Should science be considered a religion?

[JonM]

You have no claim on Spinoza. As you've admitted, your transnaturalism is thoroughly teleological while Spinoza's naturalism repudiated teleology. As such, in my opinion, you've done a real disservice to religious naturalism.

Well, I'm also 18 and I have no real idea what I'm talking about. I still have teachers. I hope you do, too.

 

[askeptic]

My faith is most reassured when science corroborates my spirituality. I invite you all to read up on the state of theoretical quantum physics, and you will see that it parallels perfectly all the great mystical traditions, from Kaballah to Sufism to Tibetan Buddhism to Taoism, all the mystical orders that teach that the only fundamental reality is the Single Unity of All That There Is (which is the God in which I believe, not the man in the sky that gives orders). You will see that their teachings are corroborated by science. The vocabulary is different, and the methods of reaching their conclusions are different, but their conclusion is the same.

Hi Jon. Not trying to be difficult, but it is really not very helpful in forum like this to suggest that the participants go study theoretical quantum physics and then see if they agree with you. Since this is a debate forum, I'm hoping you are willing to lay out an argument about a particular case where you are convinced that science corroborates your spirituality.

Although there are others here who don't agree with me, I'm also convinced that precision in language is the only way you can help others understand your viewpoint, so that they don't assume or assign meanings you don't intend. So I was hoping you might provide a meaning for the word "spirituality" in the context you are using it here, and a definition of what you mean when you use the word "god", since it is not the "man in the sky", as you put it.

But for me, the point is that, since reason is a God-given faculty, and the ability to reason out the scientific method is miraculous for that reason, and that all the data available to science is part of the infinite expression of God, that applying our science to our material reality will give us an ever-increasing understanding of God over time. Morality can be arrived at rationally, and though it is contingent and future circumstances are likely to overturn it, that does not make it any less divine. Nor does it make ultimate morality relative, it just means that humans are too small a part of the Universe to fully understand the ultimate morality, so our morals are approximations, but they are still from God!

I am really struggling with some of your statements here, since you seem to be creating a contradiction. You claim there is an utimate reality but then you claim it is unknowable. But if it is unknowable, how can its existence be known? To claim that a thing is unknowable one must first know that it exists – which is itself a claim of knowledge.

Again, I am interested to know what you define as "god" in order to understand the basis of your statements.

 

[linwood]

So, you contend that www.Dictionary.com is in error? You are bolder than I am in this respect.

No NetDoc.
Considering I am the person who originally posted that definition to this thread I can only assume by making the above statement you are continuing your twisting of my words and intentions.

BTW, your description of religion sounds nothing like my religion. It doesn't sound remotely like JonM's religion either!

It is exactly your religion.
It is not JonM`s religion as I`ve already conceded but hey, don`t worry about what I`ve actually stated just keep defending against imaginary statements that I haven`t made.
It`s obviously easier for you that way.

Could it be that you are glomming attributes to religion that should be reserved for mere arrogance or a panoply of other human character traits which have nothing to do with religion per se?

No, it couldn`t be.
Why don`t you direct your attention to the argument instead of the one making the argument?
If my view is indeed as you state above why not disprove it as most other honest debators on this forum would?
If you would like me to provide a litany of religions refusal to alter it`s edicts to conform with reality I`ll gladly do so.
I merely hope this forum can take the bandwidth abuse.

Are you also contending that no one who believes in science is subject, by sheer force of the scientific method, to these same human character flaws?

Character flaws are in people, I am discussing a trait of a worldview.
They cannot be compared.
You keep bringing this debate down to the personal level when it doesn`t belong there.
I urge you yet again to read the OP.
This thread is not about how people react to their worldviews, it is about the validity of the worldviews themselves.

Do you have anything of substance to state about my point in the previous post I made?

BTW, I may not be able to get on until Monday and there is no internet at 20 fathoms. Don't take my absense as some sort of capitulation.

I`ll miss you terribly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No NetDoc.
Considering I am the person who originally posted that definition to this thread I can only assume by making the above statement you are continuing your twisting of my words and intentions.

So you had: I did too! I didn't refer to your quote, but to mine (see how I made it blue). Instead of trying to assign motives to me that I do not have, tell us if you disagree with with that portion of the definition or not. I merely asked a question and did not make a statement here. Michel has asked that we keep this civil, but these accusations keep it uncivil.

