I dug through some old threads here!

[punkbass2000]

1. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order.

There are no monastic vows associated with science; second part is a circular argument wrt science.

No argument here, though Scientific life could be arguably monastic, but it depends how strict a definition of monastery one wants. And yes, the second part is circular. Anyway, we'll try Taoism for now. Taoism is not a state of life bound by monastical vows.

2. A member of a religious order.

This becomes a circular argument wrt science.

Ditto.

3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.

Nope.

Taoism does not fit this either.

4. A particular system of faith and worship.

This is the first to have the generalized 'faith' included as being discussed above, but there is no worship in science.

Again, a certain level of faith is present in Taoism, much like Science, but again, not worship.

5. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.

Not at all.

I wouldn't say not at all for Taoism, but I wouldn't quite say it Science, either. Taoism follows the Tao and the Te, as Science follows gravity, electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Neither Science nor Taoism requires any obedience, reverance or worship, however.

6. transf. Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.

This is as close as any, but has nothing to do with faith as discussed above. If devotion to some principle makes a religion, then I am part of many many religions. Too many to list here.

Well, I agree you are part of many, many religions. Come now, who was it that was claiming the OED definition to be our best starting point?

7. The religious sanction or obligation of an oath, etc.

Nope.

Fully agreed, again.

So, we see, if Science is not a religion, neither is Taoism. Of course, this may just be a whole new can of worms

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well, seeing how much interest this generated, and how it sidetracked, I ought to dig through the archives for more all threads. All in favour, saye AYE...

 

[jonatas]

@Punkbass....

as per your description of taoism and how it can be interpreted as not fitting the definition of a religion above...

i raised this point earlier in this thread based on my own limited knowledge of taoism (so i'll have to trust your knowledge on this one), but i have the impression that taoism as appropriated by the West would perhaps more easily fit in the category of a philosophy, whereas taoism in China, for example, probably has a very long history in Chinese culture and has characteristics which could approximate it much more closely to a more standard definition of what religion is....

what i want to say is, if we look at taoism in China, then perhaps it is much more closer to (or indeed is) a religion, than in the West, where perhaps there is a tendency to appropriate it as a philosophy.... what do you say???
i'm not too concerned whether a religion by definition has to include a God, or Gods even...

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, I suppose it depends on what you consider to be a philosophy, really. Taoism should never be much like other religions, but I suppose another point of contention would be how you definie Taoism. Many religious cults sprung up based on Taoist principles, though many seemed to believe immortality and other supernatural things could be achieved through Taoism. AFAIK, there is nothing that suggests this in the early texts. Taoism could be referred to as a way of life, which would be an apt description for a personal philosphy or religion. As to how it's perceived in the West as opposed to the East I really couldn't say.

 

[jonatas]

Taoism could be referred to as a way of life, which would be an apt description for a personal philosphy or religion. As to how it's perceived in the West as opposed to the East I really couldn't say.

well, i suppose Confucianism could be defined as a personal philosophy or religion too.... but the difference i was getting at is what you have mentioned, that Taoism was incorporated into religious systems and Chinese culture, for example, to an extent where it clearly would have/has religious rituals, which are part of the cultural context...

of course, whether this was in the true spirit of the Tao could be debatable i guess....

 

[punkbass2000]

OK, to that I certainly agree. There were definitely Taoist religious sects. I don't believe Taoism could be religious, however, as one of its main points is not to follow anything.

 

[Gothmog]

punkbass
I guess our disagreement is in the necessity of a particular metaphysics to the operation of science. Still it has certainly gotten vague. Even if reality doesn’t exist, the illusion of experience still gives rise to the illusion of a time stream and sensory perception. However false they may be. Within this illusion science will still operate because it is not concerned with Truth. The prediction and verification may be illusory and false, but that is irrelevant. They operate within the illusion, or within objective Truth, or a mix. Take your pick.

As far as social science, I don’t think people are inherently random variables. Chaotic but not random.

I knew you’d pick Taoism, and as jonatas says its practice as a ‘Chinese traditional religion’ is quite different from the parts picked out by the west. Most of the Chinese Taoists also practice some mix of Confucianism and even Chinese Buddhism, along with ancestor worship and specific nature beliefs. In any case I enjoy Taoism, and it is a whole other can of worms, but did ask for ‘a few’ major religions. Also my second point was that science is compatible with any metaphysics, would you say the same about Taoism? Is it compatible with Christianity for example?

Point being that religions depend on specific metaphysics (as in definition 6 where I am part of many religions, really I then have fidelity to none), science does not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Science builds up from the individual bits of data it accumulates. When enough results from withhin one arena is pulled together, rules and laws are proclaiimed. Over time, like using the bricks, an edifice is built up, and scinetists then have a way of looking the world. For science, the big picture is what we know so far. Religion starts with limited subjective experiences and creates the big picture first, then builds down based on these overarching assumptions, and ending with a formula for individual behavior and a prisim that tells them how to view the world. The big picture is created first and the details added to make it all fit and hold together.

