ahh yes, the blinders of religion are strong on you, aren't they

9/19/2008 1:14:04 AM

It's such a stupid troll act because there are really only two possibilities here:

(1) You're trolling, except you're not clever enough to make it entertaining or genuinely funny
or
(2) You actually think you have a subtle, clever philosophical point -- which is pathetic

9/19/2008 9:32:50 AM

he has shown many times in the past that #2 is correct.
burro has no understanding of the differences between trust and faith

9/19/2008 9:41:49 AM

Or rationally justified belief and faith, I guess.

Dude sounds like a philosopher from the middle ages dropped in a confusing, complicated 21st century.

Sorely needs some Kierkegaard.

9/19/2008 10:10:11 AM

what is rational to one is irrational to the next. and, oh the irony in declaring that trust and faith are different.

9/19/2008 10:26:06 AM

It's really worthless to argue this with you since you seem either incapable or unwilling to understand science (and ironically enough, religion).

9/19/2008 10:37:30 AM

it's really pointless to argue this with you since you seem unwilling to even question the limitations of science.

9/19/2008 11:01:03 AM

nobody questions the limits of science and refutes the findings of science more thoroughly than scientists.

9/19/2008 11:04:26 AM

riiiiiiight.

9/19/2008 11:13:27 AM

Quote :

"Really? Were you here 10,000 years ago to prove that? You fail to understand the fundamental limitations on the evidence you claim is so solid for your beliefs."

Are you trying to say memory is the only real evidence and always trumps observable physical evidence?

Or are you just talking out of your ass again?

[Edited on September 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM. Reason : a]

9/19/2008 12:14:59 PM

Quote :

"it's really pointless to argue this with you since you seem unwilling to even question the limitations of science."

Science is limited in a variety of ways.

Scientific data (that which scientific theories generalize over -- sentences about these individuals should be entailed by sentences of the scientific theory) is limited to some intersection of physically, technologically, economically, and societally possible observations.

Scientific theories of behavior can't gather data, for instance, from setting up experiments where we shocked a human with huge amounts of electricity. It's not societally possible. Similarly, we can't gather soil data from a planet circling a star the next galaxy over. It's not technologically possible. We can't gather detailed psychological surveys from every human on the planet. It's not economically possible (or perhaps, not economically feasible).

The most important of these limitations that I haven't mentioned yet is physical possibility. Science can only operate over physically possible observations. It can't discuss objects not a part of our universe, is another way of putting it. If anything interacts with the physical world (including human sensory organs), then by definition it's physical. Physical things science can get a handle on, since we can make observations of them and begin to craft generalizations and theories about the behaviors of these observed entities.

Like I said, non-physical things we're out of luck for. Then again, a method for dealing with all of the objects in our universe is pretty damn good, I'd say. If you want to claim that there are objects existing outside of our universe that are relevant to us (such as God, for instance), then you should elucidate a sound method for investigating claims about it. There are plenty of people who do this -- they're called metaphysicians. A lot of them explore implications about the unseen using modal logic, for instance. It's not my cup of tea, but there's an example of a well-defined method for exploring things science can't.

Should the conclusions drawn by such fields should be in competition with science? I don't think so. If they could make direct claims and predictions about physical occurrences, then sure -- then we can weigh the predictive success of such a theory versus the predictive success of a scientific theory. But this isn't at all what religion attempts to do. Religious explanation is a much different concept than scientific explanation, and you of all people (the religious defender/advocate) should be the first to defend this distinction.

9/19/2008 12:20:59 PM

Quote :

"Really? Were you here 10,000 years ago to prove that? You fail to understand the fundamental limitations on the evidence you claim is so solid for your beliefs."

Actually, my "claim" wasn't based on induction, it was based on deduction that the claims of the "creation science" side of things can't be right.

You realize that the people who want Creationism taught use specific things they reference, and you can find what their claims are and show, at the least, their claims are incorrect. You don't seem to understand that "Creationist" in this context is a very specific group of people with a specific belief. It's not a philosophy. I'm not arguing philosophy here.

