Science: A Religion? (long post)

[Diablo]

[quote='Diablo' pid='745452' dateline='1410105457']
I'm glad you're not anti-science.

Religion and its structures cerainly improved the lives of some people, and killed lots of others. Crusades anyone?

You said 'belief' has a positive effect on people. Does that include the gay men who have been and still are being demonised and persecuted, or the christians in Saudi, or the women in any muslim country? The safest places to be are in the secular democracries of western Europe where the the level of religion is the lowest.

That's the point I was making: we don't have to believe in a god so we don't have to kill in his name. There are people who are sometimes vicious but we no longer accept that they can act in that fashion, and we punish them when they do, unlike in religious wars.

Neither science nor religion kill anyone, people do. Whatever the reason they use to justify their behaviour is driven by their needs.

I'm not comparing scientific endeavour to the Abrahamic religions or any other religions, that would be meaningless. It is important to understand what my debate is, that scientific endeavour meets the same human needs as any other religion. The particular dogmas of other religions are not relevant.

Whatever part religion plays in war you cannot argue that, as I pointed out, knowledge and technology brought about by scientific endeavour has played no part because it has. That you choose to ignore this is part of the deception we play upon ourselves.

MM

---

You certainly choose to ignore most of the argument. OK, I'll address yours. IS are killing people in the ME precisely because their version of their religion tells them to do so, just as Christians and other religions have done over the years. No part of science tells people to kill anyone.

Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind. That includes keeping me alive , by the way. Religion does no such thing: it's a form of crown control as everyone knows. That is not the same thing.

Everyone knows that guns kill people; but the overwhelming effect of science has been for the betterment of mankind.

[Mystic]

When all the environmental threats set in, will science be said to have been better for humanity or for the worse?

[ManMachine]

[quote='Diablo' pid='745452' dateline='1410105457']
I'm glad you're not anti-science.

Religion and its structures cerainly improved the lives of some people, and killed lots of others. Crusades anyone?

You said 'belief' has a positive effect on people. Does that include the gay men who have been and still are being demonised and persecuted, or the christians in Saudi, or the women in any muslim country? The safest places to be are in the secular democracries of western Europe where the the level of religion is the lowest.

That's the point I was making: we don't have to believe in a god so we don't have to kill in his name. There are people who are sometimes vicious but we no longer accept that they can act in that fashion, and we punish them when they do, unlike in religious wars.

Neither science nor religion kill anyone, people do. Whatever the reason they use to justify their behaviour is driven by their needs.

I'm not comparing scientific endeavour to the Abrahamic religions or any other religions, that would be meaningless. It is important to understand what my debate is, that scientific endeavour meets the same human needs as any other religion. The particular dogmas of other religions are not relevant.

Whatever part religion plays in war you cannot argue that, as I pointed out, knowledge and technology brought about by scientific endeavour has played no part because it has. That you choose to ignore this is part of the deception we play upon ourselves.

MM

---

You certainly choose to ignore most of the argument. OK, I'll address yours. IS are killing people in the ME precisely because their version of their religion tells them to do so, just as Christians and other religions have done over the years. No part of science tells people to kill anyone.

Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind. That includes keeping me alive , by the way. Religion does no such thing: it's a form of crown control as everyone knows. That is not the same thing.

Everyone knows that guns kill people; but the overwhelming effect of science has been for the betterment of mankind.

Yes, I ignored it because its not relevant to my post.

I am not suggesting scientific endeavour has to become more like Christianity, Islam or any other religion, I am not suggesting they have the same dogma nor should they, I am not suggesting any changes to scientific endeavour whatsoever, I am not comparing the particular types of censorship employed by other religions, all I am saying is we need to re-evaluate how we view it.

I have nothing to say about your (or anybody's) particular misgivings with Christianity and Islam.

What you are calling 'crowd control' I refer to as censorship, and that abundantly exists in scientific endeavour.

What I will say is I completely disagree with your statement that 'Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind.' There is nothing to support that point of view, it's species hubris.

Scientific knowledge and technology does not have to stop keeping you alive for being a religion.

