Could someone please post a link to the "Is Science a Religion" thread...

[Brotherjohn]

...from yesterday?

I had a few more thought on the matter and was enjoying the discussion, but I had to leave (It's not like I have any actual WORK to do or anything!)

Thanks in advance.

[La_Serpiente]

1. You mean

this one?

[Brotherjohn]

2. Yes. Thanks a bunch!

[papau]

3. Dawkins was wrong - Science "faith" same as Religion - but good Thread

Science has Faith in the way religion has, but so what?

Science is only reproducible experiments - all else is conjecture and faith. But Religion does not have a reproducible experiments concept - it has free will instead. And when QM enters the picture, it is science in that it is reproducible - but what is reproduced indicates a form of free will - or multiple universe if you like.

I did enjoy the quibbling! :-) about the graduations - unmeasured!! -in amount of belief and - some suggested - in type of belief - but again undefined.

I am still at reproducible experiment as the only distinction - and indeed the only science "fact".

Indeed the amount of one's disbelief in a theory of how and why is as much a function of faith as in Religion- the claim that we reach better science theories over time seems to contradicted by QM - where better is defined as different - as in a stat based experiment result! To get better technical abilities may indeed indicate we are on the right path to science truth - and is something not possible in religion - but it does not "prove" a theory of how and why.

I liked the comment that (paraphrased) liberty is not license to believe and practice as we like - if you are not "logical" you should feel guilt!

Despite Dawkin's assertion, it seems obvious that science is a set of "beliefs" - and dogma - which when messed up by QM - returns us to reproducible experiments as the ONLY item different from religion - and with QM leading us to free will - or at least a stat version of free will - the question becomes one could run on about for a lifetime!

But all us science trained types are allowed to hang onto our reproducible experiment distinction where every claim of fact must be proven by verifiable evidence collected by many different people. - but us science trained types should admit the obvious as to going from "facts" to theory of how and why.

After all my theory/comment is 90% or better true 95% of the time.

Glad to see you are moving the discussion from the Meeting Romm to GD! :-)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=13835

[Brotherjohn]

5. Perhaps the only distinction is "reproducible experimentation"...

But that is a pretty big distinction! If I had to boil the scientific method to one thing, that would be it.

"QM"? (humor me)

[Silverhair]

6. QM = Quantum Mechanics.

Science gets really weird when you start dealing with this stuff. That damned cat that's %dead/%alive scratches. And the idea that the "two slit" experiment may be allowing leakage from alernate universes into ours, (And ours into theirs as you doubles in all those universes do the same experiment at the same time.) can make you develop some nervous tics. Yes, God does play dice with the universe, but he loads the dice. Christian certainy morphs into Hindu universalism - Wheee - And particles have names like, Up, Down, Charm, Spin & so on.

[Merlin]

7. You're confusing the randomness of QM with free will.

Surely you can understand the difference between the certainty of knowing that when you let go of an apple it will fall to the ground, and the faith required to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

[Brotherjohn]

4. A few more thoughts...

It seemed to me that a lot of the discussion yesterday got away from the original question: "Is science a religion?" or "Are science and religion the same"? In my view, the two are unquestionably not the same and science is not a religion. Here are the definitions (from Merriam-Webster Online):

SCIENCE:
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

RELIGION:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Some may say that science fits definition 4 of religion ("a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"). But that's just it. Science is NOT "a system of beliefs to with ardor and faith". Definition 3 defines it as a "system of knowledge" (similar perhaps), but specifcally NOT one simply held to by faith. It goes on to specify "especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" and to specify it as being "concerned with the physical world and its phenomena". Definition one is for very general use of the word, and definition 2, simply it's use as a noun to describe varuious specific fields (the sciences of biology, cosmology, and yes, even theology).

Science is a method (see definitions 3 and 4). It is a tool. Science in and of itself is not something that is believed merely on faith. While some individuals may believe what science reveals simply on faith, science itself doesn't work that way. Science requires that it be tested and verified, or it will not hold up over time.

This gets to what many seemed to center on in yesterday's discussion: that people typically view science and religion the same (they take them both on faith), therefore they ARE the same. But that is not so. Simply because some people view them as the same no more makes it so then some other people viewing them as different makes that so. It is not how people view religion and science, it is how the information and knowledge they impart to people is derived. It is how they work. This is what they do. This is what they "are".

What science reveals to us is derived from years, decades, millenia of observation, testing, and repeatability, and is always subject to revision based on the latest data. It is limited to observations of the natural world. What religion reveals to us simply IS because someone said so, and then passed it down for years, decades, millenia. It is subject to revision only when someone else says something else (often starting a new sect or religion), and it is never subject to testing. Indeed, the tenets of most religions are never verifiable, while the bases of most scientific principles ARE verifiable, and have been verified by much testing and experimentation, and can be tested again by anyone who so chooses.