9/19/2008 6:46:30 PM

i just wanted to say...teaching evolution is not advocating a religious belief nor a lack thereof...it's only a scientific topic with practical applications and facts to back it up, just like chemistry, physics, microbiology, whatever...this one just happens to contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. but that doesn't mean the government is trying to suppress christianity by teaching it. it's not like darwin and all the other scientists were trying to disprove the creation story...they were just trying to figure out how shit works on earth. evolution has nothing to do with god one way or the other. science class is not the place to inject a discussion of religion.

i also felt i should repost this...it pretty much says exactly what i was thinking:

Quote :

" "

9/19/2008 8:24:10 PM

Quote :

"science class is not the place to inject a discussion of religion."

unfortunately for you, science class is doing exactly that when it goes out and says any other religion is wrong. sorry, but you lose on that.

Then again, even that statement goes a long way towards the issue of science and religion, as it is similar to claiming that we shouldn't let Muslims practice in the US since their beliefs are "wrong." Of course, few people recognize this similarity because it is painfully uncomfortable to accept such cognitive dissonance

9/20/2008 1:33:01 PM

Creationism is not science leave that shit at church or perhaps in literature class.

Quote :

"Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in Genesis, within the approximate time frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames. This view is held by many Protestant Christians in the USA. It is also estimated that 47% of Americans hold this view, and almost 10% of Christian colleges teach it"

USA #1 in stupidity and ignorant commoners

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 2:35 PM. Reason : l]

9/20/2008 2:24:11 PM

I'm glad to see that you are part of them ignant commoners, then. cognitive dissonance is a bitch, aint it? OMG, ISLAM AINT RIGHT, CAUSE JESUS SAYS SO!!! WE MUST OUTLAW IT!!!

9/20/2008 2:42:53 PM

i think you're unwittingly the king of the strawman argument

9/20/2008 2:49:44 PM

If you don't want your kids to learn that crazy satanist evolution thing than you are more than able to send your kids to a private christian school where they will not be corrupted by the liberal god-hating progressive propaganda.

9/20/2008 2:52:00 PM

sigh. strawman much? WHere did I say I am against teaching evolution?

btw, the islam and jesus thing isn't a strawman. It's a fucking point about bitching about something "not being science." It's, you know, the same damned thing. again, cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

9/20/2008 2:53:33 PM

Quote :

"unfortunately for you, science class is doing exactly that when it goes out and says any other religion is wrong. sorry, but you lose on that."

you think that if you say it enough times it'll become true. it isn't and it won't. science is NOT "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" nor is it the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers".

YOU ARE WRONG.

and onto the more obvious point, science doesn't concern itself with religions. they are completely orthogonal institutions. SCIENCE CLASSES ARE NOT SAYING RELIGION IS WRONG

religions are getting their panties in a twist because they realize that their myths don't mesh with what science has to say, quite convincingly, about reality. not the other way around!

9/20/2008 4:34:34 PM

Quote :

"science is NOT "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" nor is it the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers"."

and the relevance of that is what? to peg religion as depending on something supernatural, is, well, false. that is why you can't understand the argument in the first place.

Quote :

"SCIENCE CLASSES ARE NOT SAYING RELIGION IS WRONG"

Really?
Science: The universe is several billion years old
Strict Christianity: The universe is 10,000 years old.

Yeah, science isn't saying religion is wrong, dude.

Quote :

"religions are getting their panties in a twist because they realize that their myths don't mesh with what science has to say, quite convincingly, about reality. not the other way around!"

That you think science is "quite convincingly" saying anything is precisely the reason science is a religion. It is also the reason you don't understand my argument. Good work.

9/20/2008 4:48:21 PM

let's hear your definition of religion then. because, you know, I thought the dictionary was a fairly accurate reference point...

Quote :

"Really? Science: The universe is several billion years old Strict Christianity: The universe is 10,000 years old. Yeah, science isn't saying religion is wrong, dude. "

I missed the part about religion in the statement issued by science....

Maybe you need to redefine "saying" for me as well.

Quote :

"That you think science is "quite convincingly" saying anything is precisely the reason science is a religion. It is also the reason you don't understand my argument. Good work."

It has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. If it weren't convincing, religious people probably wouldn't care in the first place.

9/20/2008 4:58:31 PM

I guess it's pretty easy to win arguments when you define words how you want.

9/20/2008 5:08:51 PM

Quote :

"I missed the part about religion in the statement issued by science.... "

Hmmm. Science says this is how it is. Religion says it is something different. Yeah, you are right, science isn't saying a damned thing related to religion. how could I have been so blind

How about a definition of religion for you, then:

Quote :

"A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law."