It is exactly your religion.

Please provide proof for this or retract the statement.

No, it couldn`t be.
Why don`t you direct your attention to the argument instead of the one making the argument?

The statement was not directed towards you Linwood and I apologise that you took it so. I don't have that poor of an opinion of you as you seem to have of me. Your description of religion was a description of arrogance and denial. If I mean to imply that you are arrogant, etc I will come right out and say it! You see, I am discussing ONLY the argument and NOT you. Only you won't beleive me. Why is that?

Character flaws are in people, I am discussing a trait of a worldview.
They cannot be compared.

Why can't they? Ethnocentrism has colored much of our scientific endeavors as much as it has our religion.

 

[linwood]

So you had: I did too! I didn't refer to your quote, but to mine (see how I made it blue).

Your transparency is humourous..

Please provide proof for this or retract the statement.

I guess you do indeed want that litany.
No problem.

Only you won't beleive me. Why is that?

Perhaps it has something to do with the previously mentioned transparency.

Why can't they? Ethnocentrism has colored much of our scientific endeavors as much as it has our religion.

Because we are discussing the properties of an entire belief system and or worldview.
To bring them down to a personal level is to do nothing but fall into another "No True Scotsman" argument and that is a waste of time.

 

[mr.guy]

Why can't they? Ethnocentrism has colored much of our scientific endeavors as much as it has our religion.

Now i'm curious. Does this mean that certain ethnic groups are predisposed to make and/or endeavour upon certain scientific concepts and discoveries?

 

[askeptic]

It is wrapped up in reason, please prove it differently. Many of the evidences I use are quite natural: a tree, an ocean, the list could go on. Do you consider these illogical?

And I have seen many attempt this very thing. If you don't ascribe to it great, but there are those who do.

Unlike yourself, I just took a definition from www.Dictionary.com. I don't feel a need to reinvent the meaning of a word "just" to win an argument.

Here is what they have for "Reason"

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

So, using this dictionary definition, and not ascribing to your narrower personal one, I have no problems saying that my beliefs are as much built on reason as they are on faith. At least I have the humility to admit as such.

I've noticed that you don't really address the arguments that others make. You do seem to ask them whether they've made some absolutist statement that they clearly have not made, rather than rebut their arguments directly, or constructing your own arguments as a rebuttal.


The reason a dictionary has multiple definitions listed is that, depending on the context, the word has one of these meanings when it is used. My definition was to clarify what I meant, and is consistent with one of those meanings. And since I was the one making the case and laying out the argument, I am entitled to explain what I mean.


You seem to take issue, and insist that all the meanings of a word are valid in the same context, and think that the reader should be able to assign his own meanings, despite the clear intent of the writer to assign a particular meaning to his words.



And your humility comment? Hmmmmm...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Now i'm curious. Does this mean that certain ethnic groups are predisposed to make and/or endeavour upon certain scientific concepts and discoveries?

No,

It means that many scientists as well as theologians have had their perception of truth altered by their assumptions based on their particular bias.

 

[Pah]

No,

It means that many scientists as well as theologians have had their perception of truth altered by their assumptions based on their particular bias.

Now I know, without doubt, you understand little of what you speak. Assumptions, my dear fellow, are the "stuff" of scientific hypotheses. It would be nice if you understood science before you attack it.

Without specifying the hypothesis or assumption, I predict there will be an other incoherent response to this post as was made to my last two in exchange. It makes me think "why bother?"

The faulty assumption in science is corrected whereas in religion it is futher apologized.

 

[linwood]

The faulty assumption in science is corrected whereas in religion it is futher apologized.

Why does it take me two paragraphs to make a point you can make in a single sentence?

You`re infuriating Pah.



Thanks

 

[Scuba Pete]

I've noticed that you don't really address the arguments that others make. You do seem to ask them whether they've made some absolutist statement that they clearly have not made, rather than rebut their arguments directly, or constructing your own arguments as a rebuttal.

I amignoring the personal attack here.

The reason a dictionary has multiple definitions listed is that, depending on the context, the word has one of these meanings when it is used. My definition was to clarify what I meant, and is consistent with one of those meanings. And since I was the one making the case and laying out the argument, I am entitled to explain what I mean.

No argument here, however from a different perspective consider this;

If I were to peruse a book on birds I would find a section on ducks. In this section would be listed a littany of ducks native to the area. Cool so far?

