Is religion a science?

[Fumesucker]

Since some people believe that other people treat science as their religion then does it also follow that religion is a science?

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Are you talking about Theology, the study of religon, or Catholicism, Islam, Baptists, Budhism?

[okasha]

2. The folks who keep announcing

that they've located Noah's Ark sure seem to think so.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Well, there are really too many different religions and definitions for "religion" to answer this...

But I think it's fair to say that religion can be addressed in a scientific manner and that some religions can be practiced in a scientific manner.

Others would seem to be quite resistant to treatment or practice following scientific principles.

For me, the most interesting observation is that religion and science share so many characteristics:

-- Both try to explain phenomena
-- Both seek order from seeming chaos
-- Both have different schools of thought, sometimes adverse to one another
-- Both depend upon faith, in different ways but the fact remains
-- Both seem to be uniquely human affairs

Religion and Science, a Love Story. So opposite yet so similar!

I love them both!

[guillaumeb]

7. Is it allowed to love them both?

Some here would argue that point with all the ferocity of theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[NYC_SKP]

13. No Kidding! I'm a lover not a hater and you know what they say....

Haters gonna hate.

[guillaumeb]

14. but many haters hate it when you do not reciprocate the hate

leading to hate echoes and hate squared.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I KNOW!!!

My kindness and understanding seems to slay them, but it's just my nature.

There's really no reason to not at least TRY to find common ground.

We're people. We are an odd species!

[Fumesucker]

22. Hmm... I see somewhat less hypocrisy in science than religion...

Rarely is a scientist for instance observed violating Newton's first law.

[phil89]

27. Incorrect

Science doesn't work on faith it is concerned with evidence. Religious claims have no explanatory power, it's made up nonsense.

[cbayer]

4. Several things I would ask that you clarify.

How do you define religion?

How do you define science?

What do you think it means when people say that some "treat" science as their religion?

If I said that some people treat sports like their religion, would it logically follow that religion is then a sport?

[guillaumeb]

8. easy one

What I believe is logical, therefore what I believe must be science.

If you disagree with me, you are being illogical. Thus your beliefs are religion.

Or do I have that backwards?

[cbayer]

10. You have it correctly and backwards.

It is those on the fringes that can not grasp the idea of embracing them both.

[guillaumeb]

11. thank you, I think

And because I think, therefore I am.

[longship]

35. Which was Descartes' argument for the existence of God.

I wrote a paper on Descates in Intro to Philosophy stating so. Got an A+ on it. That was decades ago. But that was his basic argument.

[guillaumeb]

39. That was my intent.

to reference Descartes.

[longship]

42. I was merely attempting to frame the quote in its context.

...for those who might not be aware of its intent. Sometimes a response here is intended for other readers, not the poster to whom the responder is posting.

I intended no insult if you took it that way.

My best regards.

[guillaumeb]

43. I took no insult

and I like when people comment and offer other takes here. Makes the discussion more interesting.

In the context of the post, I was going to say: confusa est,igitur ego sum, but I thought the reference and the play on Descartes would be too strange.

[longship]

44. Plus my Latin is mostly limited to "cogito ergo sum"

So that would have whizzed by me like a Nolan Ryan fast ball.

Sorry for the baseball metaphor, but it's opening day and I still have fond memories of taking the bus to the corner of Michigan and Trumbull to witness the Tigers play.





Red Hots here! Get yer Red Hots! (No ketchup or relish! Just lots of mustard and/or fresh onions.) One of the best dogs in town, especially if the Tigers were winning.

Sorry for the diversion.

My best to you.

[guillaumeb]

45. nice picture

the Latin translates as:
I am confused, therefor I exist.

Best to you also

[longship]

33. A great statement of the demarkation problem.

It has been stated in other contexts, but one thing is for sure. The artificial dichotomy fallacy is in play.

[cbayer]

36. This comparison always seems to boil down to some kind of dog fight as

to which is better. The problem is that "better" becomes meaningless in this context.

