• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

science as a religion

Not true, its sort of over exaggeration of what science actually does.

What does science do? Is that not a question of philosophy?

Science does not prove anything. It observes and reports.

And when it observes and reports, how does it know how to interpret what it observes and reports?

How does it know what can be said and can not be said based on these observations

The problem with philosophy is its foundations were born in times of mythological explanations that still resonate through the practice. Its easy to make arguments out of nothing based on personal bias.

But the foundations of science are built on philosophy. If philosophy is nothing but hot air, then 'science' is nothing but hot air.

Nothing worse then a bad philosopher who uses his teaches his personal bias.

Or a bad scientist influenced by personal bias, careerism, flawed methodology, flawed statistical inference, flawed understanding of probability, overstated conclusions etc.

But what constitutes a bad scientist, scientific ethics, flawed methodology, flawed statistical inference, flawed understanding of probability, overstated conclusions etc are questions of philosophy.

They could argue all day debating the shade black and its possible application as a color

They could, but on another day they might be creating the foundations on which 'science' is based, or working out what 'science' actually tells us.

Science is inseparable from philosophy. You don't get science without philosophy.

How do we know what we know (or, perhaps more importantly, what we don't know)?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Or a bad scientist influenced by personal bias, careerism, flawed methodology, flawed statistical inference, flawed understanding of probability, overstated conclusions etc.

The difference is science is peer reviewed for correctness.

Philosophy has trouble talking about anything without arguing.
 
The difference is science is peer reviewed for correctness.

And 'correctness' is largely determined by philosophy. As it the effectiveness of the peer review system.

Yes, but they travel different roads.

Which different roads would these be?

There are many roads in the quest for knowledge and understanding and they converge, diverge, overlap and intersect.

With applied, social or formal science's philosophy takes a different seat.

What 'different' seat is this?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Which different roads would these be?

philosophy helps address inquiries that couldn’t be answered simply by experimentation and observation.

scientific methodology, is able to acquire more knowledge because of experimentation and observation

1.Science seeks to understand based on natural phenomena.
2.Philosophy is vaguer than science.
3.Philosophy uses logical arguments and dialectics while science uses hypothesis testing (empirical-based).
4.Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to philosophical positions while science improves, abandons, or objects to scientific theories.
5.Science bases its explanations from experimentation and observation while philosophy bases its explanation on an argument of principles.
 
philosophy helps address inquiries that couldn’t be answered simply by experimentation and observation.

scientific methodology, is able to acquire more knowledge because of experimentation and observation

1.Science seeks to understand based on natural phenomena.
2.Philosophy is vaguer than science.
3.Philosophy uses logical arguments and dialectics while science uses hypothesis testing (empirical-based).
4.Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to philosophical positions while science improves, abandons, or objects to scientific theories.
5.Science bases its explanations from experimentation and observation while philosophy bases its explanation on an argument of principles.


Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable thingsand whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.



Philosophy is a very broad concept, but parts of it are essential to science. you don't get science without philosophy that is my point. Although I agree that there is a big difference between a po-mo literary analysis and the aspects of philosophy that overlap with science.

Fair enough?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
But science is useless without philosophy.

If more scientists knew more philosophy then science would be better. And if more people knew more philosophy then there would be fewer people adopting a naive 'scientism' as an ideology.

Both philosophy and the sciences are important.
Each philosophy taught by the founder is putting forward one's view, and his reasoning behind that view. Some of these philosophies involved the development of intellectual state, while others about emotional state, and still others about the more abstract, spiritual state.

And there are many views or philosophies from the east or from the west.

And while I understand that there might be some values in what they teach about their own respective "philosophical stance" and in their reasonings and logic, each of the founder and their followers, they often pursue their philosophy at the expense of other views.

Meaning, each philosopher would put his own philosophy on a pedestal and believe that his philosophy or logic, and is superior to all predecessor and contemporary philosophies.

Like outhouse said in reply to yours, the philosophers can be bias, each one thinking his reasoning or view is the superior one. Their biases cloud their judgement.

Like it or not, philosophers compete against others for supremacy. Each philosophy will compete against others, every much like the way Christians and Muslims compete against each other for supremacy, in the names of their respective religions.

Sorry, but philosophy can venture into the realms of the supernatural or of the very ABSTRACTS, which cannot be proven or verified.

Science(excepting theoretical science or some fields of theoretical physics, and excepting science like social science, behavioural science, political science) differed to philosophy in the way, that any statement or claim, any hypothesis or theory, can be refuted or verified through observation - by repeated testings or by empirical evidences.