You'll note that the part about the supernatural is qualified with the word "often," meaning, as I have previously stated, that a religion need not address the supernatural. Let's then look look at what else it has: claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature. Hmmmm. What does science talk about? Oh yeah, reality, the cosmos, and human nature! Granted, the "claims" in that definition are also qualified by the words "supernatural" and "moral," but I'd argue that any claim that says "this is totally natural" is, in effect, a claim of morality, but I digress.

Either way, you have science, which addresses reality, the cosmos, and human nature. And you have religion, which also has claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature. You have science, which has a set of tenets and practices (observation is truth, the scientific method) and you have religion, which also has a set of tenets and practices. But noooooooo, the two are completely different

You'll note that my definition of religion has always been "a system of beliefs and a methodology for following those beliefs." I usually throw in that it is usually based on an unprovable assertion. And, you'll note that that definition is, frankly, in concert with the one I just posted, which, yes, came from wikipedia. And yes, the rest of that article tends to focus on the supernatural. Doesn't change the ultimate point, though, that a religion need not focus on the supernatural.

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. If it weren't convincing, religious people probably wouldn't care in the first place."

Hardly. I think the problem has to do with the fact that you have the government (read: gov't run schools) teaching that a religious belief is wrong. That is my problem with it, and it always has been. I'd be equally offended if public schools taught only creationism. Moreover, that you call it "convincing" should be enough to rest my case on science and religion. A religion always seeks to convince its followers.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2008 5:18:12 PM

Quote :

"Hmmm. Science says this is how it is. Religion says it is something different. Yeah, you are right, science isn't saying a damned thing related to religion. how could I have been so blind"

Religions (other than science ) go out of their way to say "this teaching is blasphemy", "these people are heathens", "these people are going to hell." Science doesn't do that.

You and I have different thoughts. We're only telling each other we're wrong when we're... wait for it.... TELLING (verbalizing/writing) that the other is wrong. Having different beliefs != telling someone with a different belief they are wrong

If you really think science is a religion, then we shouldn't be teaching science AT ALL. Hell, we shouldn't be teaching kids anything about reality. Unless that is, of course, you don't support the separation of church and state. Haven't quite figured out if you do or not, but I'm guessing you don't.

Quote :

"Hmmm. Science says this is how it is. Religion says it is something different. Yeah, you are right, science isn't saying a damned thing related to religion. how could I have been so blind"

Quote :

"You'll note that the part about the supernatural is qualified with the word "often," meaning, as I have previously stated, that a religion need not address the supernatural."

Are you kidding me? There are no alternatives to the "often," meaning if we are to ignore those parts, the definiton really only is:

"A set of tenets and practices."

I'm sorry, but that definition is bullshit. It could be used to define innumerable human behaviors, none of which a practical person would define as religions including government.

9/20/2008 5:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Religions (other than science ) go out of their way to say "this teaching is blasphemy", "these people are heathens", "these people are going to hell." Science doesn't do that."

The HELL it doesn't. What do you think the phrase "that's not scientific" means?

Quote :

"If you really think science is a religion, then we shouldn't be teaching science AT ALL. Hell, we shouldn't be teaching kids anything about reality. Unless that is, of course, you don't support the separation of church and state."

I'd say that is absolutely a good question, and it is something that we need to question. I'm not for "getting rid of science" by any stretch of the imagination. I am for teaching it in a way that is consistent with the 1st Amendment. And no, that doesn't mean teaching creationism side-by-side.

Quote :

"Are you kidding me? There are no alternatives to the "often,""

If so, then WHY INCLUDE THE WORD "OFTEN"?

Quote :

"It could be used to define innumerable human behaviors"

You are absolutely correct. And one of those behaviors is, SHOCKER, science. That is one of the reasons that the notion that science is a religion is so uncomfortable to a lot of people.

Quote :

"none of which a practical person would define as religions including government."

and, again, you prove my point. You are trying to define what is rational or practical, which, frankly, is in the realm of religion. 500 years ago, it was "rational" that God existed, for any number of reasons. What is "rational" is entirely relative.

9/20/2008 5:41:00 PM

Quote :

"What do you think the phrase "that's not scientific" means?"

Saying that something isn't science is not the same as calling it blashphemous/a sin against god/whatever.

For example, if someone mentioned Buddah, and I said "That's not Christianity", I would be correct, but I also would not be denying their right to believe Buddhism. This is essentially what science does on issues raised by Christian fundamentalists (granted, there are some hardcore atheists out there who will vehemently claim that religion is the bane of human existence, but they do not make up the scientific community at large).

