Science: A Religion? (long post)

[ManMachine]

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.

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?

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