I am not saying that science can have answers for EVERYTHING. They don't, but with physical or natural science, they at least have the mean or methodology to objectively test the statement or prediction if it is true or not.

Philosophy, on the other hand, rely largely on reasonings that are subjective. And lot of the reasonings behind each philosophy are based on subjective and biased sophistry, and on some forms of fallacies or circular reasoning, just as much as religious faiths and dogma.

And with so many different philosophies, can you, Augustus, honestly tell me which philosophy is better than all others?

I am not denying that some philosophies, like epistemology, ontology, empiricism and naturalism play some roles in some good scientific practices, but most of the other philosophies only showed single-minded biases.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Each philosophy taught by the founder is putting forward one's view, and his reasoning behind that view. Some of these philosophies involved the development of intellectual state, while others about emotional state, and still others about the more abstract, spiritual state.

And there are many views or philosophies from the east or from the west.

And while I understand that there might be some values in what they teach about their own respective "philosophical stance" and in their reasonings and logic, each of the founder and their followers, they often pursue their philosophy at the expense of other views.

Meaning, each philosopher would put his own philosophy on a pedestal and believe that his philosophy or logic, and is superior to all predecessor and contemporary philosophies.

Like outhouse said in reply to yours, the philosophers can be bias, each one thinking his reasoning or view is the superior one. Their biases cloud their judgement.

Like it or not, philosophers compete against others for supremacy. Each philosophy will compete against others, every much like the way Christians and Muslims compete against each other for supremacy, in the names of their respective religions.

Sorry, but philosophy can venture into the realms of the supernatural or of the very ABSTRACTS, which cannot be proven or verified.

Science(excepting theoretical science or some fields of theoretical physics, and excepting science like social science, behavioural science, political science) differed to philosophy in the way, that any statement or claim, any hypothesis or theory, can be refuted or verified through observation - by repeated testings or by empirical evidences.

I am not saying that science can have answers for EVERYTHING. They don't, but with physical or natural science, they at least have the mean or methodology to objectively test the statement or prediction if it is true or not.

Philosophy, on the other hand, rely largely on reasonings that are subjective. And lot of the reasonings behind each philosophy are based on subjective and biased sophistry, and on some forms of fallacies or circular reasoning, just as much as religious faiths and dogma.

And with so many different philosophies, can you, Augustus, honestly tell me which philosophy is better than all others?

I am not denying that some philosophies, like epistemology, ontology, empiricism and naturalism play some roles in some good scientific practices, but most of the other philosophies only showed single-minded biases.


Very well put, helped me in places to understand the differences.

My only issue with philosophers is my own observation of how classes are taught in universities. Ive seen atheist professors drive in over the top in topics they are ignorant to, its how I was invited to lecture in a philosophy class on the ethnogenesis Israelites and evolution of monotheism. He was using me to fight theism and I didn't care for that approach.


Then we have Jeremy promoting the religious biased philosophy professor who fights academia with his arguments.


Your correct, I see competition between philosophies, that makes winning the argument, primary over truth in context. Nothing worse then people of theism or atheism that use weasel words to argue a position.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Very well put, helped me in places to understand the differences.

My only issue with philosophers is my own observation of how classes are taught in universities. Ive seen atheist professors drive in over the top in topics they are ignorant to, its how I was invited to lecture in a philosophy class on the ethnogenesis Israelites and evolution of monotheism. He was using me to fight theism and I didn't care for that approach.

Then we have Jeremy promoting the religious biased philosophy professor who fights academia with his arguments.

Your correct, I see competition between philosophies, that makes winning the argument, primary over truth in context. Nothing worse then people of theism or atheism that use weasel words to argue a position.

I have never studied philosophy when I was doing my courses. My background in science was Applied Science, so it never involved studying philosophy.

The only subject that even mention philosophies by names, when I was doing a non-scientific subject for computer science called "academic research". the lecture's notes simply gave us definitions on epistemology and ontology; that's all. My lecturer told us that the subject we didn't need to learn in details about these 2 philosophies.

I have only read very few philosophical works, mostly by Plato. But generally I don't read that much original works. And these were read in my free time, and not for studies.

What I do know about other philosophies come from some books (secondary sources) that only talk about this or that philosophy, that give me general or overall ideas of what each philosophy teaches. And from reading these, the historical backgrounds show that each one competing against each other, as if this or that philosophy is better than other.

So you would know a lot more about philosophy than I could ever know.
 
Last edited:
And with so many different philosophies, can you, Augustus, honestly tell me which philosophy is better than all others?

