Yes, unfortunately 2014 science is seen as a religion and therefore scientists of organisations adhere to just as many dogmas as religious people of organisations.

(September 8, 2014 at 5:40 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 3:22 am)ManMachine Wrote: Read the OP.

MM

I don't agree that religion legitimately satisfies the need for hope in people. If it did, death wouldn't be something that the religious fear and try to avoid and put off with such great vigor, and one religion would be enough for everyone.

Firstly, apologies for being blunt but I was trying to work through a number of replies.

You don't have to be religious to want to put off death with 'great vigour', I am often reminded in debates like this that scientific endeavour has extended human life, I regularly read articles about how close we are to being able to store the contents of human brains in electronic systems (who looks after the power supply?). The fear of death is not limited to the religious, it occupies us all. I wonder if other animals contemplate death as much as humans?

All of us harbour some level of misgiving about our impending death and clearly neither scientific endeavour or religion can prevent corporeal death. But religion offers some mitigation via the everlasting soul, the reincarnated spirit, the Atman or whatever you want to call it. Scientific endeavour may not invoke vehicles to the afterlife but it is certainly used to mitigate death by putting it off for as long as technologically (and biologically) possible.

How frightened a person is of death doesn't say anything about the success or failure of their chosen religion, it might suggest the level of faith they have in that religion. That I would accept.

Religions are formed initially as localised social-structures (the tribal god of the Abrahamic religions, the monastic discipline of the Buddhist religions, etc.) so its not surprising that there are a number of religions. What appears to be different about scientific endeavour is it has no localised social origin, or so it seems but scientific endeavour was forged in the academic institutions of ancient Greece, it is a very Western philosophy, sure it has spread but then so has Christianity and Islam.

(September 8, 2014 at 5:40 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: As far as censorship, it provides no useful censorship that most people don't learn early in life and often by other, more practical avenues.

I'm not suggesting its useful in a general sense, the censorship is there to deliver on the promise of hope as set out by each religion. A good example of how this manifests in scientific endeavour is environmentalism, if we follow the rules (use less carbon fuels, etc.) then we will deliver on the scientific hope for a better tomorrow (avoiding climate change, etc.). But this is species-ist nonsense. Perpetuating the conditions optimal for human survival is not good for the planet and it is not good for other species, who, as a result of human activity, are becoming extinct at a rate that is approaching the last five great extinctions. Neither of which sound like good news for humanity in the long term.

MM

(September 8, 2014 at 4:29 am)ManMachine Wrote:

(September 7, 2014 at 7:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't regard the scientific endeavor with any sort of religious fervor, I don't kneel at the pronouncements of scientists that lack evidence, and I don't regard science as either infallible or as any sort of moral guidepost. Science doesn't commend any course of action or set of rituals for me, the layperson; science doesn't make pronouncements in the field of ethics, aesthetics, or day-to-day living.

I don't think it qualifies as a religion per the OED:


Only the third definition might appertain at all; but even that is a colloquial sense, and not religion as I gather you mean here.

I regard the scientific method as the most reliable means we have of inhibiting our inherent subjectivity as we go about the task of defining and exploring reality. As such, it is always tentative, and that, to me, is the antithesis of the religious mode of thinking, which relies on dogma and appeals to an unappealable authority. It should be noted that I don't even ascribe supreme importance to the scientific endeavor, and thus it can be fairly said that in no way for me is it a religion, at all. Now, there may be some who fill your bill, but I'd be careful about thinking that because some laypersons are zealous in their advocacy, science must be a religion. I'm sure there's a fallacy in there, though the name escapes me at the moment.

I don't want to get into the limited value of specific dictionary entries. The OED is one dictionary definition, dictionary definitions, while accurate, often do not convey the full connotations and context of the use of a word. Restricting yourself to this definition is limiting to say the least. I do not accept this definition as necessarily accurate, as we all know Buddhism has no god or worship so that would rule out the first two definitions without putting much thought into it.

