RE: Science: A Religion? (long post)
September 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2014 at 1:58 pm by ManMachine.)
(September 7, 2014 at 11:57 am)Diablo Wrote: 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
(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.
MM
(September 7, 2014 at 12:13 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: An excellent OP, but I think that excluding science as a religion is going to be pretty quick work.
If I drop a rock anywhere on the surface of this planet, it is going to fall at 9.8 m/s/s.
If I drop a rock anywhere on the surface of this planet, it is going to fall at 9.8 m/s/s, not matter how hard I pray that it does otherwise.
Boru
If we accept science is a religion that does not change anything about how we go about gathering empirical evidence, it does not make it less accurate in predicting repeatable events. I don't see your point?
MM
(September 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Chuck Wrote: To believe what is verifiably true to be verifiably true, is not religion.
Nor is the belief that proceeding from an accumulation of verifiable truths gives higher likelihood of generating sound solutions to problems than proceeding from a central unsupported assertion backed by no demonstrably effective means of truth finding.
So no, science is not religion and the opposite of religion.
Sure, I'm not suggesting scientific endeavour is any less accurate for being a religion.
MM
(September 7, 2014 at 12:42 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: "Dear God of Science, please grant me the power to win consistently at the Lottery!"
:waits:
Nope, no god there either.
Not all religions need a god, Buddhism doesn't have one.
It would be really helpful if people put aside their misgivings about other religions (particularly Abrahamic ones) it's totally off the point and a waste of time.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