However, if I responded with something like "That's heathenism, and people shouldn't believe it", I would be denying their system of beliefs. This is essentially the way in which fundamentalist/literalist Christians respond to such scientific ideas as evolution and the age of the world.

Religion is calling science wrong. Science is just doing what it is intended to do.

9/20/2008 5:50:53 PM

I don't know what else to say. By your definition, the "state" is inherently religious because it has to follow a "set of tenets and practices." So the first admendment kind of caves in on itself by saying that the "state" can't establish itself. Reductio ad absurdum... the founding fathers were writing meaningless drivel or that's not at all what they meant by a "religion"

9/20/2008 5:58:39 PM

Quote :

"You are trying to define what is rational or practical, which, frankly, is in the realm of religion."

So, besides blatant and irrational stupidity, what by your definition is NOT religion?

9/20/2008 6:10:12 PM

Quote :

"Saying that something isn't science is not the same as calling it blashphemous/a sin against god/whatever."

ummm, yeah it is. Saying something isn't "scientific" is, in essence, calling it scientific blasphemy. sorry, you lose. Saying something isn't "scientific" is almost equivalent to saying it is "wrong" today. If I said the earth is 10,000 years old, you would come back and say that wasn't scientifically valid, ie, it is wrong.

Quote :

"I don't know what else to say. By your definition, the "state" is inherently religious because it has to follow a "set of tenets and practices." So the first admendment kind of caves in on itself by saying that the "state" can't establish itself. Reductio ad absurdum... the founding fathers were writing meaningless drivel or that's not at all what they meant by a "religion""

I agree. There is a level of absurdity there that I think we need to come to grips with. That is one of the reasons that I push this point so hard, because we do need to figure out, one way or another, how to deal with that. And, btw, the "state" can discuss itself without promoting its own agenda one way or the other. However, I think we must accept that science fits the definition of a religion far better than the "state" in any case.

^ I think you'd be hard pressed to say that math or history are religions.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2008 6:14:54 PM

^I just spoon-fed the difference directly to you... If you can't even see that there's no point in arguing it.

Denying that something fits into your own sphere of beliefs is NOT the same as denying that it should be believed at all.


Also, using YOUR flawed definition, it would be very easy to define any school subject as a religion.

Using an actual definition of religion, I would be very hard-pressed to do so. Using the all-encompassing definition that you have provided me... it's essentially a one-step proof, at least for math. For history it's about two.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 6:19:20 PM

Quote :

"I just spoon-fed the difference directly to you... If you can't even see that there's no point in arguing it."

again, you don't get it. It's not the literal use of the words that matter. it's how they are used in this case that matter. People who say "that's not scientific" are saying it in the same way that someone says "Buddhism is heathenism". Someone saying "That's not Christian" isn't usually saying it in a manner of classification. They are assigning a measure of value or correctness to it as well.

Quote :

"Also, using YOUR flawed definition, it would be very easy to define any school subject as a religion. "

how is my definition "flawed" when it is, frankly, the very definition given by other sources?


tell me, how does math make observations or claims about the cosmos or human nature? How does history, at its core, do that? Yes, historians may make a moral statement one way or the other, but the core of history, recanting the past, certainly does not do so.

9/20/2008 6:25:29 PM

yes but historians make claims about reality as does math

you specifically emphasized the "often", so I don't think they would necesarily need to address the cosmos or human nature (although they can be used to do both)

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 6:33:31 PM

Quote :

"People who say "that's not scientific" are saying it in the same way that someone says "Buddhism is heathenism"."

Assumptions sure are fun, aren't they? Back up your claim that these things are more than literal, don't just tell me "People say THIS but THAT is what they really say because I said so."

Quote :

"how does math make observations or claims about the cosmos or human nature?"

You yourself said that a religion need not do this.

Quote :

"to peg religion as depending on something supernatural, is, well, false."

Given the following:

Quote :

"You are trying to define what is rational or practical, which, frankly, is in the realm of religion"

I need only say that Math attempts to provide a rational and practical means of defining certain aspects of human existence and the universe in general (i.e., all that is mathematical in nature). In doing so it also serves as a foundation of science as a fundamental means of conducting a great many scientific studies.

