Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spiral Out]

Can no one argue without recourse to insults anymore?

I opened my post with a compliment to you, which you chose to ignore. Then I closed my post by thanking you for your time and consideration, which you also chose to ignore. So if you find any insult in my post, which there was none intended, the you went searching for it and thus found it.

Your argument does not address the central issue except in one point. All of your talk about the limits of science and what you view as the small gains in technology is superfluous to the issue at hand.

My post addresses your assertion, "Why science is not a religion", throughout. My bringing up the point of the limitation of science was to illustrate that there a great amount of faith involved, much like religion. Also, in the field of science, there is a fundamental belief in unseen... well, if you read the entirety of my post then you know what I'm getting at.

Science is most certainly not "dogmatic in its system of beliefs" any more than formal logic or mathematics is "dogmatic" in its "beliefs."

It most certainly is. Science is not mathematics. Science relies on mathematical functions in its attempt to justify its means of operation, as I had said earlier. Number systems, as well as money systems, also require a certain level of belief and faith, as you should know. These are concepts, not solid objects.

I have already discussed the fact that the scientific method rests on the assumption that the world is intelligible, that sense organs are more or less reliable on average, and that we are capable of logical thinking. As I said, these are really the only beliefs that need to be held for science to be done. If these beliefs make science a religion then any statement about the world you see is fundamentally a religious statement.

There is quite a bit more belief and faith involved than just those two simplistic beliefs, as I explained in my post.

Thus you may say science is a religion, but then so is baking since it too rests on the belief that the world is intelligible, that your sense organs are giving you reliable data about the kitchen, and that you are capable of the logical thought necessary to carry out the steps required.

Now you're just being silly. The absurdity of that statement should illustrate to you definitively that there is so much more belief and faith involved in science than you will admit.

Either way, I have no stake in either ideology, as I am not a devout ideologue. I had stated that I have no bias toward either ideology. Anyway, I think you are well aware that in order to believe in the likes of Charm Quarks, Fermions, Neutrinos, Leptons, Gluons and Bosons and such that you must have a great capacity for faith, such as with the belief in other invisible entities, such as Gods.

[Logicus]

You guys are a major entertainment. If the OP is about how science cannot be a religion, then how about this:

Science is a vast body of knowledge that cannot be known by any one person. Someone educated in science adopts the material pertinent to their field and has a passing interest in related fields, but knows only a fraction of the whole body of knowledge. If called upon to research into another field of knowledge, said individual will consult the known areas of knowledge on the subject, taking it all as truth being unable to verify it all for his or her self. In other words, There is a huge body of physical data, all believed true, being used by those who do not have the time or ability to verify it.

I put it to you that this vast body of knowledge is exactly analogous to religious dogma.

There are certain indispensable tools in the form of laws and constants, many of which must be memorized by those in training. They are the underlying framework upon which all discussions are based. Anyone not familiar with them would be unable to comprehend ordinary conversations about the Universe and its processes, and the structure of matter. Without these established principles, no meaningful progress is possible.

This is analogous to the precepts and commandments laid down for the followers of any religion.

Science, it would seem, is heavily invested in the future. In the future, science will give us longer lifespans. In the future science will eliminate all disease. In the future science will develop clean energy for all. In the future science will solve world hunger. In the future science will have a way to deal with meteorites (not a lot of logic in that one - the future could be tomorrow). And, in the future we will have flying cars.

This sounds a lot like the idealized descriptions of the afterlife in religious books, sermons, and hymns.
It lacks only streets of gold.


So now we have a discipline, Science, whose collected knowledge is its dogma, its laws and constants are its message, and the future is its heaven. Sounds like a religion to me.

[Newme]

Logicas,

Yes, it sounds like it to me, too. Different "legion" (group) but still a legion with "personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by" (definition of religion).

I think problem arises when both science and religion cross their domain, scientists should not try to announce that God does not exists and religion should not accept science to prove their beliefs. Both are like two railway tracks which can stay parallel but can never meet and we should not try to do so. I strongly believe that science will definitely get little close to religion (I don’t mean a God with form) but a a super power and some researches are looking promising in this

direction, one of them is http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Interesting.

