|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Science a Religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
I read this interesting essay a week or two ago, and I think a few people here would be interested too: Naturalism is an Essential Part of Science and Critical Inquiry. I just wanted to quote one passage:
quote: Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : Fixed link "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Open Mind writes: It is obvious that religion is not just a jumble of stories, myths, and practices that make no sense but are followed out of tradition. No, it is not obvious. Seem the most likely explanation. Care to say why your statement is true?
Open Mind writes: Religious beliefs must all have reasons behind them. You are right here, but I would assert that in the absence of any positive evidence for the veracity of those beliefs we must conclude that they are like the beliefs we hold about any magical phenomena.
Open Mind writes: Science can therefore be considered a religion that believes in a strictly physical world and one that hides nothing from the five senses. Science does not 'believe in' anything. It measures what is 'there' and (through the scientific process) makes predictions.
Open Mind writes: If science would consider a supernatural being not bounds by the constraints of humans to be a possibility, many of the scientific principles can be challenged. It does view supernatural things as possible (well, a vanishingly small possiblity) but so far the evidence for the 'supernatural' is zero. If you have any, take it to James Randi and win a million bucks. JREF - Home
Open Mind writes: A good example is gravity. Maybe there are little spirits that hold people to the floor and a supernatural being, undetected by man, is controlling this spirit. Yout not up on what gravity is then, are you? Seriously, one could pull ideas like that out of ones arse all day and it would not support your position that science is a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think it is you who misunderstand religion and so your point isn't valid. -
quote: No, if religion seeks to explain anything it is to explain where a person's place is in society and to provide guidelines on how to live as a member of the society. It might do this with a mythological structure and a cosmology, but it also uses a set of shared ritual to reinforce these explanations. -
quote: No, people become part of a religion because they were raised in it, or because they become part of a new society and wish to take part in it. It is the totalitarian nature of the Abrahamic religions that lead people in the West to mistake the nature of religion. -
quote: And many religions do not answer these questions and do not try to answer these questions. So clearly the purpose of religion cannot be to provide answers to these questions. The reason you think these questions are important is because the particular religion you were raise in (or exposed to during your life) used questions like these to structure its mythologies, cosmology, and rituals. -
quote: Science does not "believe" this; the methodology of science simply limits it to what can be observed with the five senses. And this doesn't have anything to do with religion anyway. This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How does religion seek to explain the universe? Some may try to explain the universe from a religious perspective, but I don't see that religion seeks to explain. Science seeks to understand the universe. One should try to understand before one trys to explain. Do you feel that religion seeks to understand the universe? Unfortunately the purpose of a religion is not to explain the universe. Religion deals with reverencing or worshipping a god or the gods not having the answers to questions.
quote:No it can't. Using our five senses to understand the world around us is standard operating procedure for humans. In seeking understanding of the physical world around us, scientists do not worship (bow down) to a deity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Since when does something being a "tradition" preclude it from also being "a jumble of stories, myths, and practices that make no sense"?
quote: Sure, but they are often reasons that are more about soothing the bewildermant and fear of the dangers and unknowns of our precarious existence.
quote: No they don't. Most people become part of a religion because they were raised in that religion by their parents.
quote: No, for the vast majority of people the religion they were raised in will be perceived as having the best answer.
quote: Actually, science cannot answer most of them.
quote: No, it really cannot. Unless, of course, you broaden the definition of "religion" to mean any method that is adhered to. By your definition, football is a religion.
quote: Well sure, but then you would be changing the rules of science. Can you explain how accepting supernatural explanations for phenomena would benefit the explanitory power or accuracy of scientific inquiry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Please give the responses your serious consideration, OM. Your statement really is a mess.
I just want to correct one common misconception. Please do not make this mistake again. Please be so kind as to correct anyone else you see making it. You will be making the world a better place.
