Separation of Science and State

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I’m having a hard time understanding John’s objections to this. 

I'm not doing the objecting. I'm asking the questions that Grand is dancing around. That might be unclear if you just read the last page and nothing prior.

As for your example, the question wouldn't be if it's still a religion conceptually, but if the religion still exists with no members. Does the Roman Empire still exist with no citizens? Does a team like the Baltimore Bullets exist with no players? Can you have a group with no individuals? Can you have a group of just one person?

You lying piece of low rent christian shit, lol. You should be ashamed of yourself. That you would expect anyone to spend a single moment talking to you about anything, after that one, is a demonstration of just how big of an asshole you are, and just how tolerant and patient this forum is with assholes like you.

Did "modeling reality" do that to you, or was it optional?

Yes, the roman empire, despite not having any members today, still fit the description of an empire. That why we (and you..just now) refer to it as an empire.

Just like a since de-comissioned team still fit the definition of a team, that's why we (and you.....just now), refer to it as a team.

Just like a dead religion fit the definition of a religion. This has been explained to you multiple times and is demonstrably and trivially true.

You're ignorant, and a liar. Either one is solvable, both, probably not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, the roman empire, despite not habving any members today, still fit the description of an empire.

That's what I call dancing. If I asked whether the Roman Empire still exists with no members, and you respond that it still fits the description of an empire, that's doing a waltz around my question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ignorant, liar.

---

Let's try some more.
Religion

a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and
extraordinary powers, meanings, and values.

-Catharine Albanese. Something of a subject matter expert. She writes textbooks..about religion...in american history.

a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive, and longlasting moods and motivations.... by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

-Clifford Geertz. As wiki immediately mentions a man who was considered the singlemost influential cultural anthropologist in the united states for three decades.

a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values

-Paul Tillich...existentialist philosopher... lutheran theologian and pastor.

These three people, like durkheim, feel that a description or definition of religion must include some reference to the normative content that identifies it -as- a religion.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Did you feel the need to add more definitions to escape the logical dead-end that Durkheim's takes you?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, you ignorant liar - and I've mentioned before that I could cycle through a dozen definitions which would differ in all manner of ways but which would all agree that a reference to shared normative content is an identifying and necessary attribute of a religion.

This is important, for reasons I have also already explained, you ignorant liar, because it is the normative content of a religion that we have concerns with relative to the state.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Presumably, then, if I asked you a question about this new set of definition, you'll dance around it only to post another batch of definitions as a way out, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Presumably you will lie, as you just did, about any definition and any response I offer. Yes, absolutely - this has turned into a running demonstration of the truth of that conjecture.

---

Meanwhile, here's your OPQ

Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)?

Church and state are separated on account of the inevitable abuse over mutually exclusive normative claims about the sacred written into law.

Does science make normative claims...at all? Does science even determine a set of sacred things to make normative claims about? No, and no. Science is a descriptive enterprise which makes descriptive claims. It tells us how it is, not how it should be. If some potential for abuse arises from telling us how things should be is a case for separation - which we have decided that it is - that case cannot be made for a thing that lacks the necessary relationship.

Should we separate the government from what is as we've separated the government from what should be relative to the sacred? No, that's ludicrous, and it might just take an ignorant liar to ask the question.

Or a christian.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Presumably you will lie...

Declarative, not interrogative, sentences contain a truth value which can be classified as false. It is incoherent to call me a liar after every question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently, it isn't...and I suspect that it takes some effort for you to lie in every post.

---

Meanwhile, and continuing. How about the other end? Do we want science to have some broad grant of freedom from the state, as religion does?

No. No we don't. Human animal hybrids are illegal. A cracked out geneticist saying "but that's my science" doesn't change that and doesn't afford them the means to change that, it lacks the benefit of the separation you enjoy with respect to your religion, with respect to your church...and state.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're switching to science now lol? Just to avoid answering if the Roman Empire still exists?