To a postmodernist. Not saying I am postmodernist per se, but I like a lot of its ideas. Maybe religion isn't the right word, but it seems to me that science and religion are more alike than they appear on the surface. I'm talking from a sociological perspective, of course. The "science" of people. Of course it's pseudoscience. But, then all science is pseudo-objective. I've already said this, as well as atheism being a religion. Because what I think a lot of times we forget is that religion didn't start out as what we think of it today. It used to be an integral part of life. natural. normal. We didn't question it. It still is...I would argue...we are developing new religions all the time. Institution is religion. All institutions have authorities, icons, symbols, and rituals. For example, when you go to the doctor's office you accept what they have to tell you with regard to your health as truth. We accept authority, all the time, everyday, without thinking about. It's a good thing because we need these types of institutions. We need science. We need religion. Science is religion. Religion is not a science. Science is an art-form. Institutionalization is a process over time. We are now in the process of substituting science as authority, over more traditional religions, in the "developed world". I'm def. an anti-authoritarian by nature. So, I think, all religion is generally evil (as an institution*). Including science. But...I am aware of the need for religion and authority. Religion is good...it's evil...it's unabashedly human. Agree? Disagree? Think I'm insane? (who isn't?)
....but is religion science? if A=B than B=A, right? So if you say science is religion, you would have to agree that religion is science. I dont really see anything scientific about religion. Science, to me, seems more like a hands on approach to achieving an understanding, by means of trial and error. I dont think you can say the same about religion. Although there may be SOME similarities, I dont believe it is accruate to say that science IS religion. I'm not saying im right or wrong here, just my opinion.
That sums it up. I get the point of the op though. Some people devote and worship science almost as if it were a religion. Some people treat science like a religion, but that does not constitute is being a religion. It is becoming the religion replacement for the next generation. It is probably for the better as long as we maintain a moral code. If by "religion" you were talking about the devotion and such that goes into it and not the actual supernatural basis of religion, then Im right there with you.
It's all a matter of perspective. If a religion relies on hard evidence instead of faith and believes in a physical explanation rather than the supernatural, does it cease to be religion and become science instead? Or better yet, if someone strongly believes that science will have an answer for everything no matter what, then how is that faith in science any different from faith in religion? In my opinion it's not.... which is why I think scientific skeptics share a similar way of thinking with hardcore religious people. They refuse to admit that they could possibly be wrong... because of the amount of faith they put in science. And just because A equals B does not mean that B has to equal A. Christianity is a religion, but not all religions are Christianity. Doesn't everyone wish Rasta_Man was still here? I'd love to read his response to this thread.
It's really not a matter of perspective. You can't go around changing the literal meanings of words simply to fit your agenda. Once again, there is no faith in science. We're not waiting on "Science" to give us the answers to all our problems... we are waiting on people to figure out the answers through the application of science. Obviously, all of Rasta_Man's teachings have been lost on you if you even remotely think he would support your illogical relativist philosophy on this matter.
The problem with science as a religion, is that science is a tool of illumination, whereas religion flourishes best when the lights are kept a bit lower. But science is a tool of modern survival, unlike the warm fuzzy feelings offered by religion, which is why the two are so different as to be almost incompatible with each other. Religion is ritual, a compass point to set sail by in the waves of our quantum sea of potentials, it provides for the soul in a way that makes it as attractive as a tit in the minds of the hungry babies, which we still are. It requires us to release from thought so much negative energy, that for many it becomes an addictive drug, the 'opiate of the mind', right? Science just doesn't have the subconscious appeal. Not that that is a bad thing, mind you. Science doesn't have the social set, the extended family appeal of the churches and temples, the bingo, the trips to camp...science is like going to school. Dry, yet appealing in the mind as it releases the endorphins of knowledge... which unfortunately, aren't as exciting to many as speaking in tongues or snake-handling, or going to feed the poor on Christmas, or building a new home for some poor person, which are functions performed by many religious people, whether they are righteous or not. Religious delusions are the only politically, socially, and spiritually acceptable hallucinations available to the masses, science is just a buzzkill. Not that that's a bad thing.
Yes it does. Hard evidence and physical explanation are the basis of science, and the antithesis of religion. Truth is a matter of fact. The way you feel about it is a matter of perspective. Well yeah, you got that one right. Its the composition fallacy. This is just a language game though. If some A are B then some B are A. If all A are B you can not say that all B are A. The problem comes when A or B contain multiple components. So you can say that if Christianity is science then a component of science consists of Christianity. You can not say Christianity is science therefore Science is Christianity. Its pretty much the same as the domain and range of functions. Just because this X correlates with that Y does not mean that the Y always correlates with that X because a range point can correlate with more than one domain point. The point is... that if scince and religion were the same thing all values would have to correlate. At best you could claim that religion is a component of science, but that would still be wrong for other reasons.
Many religious recognize that science is truth, at least to the best of our current understanding. It is therefore natural that a few religious want to either degrade science to the level of religion, or on the opposite, promote religion to the level of science. That is put an equal sign between the two. The reason for this mental gymnastics is pretty evident. Who wants to believe something that they know, deep down, is patently false in light of what we now know for sure? Ofcourse, to the more moderate, and may I say, modern, believers, this isn't all that much an issue. These recognize myth for what it is, and knowledge for what it is. Two very different concepts. Not necessarily compatible, but as long as myth do not infringe upon knowledge, all is good. Think it is called deism, or religion light if you wish. Believing in belief to quote Dennet.