 

[punkbass2000]

punkbass
I guess our disagreement is in the necessity of a particular metaphysics to the operation of science. Still it has certainly gotten vague. Even if reality doesn’t exist, the illusion of experience still gives rise to the illusion of a time stream and sensory perception. However false they may be. Within this illusion science will still operate because it is not concerned with Truth. The prediction and verification may be illusory and false, but that is irrelevant. They operate within the illusion, or within objective Truth, or a mix. Take your pick.

OK. But the choice is no different than a choice of religions

As far as social science, I don’t think people are inherently random variables. Chaotic but not random.

I guess this comes a bit from the free choice thread, but do you believe a human could be entirely predictable, with enough known factors?

I knew you’d pick Taoism, and as jonatas says its practice as a ‘Chinese traditional religion’ is quite different from the parts picked out by the west. Most of the Chinese Taoists also practice some mix of Confucianism and even Chinese Buddhism, along with ancestor worship and specific nature beliefs. In any case I enjoy Taoism, and it is a whole other can of worms, but did ask for ‘a few’ major religions. Also my second point was that science is compatible with any metaphysics, would you say the same about Taoism? Is it compatible with Christianity for example?

I, apparently, have not free will, as you and jonatas seem to be able to predict me Yes, how Taoism is perceived can be different, though I don't know that you can use such sweeping generalizations with regards to East and West. In any case, that someone can take the idea of Taoism and turn into a more stereotypical religion is immaterial. As to whether or not it is compatible with Christianity, I don't really see how Christianity is compatible with Science. How could a Seven Day Adventist belief system be reconciled with carbon dating, for example?

Point being that religions depend on specific metaphysics (as in definition 6 where I am part of many religions, really I then have fidelity to none), science does not.

Is fidelity a requirement for religion? I still say Science does depend on specific metaphysics. To take your words, you can call it dependent upon the illusion or upon Reality or a mix of the two, but unless you're going to conclude that it means absolutely nothing at all then you must concede it is dependent on something, even if you are allowed to choose what that something is and have wholly separate beliefs elsewhere.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Even if reality doesn’t exist, the illusion of experience still gives rise to the illusion of a time stream and sensory perception. However false they may be. Within this illusion science will still operate because it is not concerned with Truth.

Excellent! And to top it off, I'm listening to Leonard Ccohen sing "Dancing to rhe End of Love."

 

[Ayatollah So]

Do all religions really require a specific metaphysics? According to the book on Buddhism I'm reading, the Buddha deliberately avoided answering metaphysical questions, calling them distractions from the path of enlightenment. Other sources also portray the Buddha and other highly regarded Buddhist teachers as willing to affirm or deny (almost?) any given doctrine, depending on whether the teacher perceived the audience to be clinging to one wrongheaded idea or another. The lesson I, admittedly an ignoramus, draw, is that Buddhists may truck with metaphysical propositions, but they really don't take them very seriously.

On the other hand, science, while it may not depend on any particular metaphysics, may make things very difficult for some metaphysical views. For example, some of Kant's alleged synthetic a priori truths turn out to be just plain false, devastated by Einstein, Minkowski and Riemann. Of course, that doesn't refute Kantian metaphysics utterly, but as this website slyly hints, it's a start.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, Buddhism, like any religion, is a bit tricky. Certainly modern incarnations have a fairly specific concept of metaphysical realities. Of course, they are generally referred to as religious Buddhism, as opposed to philosophical, so the question kinda answers itself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do all religions really require a specific metaphysics? According to the book on Buddhism I'm reading, the Buddha deliberately avoided answering metaphysical questions, calling them distractions from the path of enlightenment. Other sources also portray the Buddha and other highly regarded Buddhist teachers as willing to affirm or deny (almost?) any given doctrine, depending on whether the teacher perceived the audience to be clinging to one wrongheaded idea or another.

As religions form from a founder's teachings, much is lost or changed to suit the evolving religion. When later followers try to go back to discover the original teachings, you get lots of splinter sects that argue over who is correct. Truth is elusive.

 

[Gothmog]

punkbass wrote

But the choice is no different than a choice of religions

umm, what choice?

Could humans be entirely predictable? As I said in the free choice thread there may be a modicum of non-determinism in human actions. A random part as there seems to be in nature. You can statistically describe some systems without being able to predict certain individual elements of it. Also, any chaotic system has profound sensitivity to initial conditions – the old butterfly causing a hurricane metaphor. So I would say that if we had a model of the entire universe, and knowledge of all the non-determinant parts as they occurred in the past. Then we could predict human behavior down to the level of intrinsic non-determinism embedded in it.