If I were to match the bird I saw to one of these pictures then I know that i have a duck. This does not invalidate all the other ducks. Just because a bird does not look like MY duck, does not preclude it from being a duck. "But it's not MY duck!" OK... but if it still quacks and walks like a duck then it is indeed a duck.

Again I ask: does science fit into the fourth definition from www.dictionary.com? If it does, then I sincerely suggest that it is indeed a religion by simple definition. It is my humble opinion that it does fit in that definition.

 

[mr.guy]

...but if it still quacks and walks like a duck then it is indeed a duck.

Could we say that bird watching would qualify as religion as well?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Does it fit into any of the definitions of religion for you? If you can answer "yes" to that question, then sure, why not?

However, you have yet to answer my simple question.

 

[Pah]

I've noticed that you don't really address the arguments that others make. You do seem to ask them whether they've made some absolutist statement that they clearly have not made, rather than rebut their arguments directly, or constructing your own arguments as a rebuttal.

I amignoring the personal attack here.

I see that he has addressed your debate style and not you personally. I seem to have the same obsrvation with some of your posts, both here and in previous threads.

 

[askeptic]

I
Again I ask: does science fit into the fourth definition from www.dictionary.com? If it does, then I sincerely suggest that it is indeed a religion by simple definition. It is my humble opinion that it does fit in that definition.

Perhaps you have again become confused about to whom you are speaking and which definition you used. The referent definition in our conversation was this:

Unlike yourself, I just took a definition from www.Dictionary.com. I don't feel a need to reinvent the meaning of a word "just" to win an argument.

Here is what they have for "Reason"

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

I don't see how any of these makes science a religion. Your "duck story" is irrelevent, and not to the point being made. It escapes me how this was supposed to make a point.

 

[askeptic]

Simply pulling up dictionary definitons for words doesn't constitute an argument. Humor me by looking up "cult" "crazy" and "fanatic" especially note the origins of "fanatic" -- these are all from you favorite dictionary site. So because a definition happens to be extensible to some aspect of religious belief, does that then somehow mean that religious believers belong to cults, that they're crazy and fanatical? I can't see how this gets you anywhere...

 

[gnomon]

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Any activity, principle or cause could be defined as a religion under this definition. But the definition applies on an individual level. Somebody might paste the walls of their house with Superman posters, purchase evey Superman toy ever made, dress up as superman, etc. This activity qualifies, under the above definition, as a religion. Modern terminology to use is obsession.

A similar definition is included in my Webster's as "6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

Look at the definition of science which is a body of knowledge which systemizes facts as they pertain to natural laws. No similarity to the above definition for religion or any other definition of religion.

Don't confuse obsession with religion. Some scientists may develop a hypothesis which they persue, colloquially put, "religiously". Actually a derogative way to describe a scientific pursuit. Usually infers a close-minded pursuit of an unpromising line of inquiry.

 

[hero]

No worries, I don't think much about this stuff outside of such entertaining debates as these. Most of the time my philosophy is pretty much what you said up there. But I do like to look at how things work, yes.

But to hold one thing true, and live it differently, is not that living a lie, or a similiar concept to hypocrisy. I do not believe this applies to you, but it is an interesting thought. Knowledge of how things work would indeed affects what decisions you make. (It is what you do that defines you.) If that is true, than......

 

[Cowrebellion]

scienc should not be considered a religion because quite plainly it isn't! And yes it is very important to teach science in schools, imo religion is not required in anyway.

If you're religious it doesn't bother me, but I remember many wasted classes spent in religion where I could have been learning about things I find much more useful and entertaining.

Of course if its a christian school , jewish school, etc. then go crazy and teach as much religion as you want XD

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Most definitions of science make it a religion. Obviously it's not a theistic religion, but it's a set of beliefs about the nature, cause, and metaphysics of the universe. I think it's probably a good idea to think of it as a religion. A single belief is not a religion because a religion is a set of inter-referential beliefs.

Also, please keep in mind that science and religion are two of the language's hardest words to define adequately. So there is a large variety of valid opinion on this subject... because the question is quite vague.

For instance, the scientific method isn't a religion, but a method. But many people confuse scientific method with science, when they are not the same. In the same way, many confuse Christianity with religion. They are not the same thing.

The Purple Knight