Science can therefore be considered a religion that believes in a strictly physical world and one that hides nothing from the five senses. This statement confuses a naturalistic method with a naturalistic philosophy. The two are not the same. Scientists use their method the way parliamentarians use rules of order. It offers a way to proceed and get the work done. The scientific method is not a religion any more than Robert's Rules of Order is a Bible. Once the experiments are done and the meetings are adjourned, you'll find scientists and parliamentarians showing as much variety in their personal belief systems as specialists in any other field do. Science does not 'believe in' a world that does this or that. It asks. The method is practical. Scientists use a procedure based on sensory observations, experiment and quantifiable data because experience shows this method to be productive. It cures diseases. It helps us devise useful inventions. A naturalistic philosophy, on the other hand, is the thing you describe. It is the belief that the natural world is all there is. The belief is not science. Now please satisfy my curiosity about something. Why is it important to you to think science is a religion? ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity, typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
OM: Religion seeks to explain the universe. No, religion seeks to ascribe meaning to human existence. It does so through a system of belief involving supernatural forces and communal ritual. These latter elements are generally what distinguish a religion from a philosophy, which also explores meaning. Some religions say a lot about the universe but some could not care less. Some say it isn't even real. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Indeed, I am getting a lot of "food for thought" from the various responses. -
quote: I like this analogy, by the way. I may use it myself. - Carry on. This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Would you call math a religion? my father (a graph theorist) did once, and i think he quoted someone like godel as saying "math is the only true religion." apparently, all math follows logically from a few basic axioms, which are unprovable in nature. if one such axiom should ever be overturned, it takes down a relatively large portion (or all of) math with it. and every mathematician recognizes this: their conclusions are only as good as their assumptions. and so it takes a degree of "faith" to accept math. but i suspect it's more of an "in-joke" among mathematicians than a serious point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
I just thought I would pose an interesting question which may shed some light on this issue. How can one even attempt to classify religions? If I believe that there is a supernatural being that is completely undetectable by man, and he controls everything in this world using patterns (probably so that the humans do not detect him) that he rarely deviates from, then I believe that the entire world is just that. I would not believe in any other religion and I would label them all fairy tales. My definition of religion would be my religion and no other. When one starts to classify religions and study all religions as a topic, what religions would he consider himself to be a part of. If he were a Hindu, he would probably call his studies, "The Study of Blasphemous Literature and Practices." He would not admit them to be religions because he believes that he has found the truth. In my opinion, it is impossible for one to exclude himself from "the subject of religion." Whatever is your opinion of the universe, whether you believe in the supernatural or you just believe in pure science, you have just made a religious opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
I just want to let eveyone know that I am not posting without reading. I have read all the posts and I try to share some of my thoughts with you to see what you think. I will try to respond more precisely with enough time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In my opinion, it is impossible for one to exclude himself from "the subject of religion." Whatever is your opinion of the universe, whether you believe in the supernatural or you just believe in pure science, you have just made a religious opinion. Absolute nonsense. First, as you have been told, no one believes in Science. People accept the Scientific Method as a conclusion based on its success history and reproducibility. Third, as has been pointed out to you, many people are Theists and also accept the Scientific Method and the results it has provided. Second, the big difference between Science and any religion is that Science NEVER has the final Answer and is always ready to throw away anything when new evidence shows it is incorrect. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
In my opinion, it is impossible for one to exclude himself from "the subject of religion." Whatever is your opinion of the universe, whether you believe in the supernatural or you just believe in pure science, you have just made a religious opinion. The most that can be said is that one has come to a conclusion of faith. One has decided whether to put faith in religion or in science. However, as I explained above, the nature of the faith that one puts in each is vastly different. If your faith is in religion, it is faith that your beliefs are accurate, despite the evidence. If your faith is in science, it is faith that the methods that have worked in the past to help us gain a more accurate understanding of the world will continue to work in the future. Several people have explained why science is not religion. I suspect that if you continue simply repeating this ill-founded comparison, people will soon tire of of you. It would be more helpful if you actually gave some reasons to support what you say. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
People accept the Scientific Method as a conclusion based on its success history and reproducibility. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean this. It struck me as an odd way to phrase things. In reality, the sentence should probably read, "People accept the Scientific Method as a process that leads to reliable conclusions based on its success history and reproducibility." Or words to that effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Except that science is not something one believes in. Science is an activity with a certain set of rules, and most people believe that in some situations this activity produces reliable information about the world in which we live. It is like saying that, since I understand the rules of chess, I can predict that I will put my opponent in check mate in four more moves. This is not a religious statement, nor is chess a religion (although I suppose it could be for some people). It is the same with science. I have an understanding of how science operates, and so when a scientists tells me that Io is covered with sufur volcanoes I have some trust that what she says is accurate. That is not a religious statement. This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024