I dug through some old threads here!

I wouldn't oppose science and religion simply because both aren't answering to the same question. The purpose of religion isn't to explain how things work, its purpose is actually to wonder for which reasons we are there and what are we looking for.

As such, I would consider religions as philosophy... and I would simply oppose philosophies between themselves. In here, the opposition is between spiritualism and cartesianism or materialism more than between religion and science. And all those debates are purely about philosophy and nothing else.

Birdjaguar said:

They are entirely different and use very different assumptions, but for many people they serve the same function in organizing how they look at the world.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Regards .

Birdjaguar wrote:

My "parts" approach is one that is best applied to organized religions or world views which could be considered religions. Science does fit and so does communism. "Disagreement" could be part of the ritual or dogma of a science religion. The point is to show that the structure of religions can be applied to other world views that usually aren't classified as religions, but function in the same way for adherents.

Click to expand...

It seems your ‘parts’ approach is closely linked to your particular philosophy about God (as you actually say later in your post). What you are essentially saying is that everyone is religious. As before I think that definition is too broad, though I agree with the sentiment. Regardless, science still is not a religion and does not rely on agreed answers to metaphysical questions.

Most people think that to be a religion, you have to have "god" or its equivalent. No god no religion. With that perameter, Science does not qualify, even lthough it does fulfill the same purpose as religion for many people. I do not have access to the OED on line, so I couldn't look up what it said about religion.

Click to expand...

I posted the OED definitions in this thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2681345&postcount=50

If god alone is and life is all about "discovering" the truth about reality, then there is no separation into "religious" and "non religious". We are all seekers and there is no single path (and in truth, no journey at all).

Click to expand...

Fine, that’s your perspective, but most of the world disagrees with you. Just as in the atheist/agnostic debates – most of the world agrees that atheist implies a disbelief in God (i.e. a belief that there is no God) and not just a lack of belief. To avoid semantic debates it is important to set a standard (such as the OED) up front.

In any case, if I asked you to tell me what you believed about those "parts" you would probably still have something to say.

Click to expand...

Well, let’s look at your ‘parts in more detail wrt science.
1. Creation story to explain the origin of the universe
I assume you refer to the Big Bang here wrt science, but in reality it only explains the path of the universe back to a finite time after creation. It does not explain events before that nor the event its self. Also ‘inflation’ is quite a mystery still if I’m not mistaken.
In addition there are different ‘uber’ models which can contain the Big Bang and are currently not distinguishable.
2. Eschatology to explain if/how/when the universe will end.
This is certainly still majorly disputed, and indeed the ‘most accepted’ answer has changed a number of times even in my lifetime.
3. Source of knowledge so adherents can learn more
Textbooks? Journal articles? OK.
4. Cosmology to describe humankind's place in the universe
Close, but I would say no. I guess it depends on what you mean by Cosmology. A scientist can be religious in the typical sense as well as a scientist. There is no conflict as science does not attempt to explain ‘why’.
5. Ritual so the faithful can participate in ongoing practices
The scientific method, but as I explained previously – there is no need for adherence to any specific axioms for its application.
6. Myth or stories that relate to the early days or founding of the religion.
Not sure about this, the history of science perhaps?
7. Dogma as the foundation of the faith.
Again, depends on definition of dogma. Typically it includes unfounded beliefs (not necessarily false, but arrogant or unwarrantable claims), though it can also simply relate to ‘any body of opinion formulated or authoritatively stated’. The former definition is more common than the latter. Also I reiterate that at its core science has no need for anything other than phenomenology and the collective human ability to describe/predict them. It does not rely on any form of Truth. So ‘foundation of the faith’ sounds wrong to me.

punkbass wrote:

Why should empirical evidence be the be all and end all of Truth?

Click to expand...

Why should Truth be the goal of science? Why should science be concerned with Truth at all?

OK, but there are still a priori axioms in place. Otherwise conclusions drawn are meaningless.

Click to expand...

Unless the goal is simply to predict phenomenology, then the term ‘axiom’ doesn’t really fit.

There is no objective experience, unless you accept on faith that other people exist.

Click to expand...

Again, why must science rely on the existence of an objective universe. Philosophically, yes; practically, no. What I consider science does not change under a shifting metaphysics. As col said, gravity will still make you fall. Any metaphysics that doesn’t include this little phenomenology will be quite hard to live by but still no closer or father away from Truth than any other. Truth is an illusion, like infinity, and too often invoked by humans.

We need to define what makes something a religion. I find myself doubting that a workable definition that would include all traditional religions while excluding Science could be made.

Click to expand...

I made the same point, listed the definitions from the OED, and excluded science. Perhaps you could critique my explanation.

Now I agree that there is no reason to accept our senses a priori, but science need not do that. It only need predict phenomenon that we do collectively agree upon based on our senses.

Personally, I do believe that reality exists, is self consistent, and can be investigated, though I don’t think that all of reality can be investigated by humans. Just part of it (I don’t know how large a part). Still, I don’t consider that a religion (nor would the OED), nor is that really necessary for application of science. As in my geocentric/heliocentric example.