There are similarities between religion and science - both depend on funding/donations, so they both have bias in their "hypothesis"/beliefs.

Yet, there are some from both camps who truly are interested in truth and are loyal to discovering it, even if it costs them money, pride etc. So, I think that the 2 do and will merge for some, especially those who dig deeper than what their agenda-based camps dictate. But for others who insist on thinking in terms of black or white and resist even the possibility of paradox and expanding their perspectives, it will seem they are 2 completely different worlds.

[Spectrum]

IMO, the confusions between parties are due to sophistry (deliberately or unconsciously) and fallacies.

I am sure many are familiar with Venn diagrams in critical thinking.
http://classroom.jc-schools.net/read/venn2.html



If we put 'Science' and 'Religion' in their respective sphere in terms of critical factors, there will be some overlap of their spheres.
However what is specifically critical to 'Science' and 'Religion' respectively are distinctly different within their sphere.

As I had written earlier,
onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/posting ... p;p=130762

The critical variables of religion(s) are that of 'revelations', certainties, and soteriological for theistic religions and generally all religions are involved in dealing with the anxieties of death.
Science DO NOT deal with these critical imperative variables of religion.
This critical variable carry a weightage or occupy 80% of the Religion's sphere.
As such, there is no way, Science can be a religion per-se.

Science on the other hand is;
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
This critical element would occupy 80% of the Science's sphere.

Theoretical Science would probably be rated at 2% of the sphere. Scientism is NOT Science per-se, to bring this concept into the argument is pure sophistry and immature thinking.

Based on critical and rational thinking using Venn diagrams and in the above context it is obvious, philosophically speaking, Science is NOT a Religion!

[Thresholdsun]

Yes, the practice side of science is not, per se, a religion. But science can become a religion for some, as I explained in more detail in my earlier post.

It is worth noting that ideas gleaned from science have become the acceptable criteria, in a normative sense, for what people should believe, and in this sense science has to a degree replaced religion in many quarters.

It is also worth noting that most religions have esoteric traditions of practice, which are experimentally based and thus are in a broader sense, scientific.

[Spectrum]

Yes, the practice side of science is not, per se, a religion. But science can become a religion for some, as I explained in more detail in my earlier post.

I think in this case, you are comparing the human mental attitude between those who are very religious and those who idolize Science (Scientism).
This is a case of irrational and extreme obsession with something, like some Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and other over-zealous followers.
Religious believers generally manifest blind irrational obsession for their faith.
It is from this trait alone (not the religion per-se, its knowledge nor its general mode of believing) that anyone who show the similar over-zealousness and obsessions are associated with being 'religious'.
Thus who people who wash their hands very often due to OCD are labeled 'religious' re those actions.
Many sports where there are a lot of fanatical followings are also labeled as a 'religion', e.g. football.
Scientism (holding the view that Science is the only way to knowledge) is very comparable to religion in term of mental attitude only. I agree it may be effective (in some situations) to equate Scientism with religious in the pejorative sense.

IMO, labeling any behavior due to obsessiveness, over-zealousness as a religion or religious is OK for casual, pub or street conversations. But to take any seriousness to such labeling in a philosophical forum is sophistry and fallacious.

From a serious philosophical perspective, Science is NOT a religion.

[Xris]

Science in its purest form is above the human ego. If science is judged by those who practice it then it can become dogmatic. If you maintain your theory to the point that any opposition to it is ignorance and should be extinguished you are portraying all the traits of religion.

[Spiral Out]

The science-minded people who are exclaiming that "Science is not a religion!" are emotionally defending science as a sacred ideology, yet another indicator of "religious" zealotry. It is in this manner that science is a religion. Scientists are as much ideologues as preachers, they simply preach a different gospel.

Religion says "Adam" is the beginning.
Science says "Atom" is the beginning.

