RE: Science: A Religion? (long post)
September 7, 2014 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm by ManMachine.)
(September 7, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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
"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)