Yeah. I said Religion was not a science. Big mistake. haha. It is. Religion is often "scientific". The Mayan Civilization. A good mix of science and religion. A modern day example: Intelligent design. It's bad science...but most scientific theories have been disproven, just as most religious ones have. I don't think I'm making myself clear. This is more of a subjective observation, than a grandiose theory. I made it all up, duh. I'm just trying to outline a rough conceptualization. But, this idea could be put to the test quite easily, I think, in a variety of ways. And this isn't really a new idea at all. It's just an application of anthropology. It's been done before. Establishment of Science and Religion share a common link: culture. They are intertwined as they are both human creations. They share the same roots. They evolved in a similar fashion. Through communication (and biology). They are a part of us, a part of humanity, A part of the collective consciousness...and the individual consciousness I think all of us are, at the same time, both highly scientific and deeply religious, whether we admit it or not. Again, I need to reiterate, this is a cultural relativist perspective. argh. I feel like a broken record. But, I think it's an important point to drive home. If only for my own spirituality... Science has no monopoly on truth. They say that the truth shall set you free, but I say that truth is like a beautiful songbird. You know, how they say that some birds are not meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright? That's how I feel about truth. It's a creative pursuit. Call me a hippy, a romantic, an idiot and a fool if you want. That's just the way I feel. Science can be stifling to creativity, just as much as religion. I have no problem with contradiction. I see it as inevitable. Why do we deny ourselves the pleasure of holding multiple truths? edit: lol. I'm glad you guys made some sense of what I had to say...
Whatever the roots, one need to recognize the differences. One seeks conservation. Another ask you to think for yourself.
No, that's the myth I'm trying to dispel. They are two heads of the same beast. You've just demostrated my point, beautifully I might add. "Power is the ability to define reality" - W. I. Thomas You are defining science as superior to inferior religion...and I'm implying that they are equal partners in crime. This is the kind of thing I'm pissed off about. That was my point, that science and religion can be equally dogmatic. Both cause tunnel vision in the lay practitioner. In fact, modern "science" can largely be held accountable for far more atrocities than the ancient "myths" of religion. Or if not science, then the modernist, capitalist, and yes, religious ideologies which propel its destructive tendencies. Science is part of the beast that is modern man. Air Pollution, nagasaki and hiroshima, pesticide poisoning, radiation poisoning, lead poisoning, oil spills, contaminated water, modern warfare...these are all problems that man has created through scientific endeavors for the most part. "I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image." --> Stephen Hawking English cosmologist and physicist (1942 - ) Science and Religion as ideas are harmless and good, but when implemented this is not always the case. It's the institutionalization of ideas, and not the ideas themselves which need governing.
No, I'm saying one seeks truth to the best of our ability, the other conservation of dogma and doctrine.
I never said he would support my opinion, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I just said I'd love to read his response to this. I'm certain he would disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't still find what he had to say interesting. This is one of my problems with a lot of skeptics.... they hold very elitist views and a lot of times aren't willing to even entertain a thought just because they can't personally accept it. They show a general disinterest in anything that doesn't fit into their personal belief system, and I find that very limiting. I myself have a very open mind, and therefore I find ideas interesting even if I have my doubts about them. That is the only way our knowledge can grow, by thinking outside the box and engaging in what is foreign to us. Therefore, like I said before, I would love to red Rasta_Man's response to this because I'm sure it would be an interesting read and express a different perspective on the subject. I don't understand why so many people take what R_M says as the ultimate authority on whatever subject it happens to be. He was just a somewhat intelligent 18 year old member of this forum who had his personal opinion like everyone else. So yes, I suppose his "teachings" have been lost on me if that means I'm not going to change what I believe in to conform to his personal views or anyone else's. But that doesn't mean I can't still find them interesting.
Which is which? I seem to remember a bunch of people trying to convince other people not to believe in creation. And buddhism is based completely on thinking for yourself to attain enlightenment. The master cannot show you the truth, he can only show you The Way. You must find the truth for yourself. Thats a giant oversimplification of zen buddhism, but hey, so was what you said.
Science is a method used to arrive at answers based upon evidence. It is a process. Religion is a group of beliefs that are arrived at without evidence and put together to form a belief system. The two are drastically different. This has been explained many times in many different ways. The conclusion is incorrect and faulty no matter how insightful you wish it to be.
I agree that its a process, but isnt there a certain amount of faith that comes along with science as well? Scientists have faith that they can find the answers to things by means of a scientific process. If you believe that science can prove things that have yet to be proven, isnt that the same as having faith in science? Some believe that science can solve everything and find the answers to anything, to those people, I would say that science is their "religion" of sorts.
+Rep... couldn't have said it better myself. Scientists have faith that the evidence they are presented with is not leading them to make inaccurate conclusions.
Yeah, sort of like the "faith" we put in the knowledge that 2+2=4. Only a relativist could possibly think that's faith.
more like the faith that 2 is 2. Its not just relativists. Its descarte. Its socrates. Its anyone who got dosed and wonders when their trip is up. Its anyone whos believed that something they dreamt was real after they woke up. Its anyone whos honest enough to admit that our entire model for the universe is based on a assumption. Some people refuse to see that as faith. I would say if it looks like faith and quacks like faith...