Yes, and I addressed that with the first section of my post, which came before the definition. Did you read that? Science has none of the attributes of a religion, even in the colloquial sense of the word.

(September 8, 2014 at 4:29 am)ManMachine Wrote: My post is not about zealots or fundamentalism. Its about the needs we have as humans and how scientific endeavour meets those needs in a similar way to religion (hope and censorship). The points I raise are our need to align ourselves with some kind of 'truth' even though the evolutionary imperative and construction of our psychology are predicated on some level of deception (Free Will is a good example of this).

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of scientific inquiry, then, because it doesn't deal in truth, but rather, in facts..

(September 8, 2014 at 4:29 am)ManMachine Wrote: This is not a semantic debate, I acknowledge that this is not a common interpretation of scientific endeavour, that is the entire point of my post, you telling me you don't agree is moot.

In your OP, you said you hoped to encourage debate -- yet here you are now waving away an opinion because it doesn't agree with your own. I didn't just tell you "I don't agree", I explained why, as well. If you didn't want this sort of response, you ought not invite it.

Words have meanings. If you use them in unconventionally, misunderstandings can and will happen.

(September 8, 2014 at 4:29 am)ManMachine Wrote: If you think 'because some laypersons are zealous in their advocacy, science must be a religion' is the point or even an element of OP then you have misunderstood it because that is not my point at all (see above).

It's the only real similarity between the two fields of thought, so I wanted to put it to bed.


I'm sorry, I had thought you asked for opinions. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't render my opinion moot.

Additionally,

(September 8, 2014 at 9:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yes, and I addressed that with the first section of my post, which came before the definition. Did you read that? Science has none of the attributes of a religion, even in the colloquial sense of the word.

I did read it. I have said in a previous reply I'm trying not to get drawn on the specifics of particular religious dogmas, the thread will easily get out of control and bogged down in arguments about gods and prayer, which are specific to certain religions and not indicative of religion in general. If I was to suggest Scientific Endeavour is a religion like Christianity is a religion then these would be matters pertinent to the debate, but I haven't said that and they're not. I'm not trying to offend or shut anyone down just keep the subject matter to the OP.

But, OK. The fervour a person might display toward their religion is a measure of that individual's faith in their chosen religion not the religion itself.

You seem to be making a direct comparison with religious ritual of a particular kind, not all religions 'kneel at pronouncements'.

Infallibility is limited to Abrahamic religions and Hinduism. It is not indicative of religion in general.

I am of the opinion that morality is a social strategy, I've yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise. Despite other people's historic attempts to hijack it, I do not see morality as a religious issue, if it does exist in religion then it does so because it is necessary for social groups to have social strategies and not because it is implicitly imposed upon the group by the religion. This is why we see people from the same religions diametrically opposed on moral issues such as the death penalty and abortion. It's also why I find Christian attempts to attack atheists on moral grounds particularly mindless. But I'm off topic here.

Science demands scientific method, which I assume you buy into, even as a layperson.

Environmental ethics are purely based on scientific theory and impact your day-to-day living (assuming you sort your trash, use unleaded fuel, switch off your lights when not in use, and other things of this nature).

Aesthetics is not a general religious issue.

(September 8, 2014 at 9:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think you're misunderstanding the nature of scientific inquiry, then, because it doesn't deal in truth, but rather, in facts..

Scientific enquiry 'doesn't deal in truth', that's refreshing.

Scientific endeavour deals in theory. Black holes are not a fact, the Big Bang is not a fact, evolution is not a fact, they are all great theories and certainly in the case of evolution likely to be close to what actually happened, but nevertheless they are all subject to revision and improvement.

(September 8, 2014 at 9:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: In your OP, you said you hoped to encourage debate -- yet here you are now waving away an opinion because it doesn't agree with your own. I didn't just tell you "I don't agree", I explained why, as well. If you didn't want this sort of response, you ought not invite it.

Words have meanings. If you use them in unconventionally, misunderstandings can and will happen.