I need only say that History attempts to provide rational and practical direction for the future by studying the successes and failures of rational and irrational actions in the past.

EDIT: Let's go even farther!

Economics is obviously a religion because it attempts to describe and define the most rational and practical actions that can be taken by consumers and providers.

Engineering is a religion because it attempts to describe and define the most rational and practical actions that can be taken in such tasks as, say, construction of structures or creation of robotics.

Music/Art/Photography are religions because they attempt to describe the most rational and practical means of understanding and creating Music/Art/Photography which conveys such emotions or ideas as its creator envisions.

English/Literature/Journalism are religions because they attempt to provide the most rational and practical means of using language to communicate both concrete and abstract ideas to an audience.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 6:36:37 PM

Quote :

"I need only say that Math attempts to provide a rational and practical means of defining certain aspects of human existence and the universe in general (i.e., all that is mathematical in nature)."

nope. the application of mathematics to nature would be the religious part of it.

Quote :

"I need only say that History attempts to provide rational and practical direction for the future by studying the successes and failures of rational and irrational actions in the past. "

again, that would be an application of history. History, at its core, is saying what happened in the past. you lose.

Quote :

"Economics is obviously a religion because it attempts to describe and define the most rational and practical actions that can be taken by consumers and providers. Engineering is a religion because it attempts to describe and define the most rational and practical actions that can be taken in such tasks as, say, construction of structures or creation of robotics. "

wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

Quote :

"Music/Art/Photography are religions because they attempt to describe the most rational and practical means of understanding and creating Music/Art/Photography which conveys such emotions or ideas as its creator envisions."

I would disagree. If you are talking about the process of creating art/music, it's hard to suggest there is any rational way to do it one way or the other. The study or application of music, maybe. But that's not what you are talking about.

Quote :

"English/Literature/Journalism are religions because they attempt to provide the most rational and practical means of using language to communicate both concrete and abstract ideas to an audience."

not sure about that. I'd have to mull it over

9/20/2008 6:59:06 PM

.

Quote :

"History, at its core, is saying what happened in the past."

So, I can't mention the fundamental intent of history? Seems like that would kind of be included in the "core" of the subject.


Regardless of any arguable points, I've proven your definition flawed by proving that your definition considers Engineering and Economics to be religion. An accurate or traditional (or non-flawed) definition of religion would be one that encompasses things which are universally recognized as religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism... arguably, Atheism) while excluding that which is clearly not a religion by most standards set by society (Economics, Engineering, ect).

Furthermore, an argument which hinges upon an atypical definition of a commonly recognized term (i.e., your argument) is something that strikes me as a logical fallacy.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 7:09:17 PM

no, showing that something else is a religion doesn't "prove my point wrong." It would only further my assertion that a religion need not be supernatural.

Quote :

"while excluding that which is clearly not a religion by most standards set by society"

I would argue that one of the reasons we don't consider those things religions as a society is because it is uncomfortable to do so. That is, in essence, cognitive dissonance. And I am absolutely for addressing that dissonance. We don't want to accept that we might believe in some hocus pocus shit. So we will skew the definition of hocus pocus away from what we believe.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

9/20/2008 7:10:58 PM

Wow, I had a ton of stuff typed in response to your post and thanks to an inopportune pressing of the "back" button, it's all gone now. So here's for the more brief version. I'm skipping some steps in reasoning with his explanation, but rest assured that I did reason through them.

In summary, I agree with you the last part of your post when the problem is approached from a context-free philosophical standpoint. Except that I would not phrase it as "science actually is a religion", I would phrase it as "religion is an attempted science". I used some diagrams too...

The way society sees it:
. . . . / Ideas \
Religion . . . Science

A more accurate philosophical view:
. . . . . . . / Attempted Science \
Correct Science . . . . . Incorrect Science (pseudoscience)

Pseudoscience being, here, any aspects of fact-based science which have been proven to be incorrect, or such "religious" ancient sciences such as Alchemy and Astrology. Modern major religions also fall under this banner of pseudoscience in the event that commonly-accepted fact-based science ("Correct" Science) discovers something in contradiction with said religious beliefs... until/unless that fact-based science is proven to also be incorrect by future scientific discoveries.