If all you are saying is that any form of faith is necessarily a religion by definition, then I cannot argue with that other than to say I disagree with your definition (and think the majority of humanity and written literature agrees with me).

If all you want to do is predict when the next eclipse will occur, or when and where Venus will rise, why must Truth be involved at all?

When you accept that Truth is not accessible to humans, only then will the Truth set you free.

Though, perhaps FredLC and Kant said it better…

@ gothmog: I will be back. Thanks.

FredLC said:

Again, my main issue on the statement you pose is conceptual. You use a very, very broad concept of faith, and from that you reach a very, very broad concept of religion. Should I accept your definitions, not only science, but everything, would be religion.

To make good use of examples, we could say that the language English is a form of religion, because we accept *on faith* that the words written will mean to the other the same thing they mean to me. Or, worse, we accept on faith that we are able to reproduce comprehensible icons, both written and vocal, that will reach the other party, completing the process.

But I shall go on in the paragraph immediately below.

Click to expand...

Actually, I do think words are ambiguous at best, and that they indirectly cause many problems. I think this very board can provide immense evidence of such. But yes, I do use the word "faith" pretty broadly. However, this is not inherently bad, IMO.

The issue here, IMHO, is that you are simply limiting the reach of your definition to an early moment, when the monumental conceptual differences are inapplicable yet. For, you see, religion and science, as humane constructs, do have common grounds. They just do not deserve the same classification.

Rigorously speaking, the common ground they have is that both rely on axioms (but then again, what human knowledge do not?). Only that the manner through which they reach their respective axioms, the way they cherished them and how they deal and preserved them are altogether different, and to a great extent they explain the roles these disciplines have both in modern society and through out history.

For me, your claim that they are the same because in the early conceptualization of their respective methods there is one aspect of similarity makes just as much sense as arguing that swimming is the same as flying because, down to their crudest nature, both are forms of motion.

As for your claim, here it goes – religion is a method of knowledge that accepts as a fundament the existence of a superior *knowledge of reality*, achieved by icons and conceded to the common man, knowledge such that is not bounded by the human capability of perceiving the surroundings.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't say they are the same thing. Christianity, for example is not the same as religion. To use your example, swimming and flying are related, IMO, but they are not the same. Swimming is not Motion, in the broad sense, it is just motion in a limited context.

Oh, I’m a people’s person.

Seriously, though, what is the element in your worldview that makes the matrix something less than credible?

Click to expand...

It's not that it's not credible, it's just that I wouldn't say we are living in the matrix. I also wouldn't say we aren't.

But, in this stance, you are disqualifying much of what I said. Psychotropic drugs have the effect of blurring the senses. Such blur…

[attested by human experience and accepted through induction (that is, by the repeated and constant observation of the fact that people under the effects of these substances tended to see things such as Pink Unicorns singing La Traviata where every others would see nothing, added with the fact that two of them together would likely see different and contradictory things)]

… is a qualifier that allows me to disavow their opinions as inconsistent, because, unlike what happened with senses functioning in the expected manner, experience (oh, the dread empiricism) have attested that the information they achieved was not derived from matter, or to keep my language coherent, that there was no corresponding phenomena behind their knowledge.

Click to expand...

OK, but now you're becoming very elitist with your senses If you can disclude some people's senses, then I don't see how you can include any. What makes your senses "correct", while others may not be? How many people that are "in their right minds" does it take for an observed phenomenon to be "real"?

Again, the issue here is conceptual. I disagree with your definition of faith. Faith for me is something that does not need to regard the limits presented by average usage of senses. This approach is not adopted by anything that is even slightest scientific.

Click to expand...

Again, to compare anything to Science when my argument includes Science is pedantic. It would seem that you are very nearly defining religion as knowledge that is not Scientific.

Because, my friend, unlike the “talk to god” experience, the “moving quarks” experience can be repeated by anyone with similar results. There is no room for arbitrarity, and certainly the movement of atoms will happen even before the incredulous of their existence.

Simply put, I can make the atom experiment work either I am willing to accept atoms or not. Prayer and visions do not have the same privilege. This is what qualifies the first as something universal, and denies to the second the same reliability.

Click to expand...

So, you believe something needs to be repeatable in order for it to have validity? Personnally, I disagree with that very premise.

Not at all. You are very free to consider yourself outside the laws of science. Good lucky when you try, though. I strongly suggest you do not start by demonstrating that gravity does not apply to you, because the fall will likely be nasty. Walking through a wall, however, will be harmless, even if painful and unsuccessful.

Seriously, now, as I said before, the problem is not that the concepts are conglobing, the problem is that they are arbitrary. Great man of religion once said “God is the father of us all”, and for no other reason except their saying so, they decided that this applied to everyone. Great man of science, however, observed things and noticed that all things tended to fall to the ground. The knowledge withstanding, they named it, and that’s all they did.

The rules of nature are “rules” just in name, without the constricting connotation that it implies. It’s an inaccurate term, in fact, when one stops to ponder about it.

Click to expand...

But what about when the "rules" (even if it is an inaccurate term) change? A Scientist might argue that the rules do not change, just our understanding of them. However, this presumes an external, consistent "reality" that we are simply uncovering.