[Newme]

The science-minded people who are exclaiming that "Science is not a religion!" are emotionally defending science as a sacred ideology, yet another indicator of "religious" zealotry. It is in this manner that science is a religion. Scientists are as much ideologues as preachers, they simply preach a different gospel.

Religion says "Adam" is the beginning.
Science says "Atom" is the beginning.

I like it... Adam... & Atom.

It does seem that way at times. Yet, I think that some scientists - the really obsessed ones like Albert Einstein, are more open to truth, no matter where it's found.

"I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." -Einstein

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love." -Einstein

"Logic will get you from A to Z. Imagination will get you everywhere." -Einstein

[Misty]

"Albert Einstein said that though an atheist he was a deeply religious man:"

"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men." Excerpt from book, Religion Without God, by Ronald Dworkin, from an article in the following website:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false


Science per se, God per se, (or whatever) is not a religion, but when mankind worships such, it becomes a religion. Misty

[Supine]

(Nested quote removed.)

You are off tangent on this.
If Science is taught by many is in the same manner and attitude like History, then, History is Science?
If Science is taught by many is in the same manner and attitude like Subject X, then, Subject X is Science?

I don't think the content of the subjects are the same but the manner and attitudes in which they are taught are usually the same. To be fair to the way science is taught--at least the way I've experienced in taught in a number of classes at UW-Milwaukee--the TA's and professors usually try to develop in the minds of the students a method and attitude of investigation. But I suppose since we don't really comprehend the subjects well we are expected to take a lot if not most of what we are taught on faith. Which is fine for me due to my limitations. I just like to be aware of that and acknowledge it. I've had some people outside the sciences of internet discussion boards get peeved at me when I've acknowledge this or admitted it about what I "know" or "don't know" with respects to certain subject matter in a science.

I do think the life sciences like biology attempt to develop a certain pattern of thinking that is different in certain ways than the lay person with no science background and as well the person educated in physical sciences like chemistry and physics which are much more mathematical and deterministic than life sciences like biology. But I suppose that's a different issue and thread altogether.








Mazer, I read your post #22. All sensible replies.

I had a relative older than myself, born and raised in the "ghetto," not a dummy, but not very formally educated, remark to me that, "You wouldn't think science uses math," and when asking me, "What is physics?" was a bit surprised when I told him it's basically mathematical word problem that explains how the physical world, the universe, operates, such as the movements of planets. I told him physics is used in certain forensic fields when investigating an auto crash or how the Twin Towers in New York collapsed on 9-11.



-- Updated April 13th, 2013, 3:36 pm to add the following --




Spiral, your post #26 was a fine piece of philosophical writing.

Slightly off topic of that, what irks me more is that many, if not most, in the general public tend to think the science of biology speaks a lot to morals. But it doesn't. The closest it may get is to offering a logical, physical explanation for human ability to empathize. Other than that, biology as a science is an amoral field of inquiry. Chemistry and physics are even more amoral fields of inquiry and systems of explanation.

Currently, it seems biology has garnered more prestige among the public over chemistry and physics. The science of physics during the early 20th Century held the most prestige among the general public back then. But I'm of mind that there some things neither biology, chemistry, or physics can adequately address with respects to certain life problems trying to be solved or tackled.

I think some problems of life are better tackled by the fields of sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology.

[Syamsu]

Only creationism is the right way to do science, because to do science you have to distinghuish ought from is, and only in creationist philosophy are these 2 separated with a spiritual domain and a material domain.

One can also see in history that when in the late middle ages the monks started to adopt creationist philosophy, for instance as by William of Ockham, that science started to flourish. Later the materialists came along who included ought and ought not into the material domain, since that was the only domain they recognized.

Starting from Darwin's theory of natural selection, materialists began a massive onslaught against all knowledge about freedom, replacing it with knowledge about forces. The origin of species became to be explained in terms of forces, but also human behaviour became to be explained in terms of forces instead of freedom as well. The result was biological determinism, the holocaust by the nazi's, and dialectical materialism, the threat of total destruction with nuclear weapons by the communists. These philosophies of biological determinism and dialectical materialism were tremendously popular within acadaemia, especially when compared to the population in general.

