(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
"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)