As for the quote, I think that it mentioned the Eastern religion specifically (though it didn’t say religion, it said mysticism, hence focusing on the surreal aspects of it, not in the clear philosophy that also composed it) just as a reply to the new age tendency to glorify it as supreme wisdom. He, too many kung-fu gurus in Hollywood these last decades.

I think it definitively apply to all “vague knowledge”, regardless of which direction it came from.

Click to expand...

Well, I argue that important knowledge is vague at best, and probably incommunicable.

It is quantifiably better. It’s not necessarily “subjectively” better. More years with better shelter, food and resources… how is that “not quantifiable”?

Besides, it’s ironic to discuss over the internet about how science have done nothing at all (what applies since you disregarded quantifiable improvements, presumably even in communication).

Nevertheless, since there is no way that we can measure humane happiness over the history, we would have to settle that nothing has ever generated any improvement at all. Not science, not economy, not philosophy, not religion. Yet, I’m still to meet a single human being who isn’t keen on at least one of these things.

I’m afraid to say that the manner you perceive the issue sounds a bit nihilistic to my ears.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's certainly quantifiable, just not quantifiably better, as you go on to admit. And I don't argue that Science has done nothing at all. I just question whether it has done any "good" at all, not that I believe in such concepts anyway . That many humans find such subjects as their passions is not incredibly meaningful. Someone you may consider to be great persona in the history of Science, Sir Isaac Newton, wrote three or four times as many volumes devoted to Alchemy as he did to Chemistry. The Alchemy is all but laughable for the modern Scientist, while the Chemistry is "useful" in a sense similar to how I think you generally apply the term. As to nihilism, I suppose you could call it that. I find people who refer to themselves as nihilist tend to be rather depressed and negative on the whole concept. Words can have influence, I find. Depending on what you're talking about, you could easily ascribe many belief sets to me. I would say that I partially follow just about any philosophy/religion/science that you could name, but none in their entirety.

It’s quite possible, I admit.

Nevertheless, my primary issue with religions per se is very fundamental, and goes to the point where they all have common ground – the lack of necessity to observe “phenomena” (what ends up equating to the inexistence of limits and boundaries) in the building of their axioms, therefore lacking tools to contain the tendency of creativity of becoming lunacy.

Though in specific aspects my critique of religion certainly fits better to the western religions (as those are the ones I know better), still, down to the fundamentals it applies for all.

Click to expand...

Well, I think your need for repeatable, demonstrable proofs could leave you feeling lacking, but that is, of course not for me to say. As I see it, the universe simply is as it is, and does as it does. This may not apply to you specifically, but, IME, people who are always wanting answers never seem satisfied, or at least not for very long. Then again, people who are always wanting don't seem to be very satisfied either.

Hehehehe. You took what I wrote too literally. Nevertheless, in an aspect, yes, prayer is a fundamental aspect of religions, and adopted by all.

Prayer is a manner of obtaining a subjective bliss, dissociating from the iniquities of the word in order to "feel the divine". In western, they do this by saying the Hail-Mary. In East, it’s by “meditation”. However, taking away the rituals that involves both, it all gets down to “emptying your mind from conscientious thinking and enjoying the ride”.

Emptying one’s mind, however, is not the scope of scientific thinking, that while does take advantage of contemplating, does not aim at deliberately halting the thinking processes.

Regards .

Click to expand...

Well, I think your definition of prayer may be a bit narrow, and your categorization of it for East and West a bit general. I will give that Science does tend to preach that a lot of thinking and analysis is important.

Birdjaguar said:

It is quite clear, your issue with religion is that it is not science.

Click to expand...

Ack, you're simply too good.

FredLC said:

In a sense, yes. But I'd not bother with it in the slithest if it didn't occupy such important and ruling place in our society.

In all, it bothers me because I think it has a degree of influence that it does not deserve nor it can satisfactorily play the role it has, and it affects my life irrevocably, even though I don't want it to.

The day religion is confined to their temples and out of world politics is the day it'll not bother me at all.

Regards .

Click to expand...

I could say the same for Science . As far as I'm concerned, it sounds as though you simply want your religion (Science) to rule the day, rather than those currently with influence. Well, worry not, as I think that realiy is in the process of manifesting itself. Too bad you don't believe you'll be around to see it

FredLC said:

Because science speak of the a posteriori, not the a priori knowledge.

Anyway, there is one thing that you are missing in my argument; I'm not exactly opposing science and religion, I'm just saying that they aren't the same thing. If I say that a platypus is not an eletric toaster, will I be "opposing them"?

Click to expand...

Hmm, I suppose we're about done, as I said about as much a couple posts ago

Birdjaguar said:

They are entirely different and use very different assumptions, but for many people they serve the same function in organizing how they look at the world.

Click to expand...

If you hadn't already hit the nail so far in, I'd again have to say you hit it on the head.

Gothmog said:

Why should Truth be the goal of science? Why should science be concerned with Truth at all?

Click to expand...

Because they are inextricably linked. If you're going to argue that Science needs Truth not, then I can say the same for religion. It is looking for truth within its own context, at any rate.

Unless the goal is simply to predict phenomenology, then the term ‘axiom’ doesn’t really fit.