Charles Darwin wrote a book equating emotions with physical manifestations. Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz, who served with the Nazi's in the Sudetenland trying to take out Aryans from families there, supported the nazi regime as being applied biology. The previous director of the National Instution for Biology Teachers in America was a self-described philosophical naturalist, which is basically a new name for materialists, who include what ought and ought not into the material domain. etc. etc.

So we can see that the main people within the history of evolutionary science are intellectual thugs who put what ought and ought not within the domain of science. And you know, once you get to put the ought and ought not within science, it's not exactly a religion, but it is something that stands in place of religion.

There are 2 domains, "what chooses" and "what is chosen". Oughts apply to the domain of what chooses, it is subjective, which means one can only reach a conclusion about what is in the spiritual domain by choosing what is in it. The category of "what is chosen" comprises the material domain. One can only reach a conclusion about what is in it through measuring, objectivity. With objectivity you are basically making a copy of a thing (rewriting), like a picture of the moon, is an incomplete copy of the moon. That is what scientists do, they copy things, the laws of nature are copies of actual information processes occurring in nature. The earth sends out gravity information by computing it, itself.

[Supine]

Mazer's post #27 scores another point . This was fair and logical rebuttal to some of Spiral's propositions.



-- Updated April 13th, 2013, 4:00 pm to add the following --

IMO, the confusions between parties are due to sophistry (deliberately or unconsciously) and fallacies.

I am sure many are familiar with Venn diagrams in critical thinking.
http://classroom.jc-schools.net/read/venn2.html



If we put 'Science' and 'Religion' in their respective sphere in terms of critical factors, there will be some overlap of their spheres.
However what is specifically critical to 'Science' and 'Religion' respectively are distinctly different within their sphere.

As I had written earlier,
onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/posting ... p;p=130762

The critical variables of religion(s) are that of 'revelations', certainties, and soteriological for theistic religions and generally all religions are involved in dealing with the anxieties of death.
Science DO NOT deal with these critical imperative variables of religion.
This critical variable carry a weightage or occupy 80% of the Religion's sphere.
As such, there is no way, Science can be a religion per-se.

Science on the other hand is;
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
This critical element would occupy 80% of the Science's sphere.

Theoretical Science would probably be rated at 2% of the sphere. Scientism is NOT Science per-se, to bring this concept into the argument is pure sophistry and immature thinking.

Based on critical and rational thinking using Venn diagrams and in the above context it is obvious, philosophically speaking, Science is NOT a Religion!

This may be one of the few times I agree with you. Or at least your explanation seems reasonable and persuasive to me, and it might bring some resolution to the sensible points posed by Logicus and Newme.

Or maybe there is a better explanation that will come as a rebuttal to your post and points.



-- Updated April 13th, 2013, 4:45 pm to add the following --



I'm reading from some in this thread what seems to be coded language for the term "religion" which is supposed to carry a negative connotation by some of those debating whether or not science is a religion.

But if the term religion were stated in, as coded language, as a good or at minimum or neutral concept, then I propose to you that what difference does it make if science is a religion?

Whether or not science is a religion the more important question to me is if it is a valid method of reasoning and investigating the natural, physical world? It seems to me--and obviously millions--that it is. And in part this is due to the principles of falsifiability that are suppose to be a requirement of all scientific hypotheses and theories, thus guarding science from establishing dogmas that can never be torn down. The closest thing religion has to this are doctrines. Though the terms doctrines and dogmas are often used interchangeably, it's my understand the two are more properly distinguishable from one another. Were dogmas can never be torn down (e.g., Christ as the 2nd person of the Trinity) doctrines themselves can be overturned or evolve with changes in knowledge, understanding, or to better address cultural transitions (e.g., girl acolytes; teachings against slavery).