I am not denying that some philosophies, like epistemology, ontology, empiricism and naturalism play some roles in some good scientific practices, but most of the other philosophies only showed single-minded biases.

What constitutes 'good scientific practice' is part of philosophy though (the philosophy of science). Often bad science is as much bad philosophy.

How to interpret scientific data to be relevant beyond the narrow descriptive scope of any experiment is part of philosophy.

How to interpret statistics in a way that makes them meaningful is part of philosophy.

The idea that 'science' is this separate field that can look down on all other 'subjective' area of enquiry can easily lead to bad science or scientism.

I assume that, as a scientist, you value the contributions of many Enlightenment figures to the development of the modern sciences such as Newton, Bacon and Hume. They certainly didn't see science as something abstracted from philosophy, science was seen as a branch of philosophy.

Not all philosophy is scientific of course, but all science is philosophical. People would do well to remember this, and the sciences should be taught and applied with this in mind.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What constitutes 'good scientific practice' is part of philosophy though (the philosophy of science). Often bad science is as much bad philosophy.

How to interpret scientific data to be relevant beyond the narrow descriptive scope of any experiment is part of philosophy.

How to interpret statistics in a way that makes them meaningful is part of philosophy.

The idea that 'science' is this separate field that can look down on all other 'subjective' area of enquiry can easily lead to bad science or scientism.

I assume that, as a scientist, you value the contributions of many Enlightenment figures to the development of the modern sciences such as Newton, Bacon and Hume. They certainly didn't see science as something abstracted from philosophy, science was seen as a branch of philosophy.

Not all philosophy is scientific of course, but all science is philosophical. People would do well to remember this, and the sciences should be taught and applied with this in mind.

Very good points. I appreciate them all.
Regards
 

bud123

Member
Science is a valuable part of society however however science will never be able to understand how the universe came to be. We wont ever be able to tangibly go back or even naturally comprehend the environment and moments before the formation of the big bang because everything we logically and conceptually understand and observe as humans including time, matter and the laws of physics evolved in and from this phenomenon (big bang). This convinces me that a belief in a god isn't really that outlandish or crazy :)
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Science is a valuable part of society however however science will never be able to understand how the universe came to be. We wont ever be able to tangibly go back or even naturally comprehend the environment and moments before the formation of the big bang because everything we logically and conceptually understand and observe as humans including time, matter and the laws of physics evolved in and from this phenomenon (big bang). This convinces me that a belief in a god isn't really that outlandish or crazy :)

Even if it was true that science will never be able to understand how the Universe came to be, how does that justify a belief in God, especially if we consider, as you said, that our cognitive processes are constrained by having evolved from the Big Bang?

Ciao

- viole
 
Science is all about theories and trying to prove whether they're true or not, religion does not work that way. In science if a theory is proven wrong scientists have no issue in dropping that theory. With religion there's no such thing as text altering when the book does not make any sense, instead religious people just try to beat around the bush to make sense of it.
 

bud123

Member
Well it could be reasonable to suggest a god or creator as christian god is eternal and timeless. The concept of time was created within the big bang so it could be reasonable to believe that a godlike everlasting force or being existed before the material world we know today formed. It doesn't prove anything however it suggest the possibility :)
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Well it could be reasonable to suggest a god or creator as christian god is eternal and timeless. The concept of time was created within the big bang so it could be reasonable to believe that a godlike everlasting force or being existed before the material world we know today formed. It doesn't prove anything however it suggest the possibility :)
Actually, it's very difficult to think of a "before" time. If time was created at one point, it means that time didn't exist at a "before" at all. If the series of T starts at T0, then there is no T(-1), i.e. before. So it's not reasonable and it's not possible. In other words, we have to start thinking of time in a different way. Perhaps we can say "our particular time line began at big bang" but not that time in general came to be. Time must've existed before our particular time, or a before wouldn't exist.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Science is a valuable part of society however however science will never be able to understand how the universe came to be.

Simply not true.

Were dang close now. A super massive black hole could have expanded/ blown apart.

We already know a singularity expanded, that is how the universe formed.


SO SCIENCE already FACTUALLY knows how the universe came to be.

it is only details they are adding yearly to our collective knowledge.
 

bud123

Member
Sorry when I say time I mean the time the we understand and know as human. What I am suggesting is that time exsisted before the Big Bang however that time is infinite and unending, As you said our particular timeline was created within the Big Bang. :)
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Sorry when I say time I mean the time the we understand and know as human. What I am suggesting is that time exsisted before the Big Bang however that time is infinite and unending, As you said our particular timeline was created within the Big Bang. :)
Much better. :D
 
Top