Click to expand...

So then, what, IYO, is the goal for Science? If it is concerned with neither Truth nor truth, then what is it doing with itself?

Again, why must science rely on the existence of an objective universe. Philosophically, yes; practically, no. What I consider science does not change under a shifting metaphysics. As col said, gravity will still make you fall. Any metaphysics that doesn’t include this little phenomenology will be quite hard to live by but still no closer or father away from Truth than any other. Truth is an illusion, like infinity, and too often invoked by humans.

Click to expand...

It nonetheless makes predictions, as you are here. For any of it to have any meaning, there must be an objective, consistent universe. Otherwise your claim that gravity will make me fall whether I like it or not is meaningless. If the universe is not objective and self-consistent, then you must accept that I may not fall.

I made the same point, listed the definitions from the OED, and excluded science. Perhaps you could critique my explanation.

Click to expand...

Oh, you excluded Science very well. You did not, however, include religion.

Now I agree that there is no reason to accept our senses a priori, but science need not do that. It only need predict phenomenon that we do collectively agree upon based on our senses.

Personally, I do believe that reality exists, is self consistent, and can be investigated, though I don’t think that all of reality can be investigated by humans. Just part of it (I don’t know how large a part). Still, I don’t consider that a religion (nor would the OED), nor is that really necessary for application of science. As in my geocentric/heliocentric example.

If all you are saying is that any form of faith is necessarily a religion by definition, then I cannot argue with that other than to say I disagree with your definition (and think the majority of humanity and written literature agrees with me).

If all you want to do is predict when the next eclipse will occur, or when and where Venus will rise, why must Truth be involved at all?

When you accept that Truth is not accessible to humans, only then will the Truth set you free.

Though, perhaps FredLC and Kant said it better…

Click to expand...

Well, I fairly well agree with all of this, really. I do maintain that humanity and written literature being on your "side" is meaningless, though

Because they are inextricably linked.

Click to expand...

I thought you were the one arguing that science has no monopoly on the truth (something I agree with). If there is no evidence for an objective, consistent universe then how is science linked to truth? I like to think that the two are inextricably linked, it calms and amuses me, but that belief has no practical value for a scientist (other than perhaps in generating new hypotheses).

If you're going to argue that Science needs Truth not, then I can say the same for religion. It is looking for truth within its own context, at any rate.

Click to expand...

You were arguing that the reason science is a religion is due to its reliance on axioms. I was arguing that science only need rely on axioms if one regards it as looking for objective truth.

Personally I don’t think humans can achieve objective truth at all, like infinity it is a human construct that may or not have any external manifestation. When I do wax philosophical about the nature of reality, and I am thinking about the physical/external nature of reality, I adopt the three axioms I have mentioned. That is a necessary metaphysics for science to have bearing on Truth (though not the only possible one), but as I say in my earlier post science need not rely on a specific metaphysics (you can say that may change in the future – as with gravity etc. and I wont dispute that).

So then, what, IYO, is the goal for Science? If it is concerned with neither Truth nor truth, then what is it doing with itself?

Click to expand...

Science has many goals. In general, the goal is accumulated scientific knowledge. In specific, there are local practical goals. Two interesting examples include landing a man on the moon, and creating a nuclear bomb. Achieving this sort of goal is what science is grounded in, and achieving these goals has nothing to do with metaphysics or Truth.

It nonetheless makes predictions, as you are here. For any of it to have any meaning, there must be an objective, consistent universe. Otherwise your claim that gravity will make me fall whether I like it or not is meaningless. If the universe is not objective and self-consistent, then you must accept that I may not fall.

Click to expand...

No, for it to have any meaning we must simply predict the next eclipse. If we cannot reasonably expect to achieve objective truth then we must move on to more achievable goals.

We can argue about weather reality exists etc. etc. Or we can move on and try to make due with what we have been given. I accept that you may not fall, but if I am trying to send a man to the moon then I simply must work with the best available information. I accept that I may fail, perhaps God will zap the ship from the sky or mayhaps it will pierce the veil of the sky. Indeed it was thought by some reputable scientists that the atom bomb would start a self perpetuating nuclear reaction in the atmosphere, and many thought that we would fail to land a man on the moon.

All I can do is build on the collective fantasy that is human experience and forget about Truth. The collective fantasy agrees that you will fall, every past observation agrees that you will fall and gives much detail about the nature of your path. What ever the truth is if I want to move towards a practical goal I am going to work with that information.

You may not fall, and my ship may not work, what of it? Should I dare nothing? Should I take no note of commonalities in our shared experience of the world? Yes, all of science may become worthless tomorrow when all the rules change, or indeed there may be no reality at all. I accept that and it changes nothing.

Oh, you excluded Science very well. You did not, however, include religion.

Click to expand...

I included what a definitive compilation of the use of that word in every possible human context has decided on as the definition(s) of religion. Since I cannot read your mind, nor know your experiences, this is what I consider to be ‘common ground’ for us.

To boil it down a bit: first, I think that your definition of religion as anything requiring axioms (i.e. faith) is too broad; second, the shared experience of humanity seems to agree with me; third, even if I accept you definition I am arguing that science is practical in nature and not intrinsically linked to any particular metaphysics. It may be 100% wrong, but so what?