But science doesn't try to reveal spiritual and moral realities... and religion doesn't (or shouldn't) try to reveal realities of the physical world. It is when the latter happens that you usually have conflict between the two. I believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and that they can and should peacefully co-exist. Science is better at explaining and understanding issues concerning the physical world, and religion is better at explaining and understanding issues of morality and the spiritual world. That alone is perhaps the most important difference between the two.

Looking at some of the other definitions, sure, one may see similarities: it is plausible to define religion as "the state of knowing" if one is concerned about knowing simply what that religion tells them, or knowing something that may comfort them spiritually. But science does not pretend to delve into the spiritual, only the natural world. And sure, one can be "religious" in their pursuit of science (as in definition 3 of religion), but that does not make science a religion. But simply because one may see similar traits in science and religion does not make them the same. In asking "Is science a religion?" one has to look at if and how they differ, and they differ tremendously. As someone wisely posted in yesterday's thread, science is a method, and religion is a system of beliefs. Science may yield a system of beliefs, but science is the method... and the way in which it "yields" its beliefs is very different from the way in which religion does, as is the way in which the beliefs are "believed" (and while that may vary from person to person, science itself does not maintain these "beliefs" on faith alone).

Many yesterday also concentrated on the bad things that science can yield, and that science can be faulted as much as religion, that science can be used for evil... the bomb, Hitler, etc. But if science is used for evil, this is not a failure of science, it is a failure of morality, and yes, perhaps even religion. It is in the domain of religion, spirituality and morality to control human behavior. Again, science is merely a tool. It can and is misused by those practicing psuedo-science, corporate scientists biased by profit, or evil dictators bent on world domination. It can even be misused by religions (see creation "scientists", religious wars) in trying to impose their version of the world on those who disagree with them.

[Merlin]

8. We're facing a whole new way of understanding "God" & existence.

The initial purpose of our traditional religions was to explain who we are and where we came from. It subsequently became a mechanism to control human behavior.

In the post scientific era, the mythology which comprises religion appears to objective thinkers as nonsense. It is nonsense from the standpoint of logic and scientific principles.

Where we err, however, is in equating belief in a creator and higher intelligence with religion. They are not the same.

In our healthy disdain for belief in magic, modern thinkers have not only correctly rejected faith-based explanations of existence, but also incorrectly rejected the concept of a Creator. Post modernity has no explanation for creation other than random happenstance, an explanation I find to be as mysterious as religion.

I maintain that science proves above all that there is enormous intelligence and beauty and power represented in every aspect of the universe, from the laws of physics, to human biology, to music and mathematics. These things clearly point to a Prime Mover as an intelligence and power that dwarfs our current capacity to comprehend.

It is in the quest to comprehend this creative force and intelligence that science finds its greatest calling. (In other words, science is essentially seeking to understand the mind of God.) And it is the attempt to express aspects of the creative force and intelligence that enobles art, literature and music.

Once we get beyond this rather infantile stage of throwing out the baby of recognition of a higher intelligence and creative force with the bathwater of pre-scientific-era religions, mankind can move to a whole new stage in its understanding of whatever we choose to call the source of intelligence in the universe (traditionally "God").

I suggest that the interest in these religious threads indicates a keen longing for an intelligent, modern-day, post-scientific quest for a new quasi-religion; one which seeks to better understand the relationship between the "Creator's" laws of science (a dropped apple falls) and the "Creator's" laws of perfecting the human condition (universal education improves society). Both verifiable truths flow from the same bed of logic that sustains science. That would be a truly worthy undertaking.

It's time for a whole new way to understand and appreciate the universe around us. Science need not be sterile when it is grasped within the context of awe for the incredible complexity and beauty of creation. Belief in God need not be forever tethered to the tired non-scientific mythology of preliterate man.

[Brotherjohn]

9. Some do indeed err in equating belief in a higher intelligence with...

...religion. For myself, I do not.

Science itself, when approached properly, does not either (although many scientists may do so). Science may propose, based on a multitude of evidence and observation of the natural world, that scientific explanations and understanding of the natural world are more accurate and reliable than that of many religions. And anyone is free to test that proposition.

But science cannot claim that there is no "god" or higher intelligence. That would be proving a negative (which, as anyone who cast a critical eye on Bush's Iraq/WMD assertions knows, is impossible). The furthest science can go in this respect is to say that, using observation and study of the natural world, there is no verifiable evidence of a supreme being or higher intelligence. That is very different from saying it does not exist.

On the one hand, you say that "Post modernity has no explanation for creation other than random happenstance, an explanation I find to be as mysterious as religion." Yet on the other, you say the beauty and power of the universe "clearly point to a Prime Mover as an intelligence and power that dwarfs our current capacity to comprehend." But if it is equally mysterious to you and it dwarfs our capacity to comprehend, then you cannot conclude that it "clearly points to a Prime Mover as an intelligence".

