How good is science as a religion?

[Jose Fly]

Is it controversial to think that we can know things without science?

I don't think so. As I said in the post you replied to, it's not a view I've ever seen expressed

 

[PruePhillip]

Science is not a religion, and capitalism is amoral. However, there are people that worship science as the source of all knowledge, and there are others that believe capitalism is the solution to all society's ills.

Of course they are wrong on both counts.

Capitalism is amoral in the sense it's like comparing a screw driver to a shoe (see above)
But it's not amoral as in IMMORAL.
A bit like comparing religion to science, actually - different domains.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How good is science as a religion?

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

Very nice, my views are based on science as well as the Hindu philosophy of non-dualism (Advaita).
I would not go to Capitalism for morals, I will choose socialism, although these systems are not really connected with morality..

 

[firedragon]

The question itself makes no sense, no different than asking "How good is religion as a science?"

Or...."How good is a screwdriver as a shoe?"

People do sometimes even profess to follow science as a religion.

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of religion. But I give you that you are following a common understanding maybe even found in dictionaries. But scholars generally know different. There is no need for a God or divinity to have a religion. Rome was a religion for the soldiers. It means a binding.

So its not like a screwdriver being a shoe.

 

[Valjean]

Science is not a religion, and capitalism is amoral. However, there are people that worship science as the source of all knowledge, and there are others that believe capitalism is the solution to all society's ills.

Of course they are wrong on both counts.

Who "worships" science? Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed. It's reasonable to give credence to its conclusions, while, at the same time, applying its methodology to disprove them.

 

[firedragon]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

If you have a little time, please give a synopsis on how capitalism is a moral system.

Thank you so much.

 

[Valjean]

How good is science as a religion?

Not good at all
Lacking the essence
Science needs Spirituality

Science knows hydrogen and oxygen
BUT...Who created hydrogen and oxygen?
Water is the effect, hydrogen and oxygen are the causes
Nothing can exist without a cause. The effect gradually changes.
That which changes is science. The changeless cause is spirituality.

Effects do exist without apparent cause, and science explores facts, not spirits.

 

[Valjean]

Most people will not believe it but since God invented science, everything in science points to God.

How so?
Why do so many scientists lack belief in God?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think so. As I said in the post you replied to, it's not a view I've ever seen expressed

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand. Science is not required to know something, is it?

For example, I may have genuine knowledge that I am in love with a woman. Science could, in principle, confirm that knowledge (by measuring my heart rate or hormone production when I'm around her). But I don't NEED science in order to correctly arrive at the conclusion that I'm in love, do I?

If I don't need science to know certain things, then scientism must be false.

I think scientism is ten times better at interpreting reality than any other "ism" we got. But still, I wouldn't call it beyond reproach. Scientism can't really say ANYTHING about a number of matters that are very important to us.

 

[firedragon]

Science is an investigative modality, and the most fruitful one ever developed.

You just blind worshiped science. Full of faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

People do sometimes even profess to follow science as a religion.

Who?

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of religion. But I give you that you are following a common understanding maybe even found in dictionaries. But scholars generally know different. There is no need for a God or divinity to have a religion. Rome was a religion for the soldiers. It means a binding.

Where did you get that definition?

 

[Valjean]

Values, purpose, meaning, &c. are not within the purview of science. Expecting scientific conclusions bout these conflates science with religion.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand. Science is not required to know something, is it?

I don't think so.

For example, I may have genuine knowledge that I am in love with a woman. Science could, in principle, confirm that knowledge (by measuring my heart rate or hormone production when I'm around her). But I don't NEED science in order to correctly arrive at the conclusion that I'm in love, do I?

Agreed.

If I don't need science to know certain things, then scientism must be false.

Yup.

I think scientism is ten times better than interpreting reality than any other "ism" we got. But still, I wouldn't call it beyond reproach. Scientism can't really say ANYTHING about a number of matters that are very important to us.

Like whether something is or isn't "art".

 

[Valjean]

You just blind worshiped science. Full of faith.

"Worship?" how is accepting demonstrated facts worship?
Do you accept what you see? Is your acceptance 'worship' of your eyes?

Faith-- unsupported belief-- is the opposite of science. Science encourages criticism of all its ideas, and attempting to disprove them is part of its method.

It's this testing and invitation to criticism that's made science the epistemic gold standard.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Like whether something is or isn't "art".

Exactly. No amount or form of empirical data could say anything substantive about whether something is art or not. And yet, that is a distinction that is very important to some of us. Any amount of genuine knowledge one way or the other, even if it only moves the needle a millimeter, is intensely important to us about that certain thing. If empiricism can't move that needle, then empiricism can't give us knowledge that other methods can.

Aesthetics and ethics are good examples of things that are important to us, yet empiricism can say little to nothing about.

Once we've arrived at a conclusion, empiricism is extremely useful. Let's say we have determined that suffering is ethically bad. Empiricism can tell us everything about how much suffering is going on now and (maybe) how best to stop it. But it can't tell us that suffering is bad. We have to resort to some different faculty than the senses to work out that suffering is bad.

 

[firedragon]

Who?


Where did you get that definition?

This is common knowledge.

The word Religare and Religio was used commonly even during the roman regime to describe the "binding" soldiers had with the state. Religio used to mean "someone who is bound to his family" as in takes care of his family and fulfils his duties. No God necessary. But again, I accept that you are following a common understanding. Maybe you should read a book by John Morreall or Wilfred Smith.

And about your first question "who", you can read both anti theistic and theistic books on it. People like Gregory Peterson or even some modern day philosophers. This is very common. Even during the so called toppling of the Ottoman Empire the young turks advocated for it.

Cheers.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Or do we?

 

[Viker]

While you're at it, how good is capitalism as a moral system?

Neither are good at something they both are not.

 

[Viker]

Most people will not believe it but since God invented science, everything in science points to God.

Which God? And how so?

 

[firedragon]

"Worship?" how is accepting demonstrated facts worship?

Can you "demonstrate as a fact with a scientific study of this assertion"?