Gothmog said:

I thought you were the one arguing that science has no monopoly on the truth (something I agree with). If there is no evidence for an objective, consistent universe then how is science linked to truth? I like to think that the two are inextricably linked, it calms and amuses me, but that belief has no practical value for a scientist (other than perhaps in generating new hypotheses).
You were arguing that the reason science is a religion is due to its reliance on axioms. I was arguing that science only need rely on axioms if one regards it as looking for objective truth.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to have a monopoly on truth in order to be concerned with it. I don't think I'm quite sure what we're talking about at this point, I must confess. Science does need to rely on axioms, or else it does nothing at all. To reach any sort of conclusion, even tenuous ones, a starting point must be made. For every "then" there is an "if", so to speak. Also note that even the maintenance that Science can be wrong and is not Truth inherently is still an axiom. The axiom of no axioms is still an axiom as it were. Though perhaps I do now illustrate my lack of belief in words

Personally I don’t think humans can achieve objective truth at all, like infinity it is a human construct that may or not have any external manifestation. When I do wax philosophical about the nature of reality, and I am thinking about the physical/external nature of reality, I adopt the three axioms I have mentioned. That is a necessary metaphysics for science to have bearing on Truth (though not the only possible one), but as I say in my earlier post science need not rely on a specific metaphysics (you can say that may change in the future – as with gravity etc. and I wont dispute that).

Click to expand...

But then still, I believe Science is concerned with truth (note the distinction here from Truth). Even if the conscientious Scientist admits, as you do, that Science has nothing to say on Truth, it has much to say on contextual, microcosmic truths.

Science has many goals. In general, the goal is accumulated scientific knowledge. In specific, there are local practical goals. Two interesting examples include landing a man on the moon, and creating a nuclear bomb. Achieving this sort of goal is what science is grounded in, and achieving these goals has nothing to do with metaphysics or Truth.

Click to expand...

But it does not need to be concerned with metaphysics and Truth for what I'm saying.

No, for it to have any meaning we must simply predict the next eclipse. If we cannot reasonably expect to achieve objective truth then we must move on to more achievable goals.

Click to expand...

But then, it is concerned with truth, even if not Truth.

We can argue about weather reality exists etc. etc. Or we can move on and try to make due with what we have been given. I accept that you may not fall, but if I am trying to send a man to the moon then I simply must work with the best available information. I accept that I may fail, perhaps God will zap the ship from the sky or mayhaps it will pierce the veil of the sky. Indeed it was thought by some reputable scientists that the atom bomb would start a self perpetuating nuclear reaction in the atmosphere, and many thought that we would fail to land a man on the moon.

All I can do is build on the collective fantasy that is human experience and forget about Truth. The collective fantasy agrees that you will fall, every past observation agrees that you will fall and gives much detail about the nature of your path. What ever the truth is if I want to move towards a practical goal I am going to work with that information.

You may not fall, and my ship may not work, what of it? Should I dare nothing? Should I take no note of commonalities in our shared experience of the world? Yes, all of science may become worthless tomorrow when all the rules change, or indeed there may be no reality at all. I accept that and it changes nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not trying to argue that you should abandon Science. In fact, it occurs to me now that I should clarify that I'm not trying insult or otherwise deride Science and "bring it down" to religion's "level", if one should make such distinction and evaluation. I would say what concerns me more id FredLC's attitude that religion encroaches upon him and he would rather do away with it. Though that concept doesn't bother me directly, I think he implies that he would rather see Science as the doctrine to replace it, and I simply think that it would be no better.

I included what a definitive compilation of the use of that word in every possible human context has decided on as the definition(s) of religion. Since I cannot read your mind, nor know your experiences, this is what I consider to be ‘common ground’ for us.

Click to expand...

Well, do you feel that every defintion you listed is required for religion status? I suspect that many traditionnally accepted religions could not fill that tall order, and that many could in fact slip with only really needing to acquiesce in the same ways that you that you ave allowed Science to. Also, you should note that I did, way back on the first page, readily accept that Science may not be a religion per se.

To boil it down a bit: first, I think that your definition of religion as anything requiring axioms (i.e. faith) is too broad; second, the shared experience of humanity seems to agree with me; third, even if I accept you definition I am arguing that science is practical in nature and not intrinsically linked to any particular metaphysics. It may be 100% wrong, but so what?

Click to expand...

My definition is too broad for what? And again, this isn't a popularity contest Science may be practical in nature, but it still assumes some things, that's all. Again, I do not suggest that you abandon it. Accomplish what you will, and enjoy what you do, there's nothing wrong about it. But, at least as far as it can be argued that Science is "superior" to religion (as FredLC, at the least, says), I disagree.

*wonders where archive-digging got sidetracked into sci/rel discussion...*
*...then goes off to dig up some more archives*

Gothmog said:

Birdjaguar wrote: It seems your ‘parts’ approach is closely linked to your particular philosophy about God (as you actually say later in your post). What you are essentially saying is that everyone is religious. As before I think that definition is too broad, though I agree with the sentiment.

Click to expand...