What the school-teachings debate really boils down to in this regard is what filter we use to determine what our children learn. As a Libertarian, I believe that the simplest solution to this would be to provide parents and children with a choice of what they learn... provide alternative schools or alternative classes which teach different parts of the "Attempted Science" tree... allow children to enroll in a "Correct Science-only" class, or a class that teaches both... There could also be a class that teaches only the pseudoscience side of the tree, but in the interests of improving educational standards, it shouldn't be able to count as an alternative to 10th-grade biology.

Speaking of standards, who's to determine what is "Correct Science"? To me, the obvious answer would be modern scientists, since that is who society at large trusts with conducting scientific experiments (to some degree this is why I was approaching the debate earlier from the "beliefs of society" standpoint). Since the "Correct Science" side is continuously changing and often losing old ideas and theories to the "Incorrect Science" side to be replaced by newer ones, it seems that it would make the most sense to consider "Correct Science" to be that which is currently believed and accepted by experts within the modern scientific community. Though certain parts of "Correct Science" may eventually be shown to be invalid, it would be little more than blind guesswork trying to determine what exactly will eventually be "disproven".


On a personal level, I'd like to see my kids learning facts... or at least what are our best attempts at facts given society's level of scientific advancement. If they/I want religion, there's always church.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 8:14:52 PM

^ What browser are you using? Safari and I'm pretty sure Firefox all retain text boxes while moving back/forth.

9/20/2008 8:16:20 PM

Google Chrome, and I was actually surprised that it didn't retain what I had said... When I hit the back button on my mouse it sent me to the two or three sentences I'd typed before moving the mini-thread-overview window to page 3... and then when I hit forward all that was there were those couple of sentences.

On further examination, the mini-thread feature below the posting box seems to do some wonky stuff to Chrome's back/forward feature. Maybe it's just the mess of code that is T-dub, maybe it's just a browser flaw, probably it's both.

[Edited on September 20, 2008 at 8:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/20/2008 8:20:40 PM

Quote :

"Except that I would not phrase it as "science actually is a religion", I would phrase it as "religion is an attempted science"."

Yeah, I can see it both ways in that respect. There is something to be said for the fact that religions (the ones we can agree on) have historically tried to explain things like creation, reality, and the things that happen around us, and the fact that science does this very same thing. It can't be argued that science hasn't supplanted one of the major roles of organized religion in that respect, so penis-envy on the part of organized religion is absolutely understandable.

Likewise, I think there is a tendency for us to look down on religion today in that respect, especially when it comes to comparing organized religion and science, and that is where I think the cognitive dissonance comes in to play, as well as why there would be so much anger at even beginning to suggest similarities between the two. wow, what a run-on sentence.

Moreover, I'd say that your point about "Correct Science" is really what makes the difference between the examples the other guy pointed out earlier and science and religion, namely the notion that there is something correct there. that's a huge leap.

but, I'm tired, and I just deleted a bunch of ramblings from this post. glad to see that at least someone on here is actually willing to look beyond the blinders of a "religion" and discuss something without the anger that typically arises when questioning one's strongly-held beliefs.

9/21/2008 12:16:02 AM

Quote :

"as well as why there would be so much anger at even beginning to suggest similarities between the two. wow, what a run-on sentence."

There are similarities between child rapists and Conservatives too, that doesn't mean its meaningful to use this comparison in determining policies.

9/21/2008 12:35:10 AM

you make me so wet


now to read what u said
hmmm. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that child rapists and Republicans are anywhere remotely in the same categorie, aside from them both being humans.

[Edited on September 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ]

9/21/2008 12:36:05 AM

Quote :

"I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that child rapists and Republicans are anywhere remotely in the same categorie, aside from them both being humans."

Likewise, science and religion aren't really in the same category, aside from both of them being things people believe or disbelieve. Their implementations, mechanisms, and pretty much everything else about them are pretty drastically different.

9/21/2008 12:42:58 AM

nope. there is much more in common between science and religion, and that is precisely why one is a member of the other.

9/21/2008 12:46:19 AM

I feel, then, it's safe that I presume you're a child rapist.

edit:

reading back over the thread, I think this may be the point of disagreement:

Quote :

"to peg religion as depending on something supernatural"

All sources i've read, and probably most sources in general, in fact define religion as being a belief in something "supernatural." What then is religion, if not this?

okay I found it:

Quote :

" You'll note that my definition of religion has always been "a system of beliefs and a methodology for following those beliefs.""

Ha! this is such a laughably broad definition, I think I was more apt with my child rapist/Conservative comparison than I initially realized.