Scientific theories seem most analogous to me as religious doctrines and not religious dogmas. What we often term as scientific laws, usually observable facts about how the physical world operates and expressing those facts in mathematical terms, and usually what physical phenomenon can be predicted, seems to me to approach religious dogma the closest. However, while it approaches dogma it never entirely arrives at dogma theoretically, mainly due to inductive reasoning which is rational means to reasoning that concludes not what will happen for certain but what is likely to happen. The fact that our scientific laws so accurately make predictions and the fact that day after day, time after time, experience does not show these laws to be untrue only increases our confidence in these laws being in fact true. We fly planes everyday I presume, and land rockets occasionally on the moon, using these laws of science.

I think I've said in the past in one of these threads on this discussion board, that the method of reasoning I think theological Catholicism has historically down very well in, is avoiding (not always but often) guilt by associated labeling.

By that I mean what is being done analogously with the term "religion" in this thread. Theological Catholicism has often reasoned by condemning doctrines (ergo, not Protestantism or Islam in and of itself as terms and in and of themselves as groups). This is illuminated in the writing of such anti-Protestant councils and The Council of Trent. The term "Protestant" is avoided (or absent from what I've read by Trent's proclamations I've read) and doctrines of Protestants viewed as theologically in correct are condemned. That's why the pro-scientist Pope and former friend of the very serious Catholic, Galileo (he was more Catholic than myself and 3rd Order Franciscan), condemned Galileo of teaching false doctrines about what is known or can be known as well, about the physical world and the motions of objects in the universe.

Without the weight of judicial force that can enact sentencing, some scientists or applied scientists in the form of medical doctors, have undergone de facto Inquisitions and have been professionally persecuted by other scientists (or doctors) and black listed. Only to decades later at the twilight of their lives, or after the expiration of their lives, have been proved correct in some "doctrine" of science they believed and promoted and then been made heroes.

Even in within science during the life time of Galileo his views were not the orthodox scientific views of the time and this was not simply due the Catholic Church. Some scientist simply held very different assumptions and reasoned out from those assumptions something very differently than Galileo. And if I'm correct I think even Galileo at the time believed in and promoted the scientific "doctrine" of the earth's sun being the center of the universe. I think today this doctrine is not subscribe to very much.

[Thresholdsun]

(Nested quote removed.)

I think in this case, you are comparing the human mental attitude between those who are very religious and those who idolize Science (Scientism).
This is a case of irrational and extreme obsession with something, like some Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and other over-zealous followers.
Religious believers generally manifest blind irrational obsession for their faith.
It is from this trait alone (not the religion per-se, its knowledge nor its general mode of believing) that anyone who show the similar over-zealousness and obsessions are associated with being 'religious'.
Thus who people who wash their hands very often due to OCD are labeled 'religious' re those actions.
Many sports where there are a lot of fanatical followings are also labeled as a 'religion', e.g. football.
Scientism (holding the view that Science is the only way to knowledge) is very comparable to religion in term of mental attitude only. I agree it may be effective (in some situations) to equate Scientism with religious in the pejorative sense.

IMO, labeling any behavior due to obsessiveness, over-zealousness as a religion or religious is OK for casual, pub or street conversations. But to take any seriousness to such labeling in a philosophical forum is sophistry and fallacious.

From a serious philosophical perspective, Science is NOT a religion.

I am also saying that, irrespective of fanaticism, science is just as capable of molding the worldviews of those who are "not in the know", that is, those who naively accept the common popularizations of scientific theories as fact (Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang being two notable examples).

And the unfortunate fact of the matter is that such theories, although perhaps eminently plausible in their status as physical explanations are incorrectly taken to render obsolete or even refute metaphysical theories, which it is not their place to do.

And this campaign of philosophical obfuscation is carried out by such 'religious' worthies as Dennett, Dawkins, Harris et al. I refer to them as "religious" because they are promoting normative constraints on what people "ought" to think when it comes to metaphysical matters. Remember the etymology of 'religion' is "to bind" and these 'thinkers' want to bind people to their views because they believe such views are the best ones to 'bind' our society into a rosy future.