Actaully my Parts approach predates my personal conclusions about god and religion and I'm not sold 100% that I can fit everything (including science) into it. I do not think that everyone is religious. I would say that everyone is a seeker and that fundamentally we all want a feeliing of wholeness or completeness. We think we find it in many ways, but most of those still leave us still looking. Initmate relationships with lovers, wives, dear friends and children seem to be most fulfilling for us. And we have a definite genetic bias towards them. For some people the pull of this longing is stronger and in others it is less so, but everyone has it. Some people use it to control others; others find succor in service to others.

Gothmog said:

that’s your perspective, but most of the world disagrees with you. Just as in the atheist/agnostic debates – most of the world agrees that atheist implies a disbelief in God (i.e. a belief that there is no God) and not just a lack of belief. To avoid semantic debates it is important to set a standard (such as the OED) up front.

Click to expand...

I agree that most of the world does disagree with me, but so what? Belief or non belief in god by others is immaterial to me. If god alone is, then any individual variation in conviction doesn't really matter. We are all equal expressions existence. Individual belief cannot change Reality.

Science as Religion: Maybe this will help:
1. Creation: Science may not have a beginning to the universe that is agreed upon by all adherents, but I do think that they would all agree that it had a beginning that can be explained or explained more fully. The sacred books of science are being written and rewritten all the time.

2. Eschatology to explain if/how/when the universe will end.
While the specific end of the universe is still debated, the choices are few and pending new discoveries not yet dreamed of, the choices are narrowing.

3. Source of knowledge so adherents can learn more
Observation, testing, calculating, the processes of discovery are all the sources of knowledge. Belief is not one. Findings are then published and peer reviewed, accepted or rejected.

4. Cosmology to describe humankind's place in the universe
Science puts human kind in a place in the universe: on earth, evolved over time; moving around a yellow star in an outer arm of the galaxy. Science provides us a relationship to everything around us both on earth and off earth. It explains our connection to all other life around us.

5. Ritual so the faithful can participate in ongoing practices
"The scientific method, but as I explained previously – there is no need for adherence to any specific axioms for its application." That's right, but certain things are excluded until proven. The rituals are very freeform, but you cannot go outside the lines and start using astrology or other psuedoscience techniques.

6. Myth or stories that relate to the early days or founding of the religion.
I would say it's the stories about people who made significant achievements: Oppenheimers comment at the Trinity explosion; Einstein's inability to function in school; Newton's apple etc.

7. Dogma as the foundation of the faith.
Observation and the scientific method (an ever changing and evolving process) are the paths to truth (knowledge). If it cannot be "proven", it is not accepted as knowledge.

Heh, sorry to renew this obviously off topic discussion but I was on a business trip and well this is the off topic forum.

@punkbass

Yes, for every then there must be an if. What I was arguing was that the theoretical models that science deals with do not have to be concerned with Truth, only self consistency. The assumptions can, and do, shift from topic to topic and even contradict. As long as some useful prediction is made, science is satisfied.

In my mind this is in contrast to religion where the whole point is to define a context for human existence beyond what our senses can tell us through interaction with the physical medium.

Science is definitely concerned with the subjective (the truth) and attempts to make the subjective consistent on an inter as well as intra personal level. I believe that religion is concerned with the Truth.

I don’t think science will ever replace religion, for exactly the reason that it is not concerned with Truth but humans are. Also because experiences that are not consistent, or even relateable, on an interpersonal level are very important to many of us. I would never say that science is superior to religion, man needs religion more than he needs science, but I do think that many religions (especially western forms) need to better define their relationship to the physical world. This is especially important if we want to continue improving the human condition from a material standpoint. As we have seen religion will not help us predict the retrograde motion of mercury however much it may want to, or need to know about its occurrence.

The definitions I listed are supposed to encompass the vast majority of published uses of the word. That is, at least one should fit quite well for any given use of the word (in English) and likely more than one. I think they do an admirable job.

@Birdjaguar

We agree on much, the importance of intimacy to human happiness, the basic drive within humans to seek, the subjective nature of experience, etc. I know you respect science for what it can do. But I do find some danger in people who use very subtle philosophical points, along with minor semantic changes, to equate science and religion. For example, I cannot say weather ‘intelligent design’ is True or not, but I know it is not science in its current popular incarnation. So when I discuss ID with people I assume they are referring to what a dictionary would refer to as ID, and not some subtle personal definition of such.

As far as your expansion on your parts idea:
I am a practicing scientist and I do not think that creation will ever be explained, nor any of the ‘first principles’. I have debated with betazed on exactly that point. This is part of my agnostic faith. I was just in Utah working with a bunch of scientists who are also part of the church of latter day saints (the Mormons); they all believed that creation has all ready been explained.

I fully agree that one distinguishing factor between religion and science is that belief is not a source of knowledge in science. It is used to help generate new hypotheses however; in many ways this is the mystical part of science and where it comes closest to the human experience of religion. In my mind this difference helps separate religion from science, but I can understand your argument that this is an unimportant detail.

In the OED definitions #1 and #2 are mostly circular (i.e. if it says it’s a religion then it is), but the others mostly seem to be concerned with the Truth through application of faith driven by revelation.

