Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science a Religion?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 16 of 313 (381166)
01-30-2007 2:20 AM


Science requires the assumption of naturalism
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:
It is doubtful whether any empirical evidence can possibly exist that would prove, demonstrate, or even suggest the existence of the supernatural. Such evidence posited by philosophical supernaturalists would certainly be labeled incomplete, incoherent, illogical, meaningless, misunderstood, or misinterpreted by philosophical naturalists, and thus rejected as reliable evidence. In fact, all such evidence has been so rejected, and I agree with these rejections. This leaves rational arguments for the proof of supernaturalism. All such arguments have been criticized as unsound or invalid, due to their underlying illogic or the questionable truth or proven falsity of their premises. In fact, despite centuries of attempts by theistic rationalists to prove the existence of god, miracles, and the supernatural, all such attempts have failed. There is thus no evidence for the supernatural and no reason to believe in it despite the lack of evidence; however, the supernatural could still possibly exist without our knowledge. It is apparently impossible to prove its non-existence. Such a lack of evidence and reason forces one to be agnostic about the existence of the supernatural and thus about the ultimate truth of naturalism. However, because of such lack of evidence and logical arguments, it is more reasonable to disbelieve the supernatural than to disbelieve naturalism.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 4:19 PM Doddy has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 313 (381192)
01-30-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings about religion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 313 (381202)
01-30-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings about religion.
quote:
Many of the people on this board seem to misunderstand religion, and seem to have overlooked my point.
I think it is you who misunderstand religion and so your point isn't valid.
-
quote:
Religion seeks to explain the universe.
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:
The reason why people become part of a religion is because they truly believe that the religion has a sound explanation for the mystery of this universe.
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:
People all have questions like: Why does the world exist? Who made it? Who controls it? What keeps everything going? What happens after death?
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 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" 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 19 of 313 (381209)
01-30-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings about religion.
quote:
Religion seeks to explain the universe.
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:
Science can be classified as a religion that worships the five senses.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 313 (381220)
01-30-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings about religion.
quote:
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.
Since when does something being a "tradition" preclude it from also being "a jumble of stories, myths, and practices that make no sense"?
quote:
Religious beliefs must all have reasons behind them.
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:
The reason why people become part of a religion is because they truly believe that the religion has a sound explanation for the mystery of this universe.
No they don't.
Most people become part of a religion because they were raised in that religion by their parents.
quote:
People all have questions like: Why does the world exist? Who made it? Who controls it? What keeps everything going? What happens after death? The religion to answer these questions in the best manner will be followed.
No, for the vast majority of people the religion they were raised in will be perceived as having the best answer.
quote:
Science does not avoid these questions in the least bit.
Actually, science cannot answer most of them.
quote:
Rather, science tries to answer every one of these questions based on the five senses. Science can therefore be considered a religion that believes in a strictly physical world and one that hides nothing from the five senses.
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:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 21 of 313 (381230)
01-30-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings, all right...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 01-30-2007 10:51 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 22 of 313 (381238)
01-30-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Open MInd
01-29-2007 11:33 PM


Re: Some misunderstandings about religion
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Open MInd, posted 01-29-2007 11:33 PM Open MInd has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 313 (381242)
01-30-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Archer Opteryx
01-30-2007 10:01 AM


Re: Some misunderstandings, all right...
quote:
Please give the responses your serious consideration....
Indeed, I am getting a lot of "food for thought" from the various responses.
-
quote:
The scientific method is not a religion any more than Robert's Rules of Order is a Bible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-30-2007 10:01 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 313 (381303)
01-30-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
01-26-2007 3:27 PM


is math?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-26-2007 3:27 PM subbie has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 25 of 313 (381420)
01-30-2007 10:14 PM


Defining religion
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-30-2007 10:31 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 01-30-2007 11:52 PM Open MInd has not replied
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 01-31-2007 9:20 AM Open MInd has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 26 of 313 (381423)
01-30-2007 10:20 PM


My posts.
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 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 313 (381425)
01-30-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Open MInd
01-30-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Defining religion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Open MInd, posted 01-30-2007 10:14 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2007 7:31 AM jar has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 28 of 313 (381446)
01-30-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Open MInd
01-30-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Defining religion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Open MInd, posted 01-30-2007 10:14 PM Open MInd has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 313 (381466)
01-31-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
01-30-2007 10:31 PM


Re: Defining religion
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-30-2007 10:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 01-31-2007 9:57 AM Quetzal has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 313 (381485)
01-31-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Open MInd
01-30-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Defining religion
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Open MInd, posted 01-30-2007 10:14 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Open MInd, posted 01-31-2007 4:06 PM Chiroptera has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024