Both words "science" and "religion" can be used in loose and colloquial ways. There are people who treat religion as a science and science as a religion. That is a comment on their approach, not on what the thing actually is.

[longship]

37. Yup. Science is not about belief.

It is about methodology. Self-checking; self-correcting; no authority except the data.

Religion is something other than those things. Not sure quite what, except that it seems to include none of them.

And I am not an advocate of Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). That argument is rubbish, given religion's centuries old trampling down of science. Witness Galileo, Ken Ham, and today's GOP.

But there are grey zones where the demarcation becomes blurred. E.G., so-called string theory which has decades of advancement in mathematics that I cannot even grasp (in spite of my years of math and physics education) but has next to nothing to show for itself in physics after all that rather intense study.

I leave it to believers to argue their side. There are some who I rather like. But somehow those people seem to never claim that they know the mind of the god that they believe in. I am fine with that because those same people seem to not want to push their beliefs on others. That is the crux of the religion problem, IMHO.

I don't give a fuck what people believe or not believe. Just let me believe or not believe what I want, or not. That is one lesson which would make this whole world an awesomely better place. However, the extent to which pushing ones religious beliefs on others is an essential characteristic of religion, I must proudly and militantly stand up against it all.

Sadly, in the 21st century, this seems to be the case. I wish it was not so.

[cbayer]

46. They are completely different things.

The competition comes up, and rightfully so, when people's religious beliefs are allowed to trump science. Otherwise, they are not incompatible and shouldn't even been compared.

There has been an interesting relationship. While there is no question that religion has stood in the way of science at times, religion has also underwritten much of it.

I have come to believe that some science has to be taken on faith, at least by me. Your example of string theory and some of the cosmological theories really seem beyond my ability (or willingness) to understand. I have to trust that those who understand these things have come to understand them with open minds, good faith and no hidden agenda.

But that I have to base on faith in them as individuals and the scientific community in general.

I don't give a fuck what people believe or not either, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others. I feel strongly that there is great risk in the ideal that religion should be abandoned and that those that promote it are very short sighted. I will proudly and militantly stand with you not just against those who push their individual beliefs but also against those who would malign anyone who holds them.

[LTX]

70. For what it's worth, I think you are overstating the historic conflict between science and religion,

and too cavalierly discounting Gould's point. Gould's last book, The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox, does a rather good job of exploring the symbiosis between science and religion during the early phases of the scientific revolution, and makes a persuasive case that the contemporary, continuing animosity between science and both philosophy and theology is not grounded in historical reality. It is a very good read, and makes his case much better (I think) than his previous books. It has its flaws (repetition of made points being one, a habit of Gould's that could get quite annoying). But it is also a perceptive analysis by a rarity in contemporary academia -- a scholar as well versed in classical studies as in the sciences.

[longship]

73. Thanks LTX.

I generally like Gould. He was a pretty good writer. But I still don't buy NOMA because religion steps over the line all the time.

I will put that book on my list.


Much obliged.

[stone space]

5. Science enables technonogy that allows for the creation of entities with powers...

...often attributed to Gods.

Vast powers of Omnipotence and Omniscience.

It allows humans to turn myth into reality.

Does that count?

[Fumesucker]

23. Good point...

Fiat lux, yes?

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[RandySF]

6. Some people are idiots.

[bvf]

19. Yes, and proximate, to boot. n/t.

[beam me up scottie]

20. !

[handmade34]

9. no n/t

[onecaliberal]

12. No!!!

[pinto]

16. Awkward proposition.

"Since some people believe that other people treat science as their religion then does it also follow that religion is a science?"

Not sure what you're getting at.

[Fumesucker]

21. There is a thread about "is science a religion?", some posters on that thread seem to think so..

Of course the ones who think so all evidently believe that certain other people treat science as their religion.

It just occurred to me that if A=B then logically B=A, if science is a religion then religion is a science.

[cbayer]

24. Ah, your logical equation has a weak point.

While it is true that if A = B then B = A, but that is not your proposition.

Your proposition is: if A is a part of the set B, then B is a part of the set A. In other words, if bread is food, then food is bread or if women are people, then people are women.