Gothmog said:

Heh, sorry to renew this obviously off topic discussion but I was on a business trip and well this is the off topic forum.

Click to expand...

I knew you'd be back. You had no choice

@punkbass

Yes, for every then there must be an if. What I was arguing was that the theoretical models that science deals with do not have to be concerned with Truth, only self consistency. The assumptions can, and do, shift from topic to topic and even contradict. As long as some useful prediction is made, science is satisfied.

Click to expand...

I must say I don't follow your argument. You seem to be saying that Science is unconcerned with Truth, it just does it anyway. Fine, perhaps its predictions are not "Truth" in an absolute sense, but it still takes a certain amount of "fact" for granted. Both you and FredLC seem rather concentrated on the concept of "useful". I'm not sure what constitutes a "useful" prediction. Beyond that, the way you present it, it would almost be concludable that Scientific findings are not to be taken seriously, as they are not truth. You present them as though they are a convenience at best.

In my mind this is in contrast to religion where the whole point is to define a context for human existence beyond what our senses can tell us through interaction with the physical medium.

Click to expand...

I don't know that that is the point of religion. And even if it is, I don't see how Science's devotion to the physical world and its separate (even if ultimately not True) realities makes a difference in the way that you seem to be suggesting. And much of modern Science, I'm sure you're aware, deals with things far beyond our sensory abilities. Atomic and sub-atomic Sciences are more an exercise in logic than anything else, with nothing more than deductive experiments to suggest their true nature. I once described atomic knowledge to friend like this:

Imagine there is an animal. It lives in a very dense forest, we have never seen one. We have samples of its waste, we know what it eats, and a few other cursory bits of knowledge. Tell me what it looks like. Science tries to define it by efficiency. 'What would the most efficient, logical best be?', it asks. Now imagine this animal had been a normal lion. Assuming we had never seen any lions or other large felines, do you think we would have decided on anything remotely resembling a lion?

Science is definitely concerned with the subjective (the truth) and attempts to make the subjective consistent on an inter as well as intra personal level. I believe that religion is concerned with the Truth.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree some religions are. Of course, it depends on who you ask. For me and my religion, this is not the case. As we've agreed before, we don't know whether or not we have actually communicated with the "others". I suspect you enjoy the mystery as much as I do . But for many Scientists, I believe, Science will, eventually, be able to explain everything. Even if it does not find the Truth in an absolute sense that we cannot know (how would one know that one knew everything, etc.), many claim that things we are as yet mystified by will have a logical, sound, demonstrable explanation at some point in the future. Now, I know you may accept this not to be the case, but I believe anarres was being quite generous with his estimate that 10% of Scientific followers agree with you. You can look at many threads on this board to see a plethora of Scientists demand positive proof for God and other things. I suppose, perhaps though, that we could agree that there is cult of Science that subscribe to with very few religious overtones, while the predominant Scientists in the West seem to follow the orthodox Church of the Sciences .

I don’t think science will ever replace religion, for exactly the reason that it is not concerned with Truth but humans are. Also because experiences that are not consistent, or even relateable, on an interpersonal level are very important to many of us. I would never say that science is superior to religion, man needs religion more than he needs science, but I do think that many religions (especially western forms) need to better define their relationship to the physical world. This is especially important if we want to continue improving the human condition from a material standpoint. As we have seen religion will not help us predict the retrograde motion of mercury however much it may want to, or need to know about its occurrence.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess the brings me about to something else I've been thinking of. What do you think of the Social Sciences? Or they only uncovering contemporary, transient trends, or is it possible to find something deeper, someting more concrete and predictable, as with Newtonian physics. Perhaps humans are best defined by Quantum Mechanics, eh?

The definitions I listed are supposed to encompass the vast majority of published uses of the word. That is, at least one should fit quite well for any given use of the word (in English) and likely more than one. I think they do an admirable job.

Click to expand...

Well, yes they di, I admit. I do stand by claim that there are religions (as they are traditionnally thought of) that could wriggle out of that definition with little more than the flesh wounds that Science took in your rebuttal.

punkbass wrote

Fine, perhaps its predictions are not "Truth" in an absolute sense, but it still takes a certain amount of "fact" for granted. Both you and FredLC seem rather concentrated on the concept of "useful". I'm not sure what constitutes a "useful" prediction. Beyond that, the way you present it, it would almost be concludable that Scientific findings are not to be taken seriously, as they are not truth. You present them as though they are a convenience at best.

Click to expand...

A useful prediction is anything you want it to be. The example I brought up before of a geocentric solar system should clear that up, it was constructed to predict things like eclipses and the timing of conjunctions and it did a fine job of that. Truth? it seems not. Convenience? Yes, definitely. Take it seriously only if you want to predict the next eclipse.

Of course the exception to this is the generation of new hypotheses as I already mentioned. This is a somewhat mystical process and is helped along (for most humans) by the assumption of the three axioms that I already mentioned (reality exists, etc.).

The example of atomic and sub-atomic sciences is a good one. Say you want to blow up a major city. Do you really care what the beast looks like, or just what it eats? The Truth is over rated.