Actually I'm ignoring irrelevant issues that I said I wouldn't get drawn into, but your charm persuaded me to demonstrate why I don't think they are relevant to the OP.

I have not used anything unconventionally, I am simply trying to remove debate on specific doctrine and dogma, because it obfuscates the issue I am trying to debate. I'm trying not to allow myself to wander off-topic and right now it's difficult, because a lot of the replies are skewed to a limited understanding of religion to mean Abrahamic dogma, and that is exactly what I'm trying to get away from. There are other religions in the world and they cover a wide range of issues, I'd like to keep the debate to that level, it's nothing personal.

Too often I see a post in AF that attempts to argue against religion and is only an argument against Abrahamic dogma, which is a very limited view of religion, a view I am not interested in promoting at any time let alone in my own thread.

(September 8, 2014 at 9:02 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It's the only real similarity between the two fields of thought, so I wanted to put it to bed.

I'm sorry, I had thought you asked for opinions. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't render my opinion moot.

Additionally,

I've pointed out the similarities in the OP, hope and censorship. nothing about how zealous someone might or might not be, that again is a measure of an individual and not the religion.

MM

(September 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm)ManMachine Wrote:

(September 7, 2014 at 12:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Science is the best way we currently have to negate religious or opinion based thought processes.
Science works whether you believe in it or not.

If you choose to use your belief in scientific endeavour to 'negate religious or opinion based thought processes' is your decision, there is no scientific imperative that requires you to do this.

The scientific method IS designed to try and negate opinion and beliefs and to focus on results.

It doesn't always work at once but over time with lots of data and peer review it does do the thing you say it doesn't.

(September 8, 2014 at 12:55 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(September 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm)ManMachine Wrote: If you choose to use your belief in scientific endeavour to 'negate religious or opinion based thought processes' is your decision, there is no scientific imperative that requires you to do this.

The scientific method IS designed to try and negate opinion and beliefs and to focus on results.

It doesn't always work at once but over time with lots of data and peer review it does do the thing you say it doesn't.

I think you have a very idealistic and naïve view of scientific endeavour. Modern scientific endeavour has triumphed over its perceived adversaries not through superior rationality but because its late-medieval and early-modern founders were skilled in the art of rhetoric and politics.

As Paul Feyerabend notes, Galileo did not win his cause for Copernican astronomy because of 'scientific method' but because of his persuasive skill, and because he wrote in Italian. By identifying Latin as the language of the scholastic community that opposed his cause, he side-stepped them and appealed to the general population by publishing his works in Italian, a deliberate move on his part. Galileo did not succeed because of the persuasive truth of Copernican astronomy but because he identified the social trends of his time. What this illustrates is that to limit the development of scientific endeavour to 'method' would slow the growth of knowledge and perhaps even bring it go a grinding halt. For any social construct to survive it must keep pace with society and trends.

Galileo considered himself a defender of theology, Newton explained anomalous occurrences as traces left by god, Tycho Brahe viewed them as miracles and Thomas Kepler described astronomical anomalies as reactions of 'the telluric soul'.

I've already mentioned the problems with scientific method identified by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. More recently Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, identifies the politics, favouritism and deliberate stifling of any theory that challenged the established paradigms that exists at the heart of Theoretical Physics, another Theoretical Physicist, Peter Woit identifies the same problems in his book, Not Even Wrong.

You only have to look at the US space programme to see what can happen to a field of scientific endeavour if society loses interest in it. Scientific authority is extremely powerful and we know what power does to humans. Scientific endeavour serves humanity and nothing else, and it is just as prone to corruption as every other human endeavour.

It is clear from history that scientific method was not 'designed to try and negate opinion and beliefs' but embraced them and that today advances in scientific knowledge comes not from reason but from acting against it.

MM

(September 7, 2014 at 11:07 am)ManMachine Wrote: Science: A Religion?

The post meanders quite a bit, so I'll only address the points at which I consider your argument to fail.