[Fumesucker]

25. I just wanted to see people deny that religion was a science

Didn't come away disappointed.

Maybe now we can stop with the "science is a religion" stupidity although somehow I doubt it.

Does it make any difference in your life that the world is round rather than flat?

It wasn't religion that told us the world is round, that was science.

[cbayer]

29. Can you point me to where someone has said that science is a religion?

I think the point may had been made that some people treat science like a religion, as you put it in your OP. To me, the word "treat" makes that much more of a metaphorical statement, similar to how some people treat their favorite sport like a religion.

Why the constant competition between these two things? Of course science has given us some things and religion has given us some things.

Personally, I value them both and don't really have anything invested in whether one is "better" than the other.

[skepticscott]

47. Seriously?

You didn't notice this?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218190338#post90

[bvf]

17. Good question.

To which I would answer, explain the "religious method."

[ret5hd]

28. "God did it."

[cbayer]

30. There is no religious method. Explain scientific faith?

[bvf]

34. Cute.

Obtuse, but cute.

[stone space]

40. Like science, religion probably has lots of methods.

Math has lots of methods, too.

[uriel1972]

18. No...

In the same way that a person believing the sky is green with purple polka dots does not make the sky green with purple polka dots.

[LTX]

71. Not to be unnecessarily obstreperous, but

color itself is a subjective phenomenon. Wavelengths themselves have no color. My perception of the color of the sky is not yours, and not a porcupine's. How wavelengths are "interpreted" by a given optical system does not change the wavelength, but it certainly changes the perception of the wavelength.

A green sky (given the ubiquity of blue/green optical confusion) with purple polka dots (given the widely varying perceptions of cloud refractions, from white to grey to green to purple to red to yellow) is not beyond the "pale" (ha-ha).

[DetlefK]

26. In most cases, No.

Science is defined by the cycle: You switch back-and-forth between hypothesis and experiment. The experiment decides whether the hypothesis is valid.

It is possible, though I think unlikely, that a person would switch from religion to religion because they are looking for explanations for natural phenomena.

[Maedhros]

31. Science is a method.

Observe, hypothesize, experiment, evaluate, repeat. Answers are subject to change.

Religion is acceptance of revealed truth, which is not subject to change.

[bvf]

38. Yet we have religious "scholars" who

spend entire lives rehashing the same old crap, and seem to make a decent, tax-free living from it.

[nil desperandum]

41. Indeed

right alongside those scholars are some well known charlatans...scientology quickly comes to mind.

I never understood how a guy who was twice relieved from command and lied about being wounded could create a religion and people would flock to it as though he was more than a liar, a fraud, and a crappy sci-fi writer.

But he sure did make a decent living from the concept.

[cbayer]

48. Religious "scholars" do not live tax-free.

They pay taxes just like everyone else. So do your everyday ministers, rabbis and priests, but they may be entitled to a parsonage exemption.

Religious organizations are entitled to a certain degree of tax exemption when they file as non-profits, just like any other non-profit.

This "tax-free" meme is quite old and a very, very easy straw man to blow down.

[bvf]

49. Okey dokey.

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Yet we have religious "scholars" who spend entire lives rehashing the same old crap, get tax breaks on housing, and seem to make a decent living from it. 

Better?

[okasha]

50. No.

Let's try this: Science "scholars" spend entire lives rehashing the same crap, get breaks on housing, and seem to make a decent living from it."

Find the problem in both statements.

[rug]

51. There may be more truth in that statement.

Endowed chairs are a plush reward.

[okasha]

54. Oh, indeed.

And some universities offer free plush housing to go with them.

[bvf]

52. I see the problem.

[okasha]

55. Now find the other one.

[bvf]

56. Ah! Thanks.

I've removed the errant comma from #49.

Good eye!

[okasha]

57. Keep trying.

[bvf]

58. Um, your elision of an opening quotation mark

in #50?

[okasha]

59. Keep trying.

[cbayer]

60. That pretty much can be applied to everyone in academia.

The housing tax breaks are not for "scholars" though, they are for clergy members who are associated with specific religious groups that operate as non-profits.