MM

P.S. I am glad you are still alive and long may you be so.

---

When all the environmental threats set in, will science be said to have been better for humanity or for the worse?

Great point.

MM

[Diablo]

OK, so you just ignore the bits you don't like. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a non-discussion forum. Anyway I addressed your points.

You said:

What I will say is I completely disagree with your statement that 'Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind.' There is nothing to support that point of view, it's species hubris.

Explain.

PS I'm glad I'm alive too, and all due to science not religion.

[FreeTony]

I'd personally say that religion is science done really badly.

[ManMachine]

OK, so you just ignore the bits you don't like. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a non-discussion forum. Anyway I addressed your points.

You said:

What I will say is I completely disagree with your statement that 'Scientific endeavour seeks to explain the physical universe and create solutions for the good of mankind.' There is nothing to support that point of view, it's species hubris.

Explain.

PS I'm glad I'm alive too, and all due to science not religion.

I'm not ignoring it because of any personal reason, but because it is not relevant to the points I made in the OP.

You can say science is not a religion because Christianity (or any other religion) does x, y, and z. Fine, but I'm not saying science should be re-evaluated because it needs to do x, y, and z or that it approximates x, y, and z in it's dogma, I am saying that science meets the same fundamental human needs as religion. Us debating what Christianity does is only an exploration of Christian dogma and that has nothing to do with what I'm saying and it will not advance the debate any.

As for my disagreement with your statement, my argument against that is set out in the OP.

MM

[Diablo]

OK, you never answer the points I raise, but I'll answer yours.

I really don't see why science satisfies the same desires as religion.

What does religion promise? Life after death, sense of belonging, community, certainty, comfort. Does science do that? Not really. Certainty a bit, I suppose, althogh it's always subject to revision.

What about on a personal level? Religion offers the chance for advancement, power and position, influence, riches. Science? Well, some of that, for sure, but academics make little money and exercise little power. So not really.

[Jenny A]

ManMachine,

You begin by saying you want to define science, but I think before deciding if science is a religion, you need to define religion.

Science is nothing more than a loosely related group of methods combining empirical evidence and rational analysis for the purpose determining what the physical world is, how it works, and how it came to be. What it doesn't do is tell you how to be a good person, what to value, how to live a good life, or whether there's a god(s), or an afterlife. But it might tell you why people value certain things, or why they might believe in a god or an afterlife.

You might possibly define religion in such a way as to encompass religion, but I suspect any such definition would include political ideology and philosophy too---at which point you've expanded the definition of religion to the point of uselessness.

[Mudhammam]

I'd personally say that religion is science done really badly.

The examples of primitive and modern attempts at science done poorly are endless, and their tone is quite strikingly different than any account of religious enlightenment I've encountered. Granted the purposes that each serve don't typically feign congruity, theology does not even amount to an attempt.

[ManMachine]

ManMachine,

You begin by saying you want to define science, but I think before deciding if science is a religion, you need to define religion.

Science is nothing more than a loosely related group of methods combining empirical evidence and rational analysis for the purpose determining what the physical world is, how it works, and how it came to be. What it doesn't do is tell you how to be a good person, what to value, how to live a good life, or whether there's a god(s), or an afterlife. But it might tell you why people value certain things, or why they might believe in a god or an afterlife.

You might possibly define religion in such a way as to encompass religion, but I suspect any such definition would include political ideology and philosophy too---at which point you've expanded the definition of religion to the point of uselessness.

Firstly, I'm not saying scientific endeavour is a religion, I'm asking the question. But for the record, I actually used this as my definition of religion;

'A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.'

There is nothing in there about specific dogmas or gods, nor should there be. I'm not interested in comparing specific Abrahamic dogmas with science, I see no benefit in doing that because they are no more comparable than, for example, Christianity is with Buddhism (which has no gods but is still a religion).

Just as a question, what use is knowing how the Universe originated (how it came to be) to humanity? Scientific enquiries like this suggest something much more than just a functional approach. Wouldn't you agree?

MM