Social sciences can be interesting, but I don't think that society is as simple as a ball rolling down an inclined plane. More like cream being mixed into coffee. The biggest problem I have with social science is its common inability to properly control variables and then ignore that failure and not discuss the implications of that lack of control.

I'm not sure what wounds you think Science took but I would be interested to see how a few of the major religions could avoid those definitions; and how many are compatable with any convievable manifestation of the divine (the Truth) the way science is?

Gothmog said:

Heh, sorry to renew this obviously off topic discussion but I was on a business trip and well this is the off topic forum.
@Birdjaguar

We agree on much, the importance of intimacy to human happiness, the basic drive within humans to seek, the subjective nature of experience, etc. I know you respect science for what it can do. But I do find some danger in people who use very subtle philosophical points, along with minor semantic changes, to equate science and religion.

Click to expand...

Thanks you. I hope you haven't gotten the impression that I equate science and religion. I don't and I am sorry if I wasn't clear. My point in this part of the thread is that for many people science functions like a religion in their lives. It offers a similar framework for organizing their fundamental principles. Now about the use subtle philosophical points and semantic word play, I stand guilty as charged.

Gothmog said:

For example, I cannot say weather ‘intelligent design’ is True or not, but I know it is not science in its current popular incarnation. So when I discuss ID with people I assume they are referring to what a dictionary would refer to as ID, and not some subtle personal definition of such.

Click to expand...

for the record, I see ID for what it is: a not so subtle ploy by the religious right to undermine rigorous science and critical thinking skills.

Gothmog said:

I fully agree that one distinguishing factor between religion and science is that belief is not a source of knowledge in science. It is used to help generate new hypotheses however; in many ways this is the mystical part of science and where it comes closest to the human experience of religion. In my mind this difference helps separate religion from science, but I can understand your argument that this is an unimportant detail.

Click to expand...

I often operate at a high level in OT because it is so easy to get lost in detail that is not germaine to the larger discussion or in establishing boundries. In reality, the detail level is what really matters. A framework (yours or mine) is only a context for action, action that happens one on one. I woud predict that both our worlds are built from the ground up on experiences that guided us along our paths. "Religious" experiences are moments of clarity, of exquisite detail in which the "usual rules" don't apply. The "believing" comes after such moments and not before.

My point in this part of the thread is that for many people science functions like a religion in their lives.

Click to expand...

This is true, but in that case it must include axioms (or an entire metaphysics) that are not central to the basic operation of science. A common one among athiests and agnostics is some form of humanism. This is also why we see many religious scientists. Most of the scientists I work with are church going folk. All of the scientists I visited in Utah were fundamentalists.

Thus my point about science being able to operate under a wide range of possible Truths, in fact under any Truth. Nearly everyone takes anti-biotics regardless of their beliefs, we even consider prosecuting those who deny them to their children for religious reasons. Everyone can watch TV, the core of which is an electron gun whose construction depends on an operational understanding of atomic level physics. Weather there is a ghost in the machine or not, regardless of the second coming, atom bombs work. IMO this is as close to objective truth as humans are ever likely to achieve, but it is not objective truth - it is accumulated scientific knowledge.

Most good scientists have experienced moments of clarity in the practice of their art. Thing is that many times these revelations turn out to be demonstrably wrong. Part of being a good scientist is being able to reject the wishes of your heart, to reject faith. As Nietzsche put it 'in all desire to know there is a drop of cruelty'.

Gothmog said:

punkbass wrote A useful prediction is anything you want it to be. The example I brought up before of a geocentric solar system should clear that up, it was constructed to predict things like eclipses and the timing of conjunctions and it did a fine job of that. Truth? it seems not. Convenience? Yes, definitely. Take it seriously only if you want to predict the next eclipse.

Of course the exception to this is the generation of new hypotheses as I already mentioned. This is a somewhat mystical process and is helped along (for most humans) by the assumption of the three axioms that I already mentioned (reality exists, etc.).

The example of atomic and sub-atomic sciences is a good one. Say you want to blow up a major city. Do you really care what the beast looks like, or just what it eats? The Truth is over rated.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Well, I still am not quite sure where our disagreement is at. Science, you say, is not about Truth. Yet you claim it can make useful predictions for your purposes. Even if Science is not after Truth in full force, the very idea that predictions are even made, let alone verified, implies inherent belief n three axioms you submit. Call them three commandments if you want, it is something of a belief system. Again, I'm not entirely certain e;re discussing the same thing.

Social sciences can be interesting, but I don't think that society is as simple as a ball rolling down an inclined plane. More like cream being mixed into coffee. The biggest problem I have with social science is its common inability to properly control variables and then ignore that failure and not discuss the implications of that lack of control.

Click to expand...

But then, do you think that proper controls could be implemented? I guess I'm sort of asking whether or not people are inherently random variables.

I'm not sure what wounds you think Science took but I would be interested to see how a few of the major religions could avoid those definitions; and how many are compatable with any convievable manifestation of the divine (the Truth) the way science is?

Click to expand...

Well, you conceded that there was some level of faith. You consider this broad application of the word "useless", but I don't really see how whether or not it's useful is relevant. I'm unclear on your question, but I'll go grab your definition and try to raise some doubt .