(September 7, 2014 at 11:07 am)ManMachine Wrote: 4. Scientific Knowledge and Technology – The ‘output’ of scientific method and theory
5. Scientific Authority – The accumulated ‘significance’ scientific knowledge and technology has for humanity – e.g. Moral, Legal, Political, Societal, Educational, Commercial, (surprisingly for many or perhaps not so for others) Religious and in a recursive sense other Scientific Endeavour

These two points are a bit problematic. While the body of scientific knowledge is a principle concept, its application in other fields is not. That is the basic difference between scientific inquiry and technological application.

(September 7, 2014 at 11:07 am)ManMachine Wrote: The fundamental purpose of religion is to provide hope and censorship,

That is an incorrect and inadequate definition of religion. As it happens, this is what your whole argument is based on.

Any intellectual pursuit can serve those purposes - philosophy, political and social movement, pursuit of arts etc. By your definition, all of them would automatically become one types of religion. This is without taking into account the fact that those two needs aren't the only ones that religion supposedly fulfills.

Further, defining religion should not simply rely on which needs it services but how it services. Positing supernatural agency as the authoritative source is the feature of religion that distinguishes it from other intellectual activities like philosophy, politics and yes, science.

---

(September 7, 2014 at 7:03 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 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.'

By that definition, how do you differentiate between a political philosophy - say, communism - and a religion?

(September 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm)genkaus Wrote: The post meanders quite a bit, so I'll only address the points at which I consider your argument to fail.

These two points are a bit problematic. While the body of scientific knowledge is a principle concept, its application in other fields is not. That is the basic difference between scientific inquiry and technological application.

I think it is important to understand that I am not comparing specific religions or religious practices with scientific endeavour like-for-like, because, patently, that would be nonsense and is exactly what I am trying to steer clear of.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's application in other fields'? As far as I can see it's used for two things, either it is ploughed back into scientific endeavour (as research) or it is used to meet human needs (medicine, comfort, travel, etc.), what else is there? The first needs no comment from me as it is already implicitly covered (by recursion), the second is the subject of the rest of the post. I'd be happy to debate that with you but you'll need to tell me what you mean by 'other fields'.

I'm sorry you feel it meanders but I wasn't posting it for a literary critique, there are other forums for that.

(September 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm)genkaus Wrote: That is an incorrect and inadequate definition of religion. As it happens, this is what your whole argument is based on.

Any intellectual pursuit can serve those purposes - philosophy, political and social movement, pursuit of arts etc. By your definition, all of them would automatically become one types of religion. This is without taking into account the fact that those two needs aren't the only ones that religion supposedly fulfills.

Further, defining religion should not simply rely on which needs it services but how it services. Positing supernatural agency as the authoritative source is the feature of religion that distinguishes it from other intellectual activities like philosophy, politics and yes, science.

I don't think the purpose of philosophy, political and social movement (other than those debated) or the pursuit of arts is to deliver hope and censorship.

Philosophy is the intellectual exploration of ideas. While I agree politics does deliver censorship this is not carried out in order to deliver on hope (despite their attempts to create 'problems' they can 'rescue' us from), I'll agree it trades on that concept but as far as I am aware no political system has ever delivered on it.

One should take care with politics because politics both appeals to the authority of scientific endeavour - like it used to appeal to religious authority in the West and still does in some countries - and politics is embedded in scientific institutions. That is why I made a point of identifying it at the start of the post (See: Scientific Authority).

I could not disagree with you more on the next point, there are no supernatural agencies in Buddhism (the fifth largest religion), Taoism, Wicca, pantheism, most of the 'new-age' religions of the modern era and any of the naturalist religions. 'Supernatural agencies' are not a feature of all religions but of some. As I am not making comparisons with particular religions but with religion in general then the argument for 'supernatural agencies' is negated as it is not indicative. I completely reject that point on the basis it is not correct.

I would be interested (seeing as you don't point it out in your post) other than hope and censorship, what other needs do all religions fulfil, generally speaking?