They (including Hitchens)even refer to themselves as "The Four Horseman", (although unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, one of them has dismounted).

Of course I am not saying that science , in itself, should be defined as a religion, but to point out the cultural,social, political , ethical and yes, religious, dimensions of the diverse phenomena known as science is not fallacious, sophistry or "strawman"; if it is balanced critique it is good philosophy. Are you suggesting that science is sacrosanct and should not be subjected to such scrutiny and critique?

[Supine]

(Nested quote removed.)


I am also saying that, irrespective of fanaticism, science is just as capable of molding the worldviews of those who are "not in the know", that is, those who naively accept the common popularizations of scientific theories as fact (Darwinian Evolution and the Big Bang being two notable examples).

And the unfortunate fact of the matter is that such theories, although perhaps eminently plausible in their status as physical explanations are incorrectly taken to render obsolete or even refute metaphysical theories, which it is not their place to do.

And this campaign of philosophical obfuscation is carried out by such 'religious' worthies as Dennett, Dawkins, Harris et al. I refer to them as "religious" because they are promoting normative constraints on what people "ought" to think when it comes to metaphysical matters. Remember the etymology of 'religion' is "to bind" and these 'thinkers' want to bind people to their views because they believe such views are the best ones to 'bind' our society into a rosy future.

They (including Hitchens)even refer to themselves as "The Four Horseman", (although unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, one of them has dismounted).

Of course I am not saying that science , in itself, should be defined as a religion, but to point out the cultural,social, political , ethical and yes, religious, dimensions of the diverse phenomena known as science is not fallacious, sophistry or "strawman"; if it is balanced critique it is good philosophy. Are you suggesting that science is sacrosanct and should not be subjected to such scrutiny and critique?

Fair points and contribution to this philosophical debate, Thre.

It might make an interesting note, given some of the discussion in this thread, that even if one considers and argues that science and religion are two dramatically divergent paths to figure out and grapple with life and all the things that hold true to life, that an individuals can reconcile the two within their own body and mind.

It is after all, a religious person, a priest often credited with developing the Big Bang theory among other things. George Lemaitre.

technologyreview.com/article/414833/bef ... -big-bang/

This was a tremendous accomplishment and offered an astounding vision of how the universe operates. But no one noticed–no one at all. Lemaître’s paper was completely ignored, probably because he inexplicably published it in an obscure Belgian journal. A similar solution, conceived independently in 1922 by the Russian mathematician Aleksandr Friedmann, went unnoticed as well. At a 1927 meeting in Brussels, the young priest cornered ­Einstein and tried to persuade him. But the world-renowned physicist replied, “Your calculations are correct, but your physical insight is abominable.” Einstein refused to imagine a universe in which space-time was stretching.

Perhaps most consequential was the question that Lemaître first posed in his 1927 paper: How did this expansion get started? “It remains to find the cause,” he wrote at the time. But within four years he boldly suggested in the journal Nature that all the mass-energy of the universe was once packed within a “unique quantum,” which he later called the primeval atom. From Lemaître’s poetic scenario arose the current vision of the Big Bang, a model that shapes the thought of cosmologists today as strongly as the idea of crystalline spheres, popularized by Ptolemy, influenced natural philosophers in the Middle Ages.

Unlike Galileo, who was condemned to house arrest for his defense of a sun-centered universe, Lemaître was lauded by the Church for his cosmic breakthrough. Indeed, he ultimately rose to the rank of monsignor and was made a fellow and later president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. But he recoiled from any suggestion that his primeval atom had been inspired by the biblical story of Genesis. Throughout his life, he insisted that his theory about the origin of space and time sprang solely from the equations before him.

Lemaître made few notable contributions to cosmology after the 1930s, spending more time on celestial mechanics and pioneering the use of electronic computers for numerical calculations. But he continued to hope that the explosive origin of the universe would be validated by astronomical observations.