Science is not the new religion, despite what people like Michael Crichton would say. But is it in danger of being perceived as such?

Are we inclined, as non-scientists, to accept the answers that science gives us as Truth?

Sortofish. Humans of all intellect tend to compartmentalize things, whether that be ideas, beliefs, habits, or whatever. This is efficient so that the brain can concentrate on "more important things" and things that need attention. So, in order to be able to tuck something away, there has to be a reasonable resolution, as something unresolved takes attention. It is human nature to want to accept a reasonable resolution. For some it is "goddidit" no matter the question, and that makes life very easy. To others, the scientific explanation handles that, so that makes life easy (the old tag line of the 1950s - Better Living Through Chemistry gave rise to that thought of science being the new religion). The big difference about scientific explanations of Truth vs. supernatural ones is the static nature of them. Nobody believes science has the definitive answer so there is always some flexibility in the nature of that Truth and always the quest to find the ultimate Truth. This is what Crichton and his ilk allude to, the passion and zeal that was once only found in a static religion is now applied to the quest for Truth.

Make sense to you? Does to me, but then I'm a big Science...Fiction fan. :)

Added: Read Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle's book, The Mote in God's Eye

Science is:

"noun

1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

‘the world of science and technology’ "

Whether you accept the findings of this 'activity' or not is entirely up to the individual. But it is based on 'observation and experiment' and not just on the 'faith, beliefs and religious claims' of others...

Is it a 'religion' to me? Certainly not... 'religion' is an entirely different thing...

I don't believe anything blindly. I look at the evidence as it is presented, and given what I know of science, I make a judgement call. If a statement seems reasonable, I tend to accept it as true, until a better understanding of things comes along. No dogma means being able to accept change as it comes--being able to admit when you were wrong.

Well...

I see your point, and perhaps for those who just want something simple to believe in that doesn't require much effort or thought, science might supplant religion.

But science isn't a religion, and the conclusions drawn are functionally true, even if not "Truth."

Given that the majority of Americans doubt climate change, I'd say there's little danger of that!

You asked: "Are we inclined, as non-scientists, to accept the answers that science gives us as capital t Truth?"

Absolutely not. I am not a sheeple. I want to understand what they are saying - AND THEY ARE SAYING SOME ABSOLUTELY AND PROFOUNDLY AMAZING AND BEAUTIFUL THINGS.

It is only perceived as a religion by ignorant sheeple who depend on other ignorant people to think for them

Science is not a religion and Michael Chrichton doesn't say much of anything since he's been dead since around 1998.

It's a close to the truth as it gets. However, there are differences is "the answers". From scientific research suggest that....." to E=mc2. I think most of us realize that.

Ideas cross disciplines. Always have, always will. A disciplined mind knows when an idea is science, when it is philosophy and when it is religion.

You cannot believe in something in science.