in God to trust in science:

We have a creation myth, ethical directives and a meaningful place for humankind within the grand scheme of things. These are the ingredients that ‘constructive theologians’ like Gordon Kaufman of Harvard Divinity School tell us are common to all religions. As a bonus, we have science to guide us into truth and assure us that we can find solutions to our problems. (Emphasis added.)

One need only look at the reverence and deference accorded to scientists, experts, and even their wildly fluctuating decrees during the COVID pandemic to see how this religion has taken root in our society.

Even in the midst of this moral shift, the average person’s ability to understand the tenets of their new religion is limited, thanks to the American education system. This makes the scientific religion more like a cult, and its followers blind lemmings. This is clearly demonstrated by the most recent science scores from The Nation’s Report Card.

As the chart below shows, only about third of eighth graders are proficient in science. Roughly the same percentage of them score below basic. Those abysmal numbers only get worse as students prepare to leave high school. Only 22 percent of high school seniors register as proficient, while 41 percent score below basic.


It is intriguing that science—of all subjects—is an area in which so many students struggle. Science is the discipline that we as an enlightened community are supposed to rely on. Science is the arena from which we draw those experts telling us what we should do or believe. Science is the field that has become almost a religion in recent years.

But if science is truly our society’s new religion, then today’s children should know their religion’s tenets, and even have an intimate relationship with that religion’s god in order to properly practice the faith and worship the divine being. These test results show the opposite, namely that children are poorly equipped in both their knowledge of and relationship with science and are naively heading into the world with this meager knowledge.

Furthermore, it is always implied that we can have faith in science and the experts who practice it. But if children do not know science for themselves, how can they make sure these experts are leading them in the right way, or even interpreting the data correctly? Such a situation infers that science has truly become a faith—but a decidedly blind one for many.

Perhaps, then, science isn’t so much a religion as it is a cult. It has all the trappings of religion, but it keeps its adherents in the dark, telling them not to question, not to learn more on their own, not to debate the different theories and facets of science, but to trust those who are running the show. And perhaps this is exactly where the experts and our government want us.

What we must recognize is that science, while incredibly helpful, is like any other human theory or practice—flawed and bound to fail at some point in time. The same goes for the “experts” who promote that same science. If we fail to acknowledge this, we willingly gulp the Kool-Aid and set ourselves up to be pawns controlled by the cult of science.   

Beware the Kool-Aid. Seek the truth. And question the cult of science.


Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute and Gab @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 

Flickr-a4gpa, CC BY-SA 2.0

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout. When not writing or editing, she enjoys reading, gardening, and time with family and friends.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


A basic problem is that most people get their "knowledge" of science from the popular media, and reporters are only interested in eyeballs, not facts. Personal opinions far outweigh the facts in most articles. Reading articles in Science and Nature magazines gives a very different impression about the state of knowledge than reading the media's summary, especially in controversial topics such as GMOs or climate change.


The proper word for religious is "tenets", not "tenants". A tenant is someone who occupies a rented space such as an apartment.


What nonsense. First, it is "tenets", not "tenants". When you fail to get that right (and it doesn't look like a spellchecker thing) you impair the credibility of your entire argument. Then, there is this: "Perhaps, then, science isn’t so much a religion as it is a cult. It has all the trappings of religion, but it keeps its adherents in the dark, telling them not to question, not to learn more on their own, not to debate the different theories and facets of science, but to trust those who are running the show." And with this assertion, presented totally without evidence or support, you display your own woeful ignorance of science. Science seeks to illuminate, not keep people in the dark. It explicitly encourages questioning and discourages blind adherence. It also very explicitly encourages learning, either independent or guided. It strongly encourages debate among different theories, and provides a rather solid definition of what constitutes a theory (among other things, it must be falsifiable). And "trusting those who run the show" has a certain inevitability given that no one knows everything or most things or more than a small fraction of things. This does not mean "blindly trust", but more of "trust but verify". This entire post displays massive, massive ignorance of what science is and what it seeks. It also displays an intense bigotry rooted in ignorance. You might legitimately attack the corruption of science by "true believers" and by money and political agendas, but the practice of science is none of the things you have asserted. BTW...I'm a physicist.


Radiant Angel
"Trust the science", "The science is settled", "You are uninformed regarding the science"! All these words have been and still are being shouted from the MSM's and "experts" virtual rooftops and meant to marginalize and demean anyone who questions. The fallout is, whatever science or experts say now is considered inherently false. Trust takes years to build, seconds to destroy and might never return. It's matters not who or what you say you are. It's about credibility.
Most people are uninformed regarding science, and that is the problem. As for "the science is settled", you hear politicians say that. You hear talking heads say that. You hear people with agendas saying that. You don't hear scientists say that. I think I have heard Saint Fauci say "trust the science", and I have heard many talking heads, politicians, and agenda-driven folks say that. But never a scientist. The genuine experts speak more carefully than that.
Scientism has its saints such as Darwin and its clerics such as Dawkins. It's dogmas are based upon evolutionism and anyone who does not fanatically folow is ex-communicated or severely punished by an intellectual inquisition.


Scientific "dogmas" are based upon evidence, experimentation, and fact. Any such "dogma" can be overturned if the evidence is there to do it. WRT evolution, the evidence isn't there...and cherrypicking data to advance a narrative does not constitute evidence. The whole body of the data has to be considered.
Account Photo
The true (civic) religion is Progress. Science has been harnessed to give it credibility.