But I'm glad to have clarified the other bits for you.

[bvf]

61. Glad you are able to distinguish

between scholars and clerics, because that's exactly what you just did.

You're learning.

[cbayer]

62. Yes, I did exactly that because they are distinct things which you

appear to be unclear on.

One can certainly be a religious scholar and not personally religious at all.

One can certainly be a religious cleric and not at all scholarly.

One is generally employed by a religious group which may or may not have a tax exempt status.

The other is generally employed by an educational group or earning a living by writing and/or lecturing.

[bvf]

63. Get thee a fucking dictionary, will you?

Sheesh.

[cbayer]

64. Do you disagree with my definitions? What are yours?

[bvf]

65. Yes, to you, words mean whatever you want them to.

That's been pointed out here previously, IIRC, and is clearly just as true now.

Yet more willful ignorance masquerading as argument.

[cbayer]

66. So what are your definitions of cleric and religious scholar and how do they differ from mine?

Are you going to answer the question or just continue with your white-flag ad homs?

If I were a betting person, I would definitely go with the second option, so why don't you surprise me?

[bvf]

67. You lose.

[cbayer]

68. Okay, congratulations! See you around.

[okasha]

69. That's exactly what you've posted.

[LTX]

72. If religious beliefs are "not subject to change,"

what explains the vastly varying religious beliefs that have drifted around throughout humanity's existence? (The "not subject to change" bromide, in case it escaped you, is one I find particularly odd.)

[Maedhros]

74. Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins so that we may have everlasting life in Heaven.

That is a "revealed truth" that will not change.

[LTX]

75. So in your world, everyone is a trinitarian christian?

And indeed, no sects of christianity throughout history have deviated in any way from your selected dogma, and none will going forward? Revealed truths are highly mutable, for rather obvious reasons.

Adherents.com claims to have 43,940 adherent records for 4,351 different religious groups, and by one estimate, there have been 63,000 religious groups throughout human history. Of course, it is highly likely that there have been religions during the course of history that were never documented and left no trace, and arguably each individual believer has a discrete idea or image of god (a concept codified in the Hindu Ishvaras, and surprisingly common in the "personal" god-man relationships of monotheistic theologies).

[Maedhros]

76. Religions interpret the world to match their tenets.

They don't change their tenets to match what they observe in the world.

Bye, now.

[cbayer]

77. Then why have so many religious groups changed their position on GLBT rights?

And that's just one thing.

[Maedhros]

79. I wouldn't consider that to be a fundamental tenet.

Religions may change their stance on issues based upon (re-)interpretation of their fundamental tenets, but they do not engage in anything resembling the scientific method.

As in my earlier post: will Christian churches ever change their belief that Jesus died for our sins? Even in the face of evidence that Jesus never existed?

Some churches blatantly ignore evidence in favor of their dogma (e.g. young earth creationists). In those cases in which their ideas have evolved, it's because they are accepting scientific interpretations not because their religion led them to new truth.

I think we're conflating two separate issues: religions as monolithic entities insulated from outside thought, and the nature of religious dogma.

[cbayer]

81. Well, no, they wouldn't engage in the scientific method when it comes to fundamental tenets.

That wouldn't make a lot of sense.

That's true for many aspects of human life - art, music, philosophy, literature, religion. Utilizing the scientific method would probably be a bad idea, though one could use it to study all of those things.

IMHO, there will never be compelling evidence to support that jesus either existed or didn't exist. It's not even worth discussing.

I do have serious issues with churches and individuals that reject accepted science because it conflicts with their understanding of scripture. Scientific discovery does and should change our perspective and understanding of the world.

I think many things are being conflated here. It's important to distinguish between subgroups.

[LTX]

78. It appears that you've developed your own set of "revealed truths."

[Binkie The Clown]

32. I have a purple crayon. n/t

[rug]

53. Be careful.

[immoderate]

80. No. They are opposites.

Only the most acrobatic maneuvers would indicate any convergence.

--imm