Is Science a Religion?

quote:

---

It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.

​

All religions address the theological foundation at some level; even the non or a theistic ones. It is not possible for a philosophy to not have a position on the 'God portion' of the equation.

---

In that case science is not a philosphy or a worldview - at least not a complete one. Science's onlt concern with metaphysics is the assumptions that make science possible. i.e. science assumes that there is an external reality and that we can investigate it through the collection of data and by reasoning from that data. That includes the assumption that intervention from "God" (or similar entities) is either predictable enough to be included in science or so rare as to not meaningfully interfere with sciences investigations of our universe. Beyond that scienctists can (and do) take many metaphysical positions, including Christianity (e.g. Francis Collins and Simon Conway-Morris).

quote:

---

Science as a philosophy is often called materialism or naturalism. It presupposes that the material universe can explain itself. If science were actually objective, it would have no such presupposition. The convention as it stands now is called 'Methodological Naturalism'.

---

This is badly confused. The convention of methodological naturalism is essentially the limits I spoke of above. The term is used precisely to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism and the practices of science. Science is NOT naturalism or materialism, because it limits it's commitment to methodological naturalism which admits that science is not capable of adequately addressing the supernatural.

quote:

---

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with natural science. My only point here, is that it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.

---

But you are attacking science. You are essentially claiming - in spite of the evidence - that science must take positions on the things that you say that it cannot investigate - positions which go beyond the minimal assumptions required to make science possible. However we know that scientists can and do take differing metaphysical positions that do not interfere with their science. We know that scientists and some philosphers of science refer to methodological naturalism to emphasise the fact that science is NOT committed to full philosophical nauralism as you claim But we do not have any evidence for your assertion that science must take a position beyond that.

It might be a clever piece of sophistry but it's hardly a proof.For instance the rise of science is connected to the rediscovery of pagan knowledge, the decline of the Church's authority and a rise in freethought. If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews.One of the fundamental aspects of science is the development of theories. Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption and the Theory of Everything is simply the extrapolation of that strategy to the obvious conclusion. So perhaps the underlying assumption is that unifying knowledge by constructing theories with greater explanatory power will increase or understanding. The theory of evolution itself is a unification of this sort. Since creationism opposes this unification - without offering a real alternative - should we conclude that creationism is opposed to monotheism ?In short the argument really relies on selectively drawing the connections that happen to be convenient to it - without making a good case for them. It's simply speculation - far more so than evolution.

quote:

---

Like others, you state your opinion without any proof.

---

Considering that your proof consisted of nothing more you're not in much of a posiiton to talk. And I would have thought that all my points were well-known facts.

quote:

---

I don't know where you get the idea that "If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews." This is an outright false statement with no proof stated.

---

You call it "outright false" but you don't offer any evidence yourself. So lets consider one of the major contributors - Aristotle - was he Hebrew or Greek ?Or look at this History of Science Sources. The "Ancient Near East" section covers one book - on Babylonian and Egyptian mathematics. There are 7 references on Ancient Egypt and many more on the Greeks.See any references to the Hebrews in Wikipedia's [URL=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_culture]History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical AntiquityI think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.

quote:

---

Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread.

---

The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution.So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.

quote:

---

Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.

---

And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.
History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical AntiquityI think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.

quote:

---

Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread.

---

The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution.So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.

quote:

---

Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.

---

And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record. []History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical AntiquityI think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.

quote:

---

Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread.

---

The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution.So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.

quote:

---

Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.

---

And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.
History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical AntiquityI think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.

quote:

---

Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread.

---

The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution.So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.

quote:

---

Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.

---

And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.

quote:

---

In order to look for such a thing, you must first believe in its existence. When you believe in something with no factual evidence what do you have?

---

Not true - you must believe that it is likely enough to exist to be worth looking. But you certainly don't need to believe that it definitely must exist.

quote:

---

First of all, I never said that the Hebrews were the first scientists.

---

I never said that you did. You did however claim that my statement - that the ancient Greeks contributed more to the proto-science of ancient times than the Hebrews was "outright false". And THAT is the claim I was answering.

quote:

---

I said that the belief system of the scientist stemmed from the belief system of the Monotheists.

---

That was not th pont I was naswering at that time. As is quite clear since I quoted you.

quote:

---

You mentioned Aristotle. I can't thank you more. He is a perfect example of the opposite of modern science.

---

I was not talking of modern science in the statement you called "outright false" - I quite clearly stated that I was referring to proto-science.

quote:

---

Secondly, I see from your questions that your logic that you are a little bit confused.

---

I'm not the one who seemingly can't remember his own words - even if they are quoted in the message being replied to.

quote:

---

I never said that science "IS" Monotheism. I said that the religion of science is an offshoot based on Monotheism.

---

So I got it right. How exactly doees that suggest that I am confused ?

quote:

---

Science can have beliefs that stem from Monotheism and then go ahead and contradict other Monotheistic religions.

---

I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand the complexity of the issues. However let me point out that it was not simple contradiction that I had in mind. It was a contradiction derived using the methodology that you claim is derived from monotheism. i.e. in this case a monotheistic religion is apparently contradicting monotheism. Want to explain how that makes sense ?

quote:

---

That is exactly what the religion of science does.

---

Science isn't a religion - as is shown by your failure to provide a valid case that it is.

quote:

---

Further, I read what I am saying in real books.

---

So which book said that the Hebrews made a greater or even equal contribution to prot-science than the Ancient Greeks ? Claiming that you read soemthing in a "real book" is hardly evidence.

quote:

---

You are basing your knowledge on an Internet blog called wikipedia.

---

An obvious falsehood, since I also referenced the Fordham Foundation website (and Wikipedia is rather better than a blog) . And even Wikipedia beats your claims to have read "real books".

quote:

---

Furthermore, scientists "believed" in unity before it "Worked". W

---

Did they ? Or did they beleive that it was a strategy worth trying ?Come on, you attack others for not producing evidence - but you produce even less.You've misrepresented your own statements. You've misrepresented my statements. You don't attempt to meet the standards you hold others to. You really need to do much, much better if you are to be taken seriously.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First of all, you think Stephen Hawking is spending his whole entire life researching a possibility he does not believe to truly exist.

---

No I don't. I never said any such thing.

quote:

---

Second of all, the whole concept of unity in the universe seems very natural to people born into a scientifically modern world. The concept of this unity was completely unheard of in the ancient world. Nobody even thought it to be a possibility.

---

And this is irrelevant - and in fact if it is true it weakens your argument. If the idea was not known in the ancient world then it was not known to ancient monotheists. So there msu tbe more to it than monotheism.