Science as religion

Religion is a controversial subject. It is also exceptionally rare that people share the same working definitions about religion when discussing it. If I for an example discuss religion (not a particular one) as a distributor of common norms with someone who dislikes Christianity (one religion) , this discussion is typically bound to end up in discussing ONE religion (usually Christianity or Islam) as a distributor of death, abuse and discrimination.

Scientists are not a very religious group. I do have religious friend where I work but most of my friends think that religion is obsolete.

I know that humans like purpose. I don't know why we like purpose but at least one reasonable explanation is that this behavior has been exceptionally rewarding for us historically. Already as cave men we were gifted in assigning purpose to things. We assigned the purpose of a cave to be our home. We assigned the purpose of a normal sharp rock to be an instrument of power which we could use to kill or intimidate people. We assigned the purpose of smaller shinier rocks to be the instrument of status and exclusivity. Assigning purpose to things without obvious purpose was very rewarding for our reproduction. Purpose is in our genes.

If purpose is in your genes you probably also start looking for purpose for bigger things. When the cave men saw the sun for the first time, it probably worked our like this:

Caveman1: Thinking: Wow, this yellow thing is very bright. Can I use it to kill or intimidate someone? Can I use it to increase my social status? Can I eat it? *Long and hard thinking*
Caveman2: Wow, what is this bright yellow thing?
Caveman1: It is the bringer of light. If you want it to continue to shine tomorrow we have to sacrifice a goat. I know how the ritual works, but you have to let me sleep with your wife before I tell you.

This may be how religion started out. Sort of.
You may object to this. Why on earth would Caveman2 comply and lend Caveman1 his wife? Surely there is no evolutionary place for suckers like Caveman2? this objection makes a lot of sense in a world with only two cavemen, but in reality this could be very profitable for caveman2 if he can learn the ways of caveman1 and sell this scam to caveman3 next doors. It is like a Ponzi scheme (a form of pyramid game where there are no suckers as long as new suckers are initiated, but which eventually falls apart when no new suckers are available. When it falls apart the newest sucker will hurt the most) which also appeals to our genetic desire of assigning purpose to things. And purpose is like crack to us.

My guess is that the role of religion evolved to provide purpose. With purpose I include:
The "purpose" of natural phenomena (thunder, stars, moon, gravity)
The "purpose" of Humans (Purpose of life)

Here are two examples of purpose of life:
Fight fierce and with dignity and you will eat and at the tables of the gods in Valhalla (Nordic mythology)
The ten commandments offer offer you a map to heaven, and heaven is really nice and hence your purpose to reach (Christianity)

Science offers an alternative way to explain natural phenomena. It has managed quite well to do so (at least according to scientists), and most things are nowadays "in principle understood". "In principle understood" means that we may not know exactly how everything works, but we do know the fundamental principle. As an example we can explain that the earth actually circles then sun and not vice verse. We also know why. Scientists probably think that we figured these things out so well that it is no longer a fair fight with religion as the proper way to explain these things.

You may think that science is bound to stay in the business of describing natural phenomena. Wrong! These days we are very much trying to describe what makes you happy, sad and how your brain is wired. We don't know that exactly but we believe that we know the fundamentals, which means that we "sort of know". In essence; we are trying to explain personal things about you like who you are and why, how you function, and if you have a soul or not. And these things are pretty related to the purpose of YOU.

If science is now in the business of describing purpose; why not have science as religion? The problem is that although we can explain how things work and why; we won't get close to give it a purpose. This means that even though we can explain thunder, we can't assign any purpose to it. I believe that this gives science a huge disadvantage to religion in the eyes of normal people. You may object and say that the truth should be good enough to compete; IF we can't show a purpose, maybe there isn't any. Wouldn't people adopt this idea if it's "the right answer"? If you ever sold a product, you know that this is untrue. We don't buy products because they are good for us. We buy them because we like them. As a philosophy product package, science is like carrots: Good for you, but terribly boring. We in principle know how almost everything works, but we can't assign purpose to any of it. And purpose is what the masses demand.