(September 13, 2014 at 9:00 pm)genkaus Wrote: By that definition, how do you differentiate between a political philosophy - say, communism - and a religion?

Communism is built on class and economics. That was Karl Marx fundamental starting point. He wanted to irradiate the gap between what he called the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat and make a fairer system. For Marx, culture was the structure based on economy.

Religion is not concerned with economics or class.

MM

MM I think the thread title is what is provocative for people. I understand what you mean - that all people are looking for--need even--something to fill certain needs. Namely a method for answering "life's questions" (whatever that means for them) and providing some sort of structure by which to make judgments and decisions.

My issue is with constructing the idea that when something replaces something, or serves the same purpose as something, the two things can be called the same thing. Just because science replaces religion doesn't make it religion.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by 'it's application in other fields'? As far as I can see it's used for two things, either it is ploughed back into scientific endeavour (as research) or it is used to meet human needs (medicine, comfort, travel, etc.), what else is there? The first needs no comment from me as it is already implicitly covered (by recursion), the second is the subject of the rest of the post. I'd be happy to debate that with you but you'll need to tell me what you mean by 'other fields'.

That's precisely what I mean - scientific principles being applied to meet human needs (medicine, comfort, travel etc.) fall under technology and engineering - not science itself.

I'm sorry you feel it meanders but I wasn't posting it for a literary critique, there are other forums for that.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I don't think the purpose of philosophy, political and social movement (other than those debated) or the pursuit of arts is to deliver hope and censorship.

Then you need to make a distinction between "can serve the purpose" and "is the purpose".

All of the stated fields can serve that purpose even if it is not their stated goal - same as science. Similarly, the stated purpose of science is to provide a provide a better understanding of the world around you - not giving hope and censorship.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Philosophy is the intellectual exploration of ideas. While I agree politics does deliver censorship this is not carried out in order to deliver on hope (despite their attempts to create 'problems' they can 'rescue' us from), I'll agree it trades on that concept but as far as I am aware no political system has ever delivered on it.

One should take care with politics because politics both appeals to the authority of scientific endeavour - like it used to appeal to religious authority in the West and still does in some countries - and politics is embedded in scientific institutions. That is why I made a point of identifying it at the start of the post (See: Scientific Authority).

Given the distinction above, the rest of your argument becomes pointless.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I could not disagree with you more on the next point, there are no supernatural agencies in Buddhism (the fifth largest religion), Taoism, Wicca, pantheism, most of the 'new-age' religions of the modern era and any of the naturalist religions. 'Supernatural agencies' are not a feature of all religions but of some. As I am not making comparisons with particular religions but with religion in general then the argument for 'supernatural agencies' is negated as it is not indicative. I completely reject that point on the basis it is not correct.

A supernatural agency does not necessarily mean a god. Buddhism refers to supernatural planes of existence - in fact, being Buddha (enlightened) itself means being free from cycle of rebirth among other supernatural attributes. Taoism has its own pantheon of deities. Wiccans are traditionally duotheistic. Pantheists attribute supernatural, intellegent agency to universe itself. Sorry, but I haven't heard of any religion where supernatural agencies have not been indicated.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: I would be interested (seeing as you don't point it out in your post) other than hope and censorship, what other needs do all religions fulfil, generally speaking?

It serves as a sort of rudimentary philosophy - claiming to provide answers about the nature of world around you.

(September 14, 2014 at 8:00 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Communism is built on class and economics. That was Karl Marx fundamental starting point. He wanted to irradiate the gap between what he called the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat and make a fairer system. For Marx, culture was the structure based on economy.

Religion is not concerned with economics or class.

Nowhere in your given definition does it say that religion is not concerned with economics or class. Nor does it say that something that is built on a fundamental of class and economics cannot become a religion.

Compare your own definition:

"'A religion (communism) is an organized collection of beliefs (regarding how economics works), cultural systems (developed among the proletariat), and world views (regarding how the political system works) that relate humanity to an order of existence (specifically, the order of class and economics)."

Nothing in your definition rules it out as a religion.