I’m basing my sweeping generalizations wrt East and West on some knowledge of ‘traditional Chinese religions’ – admittedly incomplete.

Christianity is completely compatible with science. Carbon dating relies on the assumption that decay rates are constant through time. Also a omnipotent being can make things look any way it pleases, it could even try and test our faith as in the story of Abraham. Not to mention the possibility that Satan is trying to fool us. I accept all those possibilities and they do not inhibit science. As I mentioned even Seven Day Adventists drive cars (or believe they do if they in fact exist ). Does Taoism have that sort of metaphysical flexibility? Seriously, I’m asking because I don’t know. Is Taoism compatible with Christianity?

Is fidelity a requirement for religion? The OED certainly implies as much.

I think you’re saying that science is dependent on the existence of an external reality (i.e. something)? I’m not seeing why. Must science mean something? Couldn’t it be completely dependent on my consciousness, and indeed nothing else exists at all? How would that change anything?

@birdjaguar – If one wants to try and extract metaphysical truth from science that is a choice, but science is not concerned with it one way or the other. This is what my geocentric/heliocentric solar system example was trying to address. If I can predict the next eclipse, or land a man on the moon (or enjoy that illusion), why does the Truth matter at all?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@birdjaguar – If one wants to try and extract metaphysical truth from science that is a choice, but science is not concerned with it one way or the other. This is what my geocentric/heliocentric solar system example was trying to address. If I can predict the next eclipse, or land a man on the moon (or enjoy that illusion), why does the Truth matter at all?

It doesn't matter a wit and Truth shouldn't be a concern for anybody. Truth is Truth and we can't change it. I hope you have beautiful sunsets wherever you live like we have daily in NM.

 

[punkbass2000]

punkbass wrote umm, what choice?

...you outlined the choice. Whether it is the reality or the illusion. You can put your faith in the "fact" it is reality, or put faith in the illusion. Either way, I agree it is not too important, though.

Could humans be entirely predictable? As I said in the free choice thread there may be a modicum of non-determinism in human actions. A random part as there seems to be in nature. You can statistically describe some systems without being able to predict certain individual elements of it. Also, any chaotic system has profound sensitivity to initial conditions – the old butterfly causing a hurricane metaphor. So I would say that if we had a model of the entire universe, and knowledge of all the non-determinant parts as they occurred in the past. Then we could predict human behavior down to the level of intrinsic non-determinism embedded in it.

Hmmm, are you equating "random" with "unpredictable"?

I’m basing my sweeping generalizations wrt East and West on some knowledge of ‘traditional Chinese religions’ – admittedly incomplete.

Christianity is completely compatible with science. Carbon dating relies on the assumption that decay rates are constant through time. Also a omnipotent being can make things look any way it pleases, it could even try and test our faith as in the story of Abraham. Not to mention the possibility that Satan is trying to fool us. I accept all those possibilities and they do not inhibit science. As I mentioned even Seven Day Adventists drive cars (or believe they do if they in fact exist ). Does Taoism have that sort of metaphysical flexibility? Seriously, I’m asking because I don’t know. Is Taoism compatible with Christianity?

Well, if you're going to allow that sort of compatibility, everything would have to be compatible with Christianity, wouldn't it? A Christian might say the Tao is simply God's will, and one must simply follow biblical teachings in order to live happily and faithfully, for example. Conversely, I think Christians follow the Tao in their own special way Quasar certainly seems to lead a happy, harmonius life, anyway.

Is fidelity a requirement for religion? The OED certainly implies as much.

Do implications count in a dictionary?

I think you’re saying that science is dependent on the existence of an external reality (i.e. something)? I’m not seeing why. Must science mean something? Couldn’t it be completely dependent on my consciousness, and indeed nothing else exists at all? How would that change anything?

I can't argue this point any more, I simply don't understand you. Even if it is dependent on your consciousness, that is still something. You seem to argue that Science depends on nothing, it just happens to go about predicting useful things anyway. Fine, but then Science may as well be magic as religion.

 

[Gothmog]

Birdjaguar wrote:

It doesn't matter a wit and Truth shouldn't be a concern for anybody. Truth is Truth and we can't change it. I hope you have beautiful sunsets wherever you live like we have daily in NM.

Thanks, actually I live in Santa Fe.

punkbass wrote:

Hmmm, are you equating "random" with "unpredictable"?