I agree with you in that "science proves above all that there is enormous... beauty and power represented in every aspect of the universe, from the laws of physics, to human biology, to music and mathematics." Where we disagree is that there is "intelligence". I do not deny the possibility, and I do not see how you deny the possibility that it is all merely happenstance. The fact of the matter is that all observation of the natural world points to it (the big bang, life, etc.) having happened by random processes and happenstance. Science holds out the possibility that more evidence may modify (and possibly completely disrupt) such theories. Science can only proceed based upon the best evidence available. Yet you conclude, simply because science does not have all the answers, or simply because it all just seems to complex to have happened by chance, that it must have had some intelligence behind it. That may very well be the case, but there is no evidence to substantiate it. Saying "but it couldn't have happened by chance" is no different than saying "I just KNOW there's a god". You seem to be using lack of evidence as proof of "god's" existence. This is no more valid than scientists who may use the lack of such evidence as proof that there is NO "god".

I agree that we are in the midst of an era where we are reaching a new understanding of god and existence. I agree that there is undeniable power and beauty in the universe. I do not know whether there is an intelligence behind it. To me, this new understanding could be reached when we accept the awesome power and beauty of the universe, and yes, perhaps its randomness too, as a sort of "intelligence" or "god" (but not in the standard definitions of either "god" OR "intelligence"). To me, the idea that purely random events can lead to such beauty is perhaps the most amazing about the universe.

[Merlin]

10. Newton's law of entropy postulates the impossibility of intelligent

order evolving out of randomness. To paraphraze an old shibboleth, you can have a hundred monkeys at a hundred typewriters typing for virtually all eternity, and they will never type out the Lord's Prayer. The probabilities against it can be calculated and would be so enormous as to be incomprehensible.

And that's just one example of order. We have literally millions of examples--not just of order--but of phenomenally intelligent systems in the universe. All of these would have had to "happen"--many in dependent syncronicity--by mere random chance.

Consider all the integrated subsystems of the human body, for example. As a software developer, I can attest to the extraordinary difficulty of getting a single system to function correctly, let alone a complex group of systems which are mostly self-repairing and self-sustaining over a human lifetime. Ask Microsoft--with its team of thousands of the brightest people on earth--why they still can't seem to get the kinks out of Windows. They'll tell you the whole thing has grown nearly beyond the capacity of even computer-enhanced human management. And Windows is not even an iota as complex as, say, the human circulatory system, not to mention the natural system of biological evolution.

To say there are no intelligent systems in the universe is, no offense, to deny the obvious. But once granted, to say they are the result of randomness is to believe in a cause so improbable as to reside within the realm of the mythical.

I think the main reason very intelligent people refrain from accepting the obvious signs of an intelligent creator is their profound disdain for the damage which organized religion seems capable of bringing to humanity. This, is understandable. Religion must be separated from our understanding of "God" or whatever you choose to call the intelligent creative force behind the universe.

[Brotherjohn]

11. No. Newton's law of entropy does not.

That's a common mis-statement of that principle.

Newton's laws of thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. It receives energy from the sun. Just about the only closed system within the universe is the entire universe itself, if one believes it is finite. If that is the case, the entire universe, en masse, may be eventually headed towards a state of greater entropy. But individual systems of order (including the rise of intelligent life) do not violate it Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics.

Your repetition of the old "monkeys and typewriters" statement is also a mis-statement. If you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite time, they WILL eventually type the Lord's Prayer, the Bible, and the complete works of Shakespeare. They will type an infinite number of combinations of letters and symbols, which includes those works. That phrase is most often used to demonstrate that, no matter how unlikely, anything is possible given enough time (not the opposite, as you use it).

To compare the example of designing software with evolution of biological systems simply not sound. You are talking about a few thousand people in a new field trying to write programs. Evolution occurred over billions of years, with trillions if not quadrillions or quintillions or more "subjects" such as molecules, cells, and organisms undergoing various permutations. And once self-replication developed, the system was able to perpetuate itself and actually improve upon itself (see Darwin).

A common mistake made here is that people assume life is "perfect". But it is in fact FAR from it. Haven't you ever been to the doctor? Don't you realize how dangerous and imperfect the mere process of chidbirth is? Human beings, and life in general, is far from "perfect". We just trudge along and function the best we can. If one believes it to be "perfect" one has a harder time accepting that it might not have been designed. BUt if one accepts that it is far from perfect, one might realize that perhaps it wasn't designed. Perhaps it simply evolved, and that is an ongoing process (we are just a Beta version, at best).

You say: "To say there are no intelligent systems in the universe is, no offense, to deny the obvious."
But you are simply saying that, with ZERO evidence. You are assuming there must have been an intelligent designer, and your argument is "well how ELSE would it have happened". Lack of evidence is not evidence (see Bush re Iraq WMDs).

You also say: "But once granted, to say they are the result of randomness is to believe in a cause so improbable as to reside within the realm of the mythical."
But what you are proposing is just that: mythical.