I am saying that anything with a truly random element is not predictable beyond the limits set by that element, e.g. if we isolate an individual radioactive atom we cannot predict when it will decay. We can say what the probability is that it will decay within a certain amount of time, but that's it. Now if we have a system where that atom is part of our initial conditions, and the system is inherently chaotic, then we will have an even harder time making predictions about that system. In the butterfly metaphor, there may be an intrinsic limit to how well we can predict the weather using any sort of pressure gradient (or momentum balance) formulation such as the Navier-Stokes equation. If we are able to individually model every atom and molecule in the atmosphere we will do better, if every atom and molecule in the earth system better, if in the solar system better, if the entire universe then we will still hit the limit of randomness expressed by the radioactive atom above.

I guess I meant something more specific by 'compatable'. If the objective truth is that the bible is inerrant, and the Christian God truely exists, is the Tao still a viable construct? Certainly Hiduism is not, nor Judaism, etc., but accumulated scientific knowledge will still have the exact same value.

I am trying to argue that science depends only on our shared experience of the external world. If this experience is real or not is not at issue. There is no specific metaphysics associated with science, as can be seen by the various types of people who practice it. Science is like art, not like religion; and yes science is more like magic than it is like religion.

 

[punkbass2000]

punkbass wrote: I am saying that anything with a truly random element is not predictable beyond the limits set by that element, e.g. if we isolate an individual radioactive atom we cannot predict when it will decay. We can say what the probability is that it will decay within a certain amount of time, but that's it. Now if we have a system where that atom is part of our initial conditions, and the system is inherently chaotic, then we will have an even harder time making predictions about that system. In the butterfly metaphor, there may be an intrinsic limit to how well we can predict the weather using any sort of pressure gradient (or momentum balance) formulation such as the Navier-Stokes equation. If we are able to individually model every atom and molecule in the atmosphere we will do better, if every atom and molecule in the earth system better, if in the solar system better, if the entire universe then we will still hit the limit of randomness expressed by the radioactive atom above.

OK, but it seemed to me that you meant "unpredictable" to be "random". I do agree something random is unpredictable, just not vice versa, at least, not necessarily.

I guess I meant something more specific by 'compatable'. If the objective truth is that the bible is inerrant, and the Christian God truely exists, is the Tao still a viable construct? Certainly Hiduism is not, nor Judaism, etc., but accumulated scientific knowledge will still have the exact same value.

I disagree that Scientific knowledge would have the exact same value, unless you are infact discounting evolution and cosmology and others that directly conflict with biblical teachings. Yes, on day to day things, it makes no difference (SDA's still drive cars, etc.), but on Scientific meaning on the greater whole it does. Scientific methodology has led to the conclusions of carbon dating and little else could be reasonable, to my knowledge. Also, as for compatibility, I think a problem you would have would simply be defining what, exactly, is Christianity, and what it excludes. I'm sure some Christians find Science and their faith completely compatible, while others think Science is the devil. BTW, Hinduism certainly does accomodate Christianity for the most part, even if the same cannot be said for the opposite.

I am trying to argue that science depends only on our shared experience of the external world. If this experience is real or not is not at issue. There is no specific metaphysics associated with science, as can be seen by the various types of people who practice it. Science is like art, not like religion; and yes science is more like magic than it is like religion.

But to say it depends "only on our shared experience" implies a faith in the fact that there are, in fact, other beings, other observers. That is a specific metaphysical conclusion.

 

[Gothmog]

punkbass wrote

OK, but it seemed to me that you meant "unpredictable" to be "random". I do agree something random is unpredictable, just not vice versa, at least, not necessarily.

Theoretically something could be undpredictable and not have a random component, but I don't know how I would describe such a thing. Any ideas?

Again with the biblical teachings, an omnipotent God certainly has many ways of making things appear one way while the Truth lies elsewhere. Satan could be involved too. I do not claim to know the Truth.

Carbon dating does rely on the consistency of radioactive decay through time, this is an assumption. Though it can be corroborated by other types of decay, they could have shifted proportionally. All other forms of corroboration (of which I am aware) rely on various other theoretical constructs whose truth or falsification would not affect the operation of science. We do know that radioactive decay is affected by time dilation.

Hinduism can accomodate most of Christianity, but not all.

But to say it depends "only on our shared experience" implies a faith in the fact that there are, in fact, other beings, other observers. That is a specific metaphysical conclusion.

Unless one follows it with a sentence saying that the experience of the shared external world need not be real. I could have linked the two phrases with a semicolon but I thought it was clear.

 

[betazed]

<snip> I do agree something random is unpredictable, just not vice versa, at least, not necessarily. <snip>

Since this related concept has come up before let me point it out specifically. Randomness and unpredictability are completely disparate concepts. A system can be one without the other, can be neither or both.

A random system that is completely predictable - The digits of pi.
A unpredictable system that is completely non-random - A set of Turing machines that can be specified in less than n bits that halt on a specific input.
A random system that is completely unpredictable - measurement of spin of electrons coming out of a cathode ray tube
A non-random system that is completely predictable - the set of integers.