[Edited on September 21, 2008 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ]

9/21/2008 12:55:49 AM

I feel the need to repost this again for the benefit of moron... who seems to be acting uncharacteristically stubborn, blunt, and ig'nant. Usually I can respect his posts.





The fact is that even though religion and science approach issues with a different procedure/perspective... faith-based vs fact-based (which, really, is the ONLY difference between the two). The two of them essentially cover the same subject material, which is the whole cause of these contradictions and controversies. Even though religion may not claim itself to be a science (unlike Alchemy and the like), certain areas of religion can and do come into direct contest with science. Even the areas of religion that are currently NOT contending with science could conceivably do so in the future as science advances... that which is now considered 'supernatural' may one day enter the realm of the discoverable.

The only part of religious doctrine that really doesn't fall into the realm of science are such verses as "[whoever] thus did speak upon the [whatever], saying '[something]' ", because this is simply an anecdotal recounting of events... and even phrases such as that could conceivably come into contest with historical evidence. Which... I suppose would actually be conflicting with the science of archaeology/anthropology. So strike that bit about anecdotal stories also not conflicting with science. Pretty much everything that can be said in a religion can also potentially be at odds with a science of some sort or another.

You're right that they're not the exact same thing, but they both seek to occupy the same space of human thought.


EDIT: I'd also like to elaborate on that one thing...

Quote :

"that which is now considered 'supernatural' may one day enter the realm of the discoverable."

Phrenology is the PERFECT example of this. Back when that bullshit was popular, people would have thought that the inner-workings of the human mind would fall well within bounds of the 'supernatural', so despite the lack of actual facts, people took phrenology as truth based upon faith. Nowadays we know that there exists at least some form of biological explanation for human thought and behavior, even if Neurology/Psychology haven't found that particular biological cause yet.

[Edited on September 21, 2008 at 1:17 AM. Reason : 'supernatural' explanation]

9/21/2008 1:10:15 AM

Quote :

"Yes, historians may make a moral statement one way or the other, but the core of history, recanting the past, certainly does not do so."

The core of science is recanting the present, in a way. The core of science is merely making observations and noting those observations. Science doesn't set out to prove religion wrong. Most scientists don't care that much about religion. Certain observations, when they have mathematics applied to them, may imply something that a religion person doesn't like, but that has more to do with the nature of that religion, than the science.

If I were to say "hey the Earth moves around the sun." This is an observation, and nothing more. The fact that it conflicts with a certain interpretation of a religion doesn't mean in a practical way that they are in the "same realm." That doesn't mean the scientist is trying to "prove religion wrong." It's just an observation. In fact, claiming the sun revolves around the earth is an observation as well (a "hypothesis" if you will), but then asserting that this is because God created the Earth as the most precious celestial object is a religious belief.

If the preceding scientist then said "so since the sun DOESN'T move around the Earth, what does that mean for your religion" is a logical question that logically follows from the religious person's belief. A religious person would interpret this as an attack, when it's just the next logical question from their own system. If you questioned a scientist in the same way, they would not perceive it as an attack.

Quote :

"You're right that they're not the exact same thing, but they both seek to occupy the same space of human thought."

They don't "seek" to occupy the same space of human thought. Religion may "seek" to occupy the same space as science, but science has no such desire.

Quote :

" faith-based vs fact-based (which, really, is the ONLY difference between the two)."

I don't mean to sound too repetitive, but that's like saying the ONLY difference between a conservative and a child rapist, is that one rapes children.

Quote :

"The two of them essentially cover the same subject material, which is the whole cause of these contradictions and controversies. Even though religion may not claim itself to be a science (unlike Alchemy and the like), certain areas of religion can and do come into direct contest with science. Even the areas of religion that are currently NOT contending with science could conceivably do so in the future as science advances... that which is now considered 'supernatural' may one day enter the realm of the discoverable."

This is all technically accurate, but I don't see how it makes science a religion, for the most commonly used definition of religion. You can use an overly-broad-as-to-be-useless definition, but why would you in any honest context?

9/21/2008 1:29:04 AM

Quote :

"Religion may "seek" to occupy the same space as science, but science has no such desire."

I'm not referring them to one another with that statement. I'm referring them to that which they attempt to explain...

Analogy: If you and a stranger see one empty seat when you get on a bus, and you both would like to sit down, then you both seek to occupy the same space. This does not imply that he seeks to occupy your space, or vice versa. If both of you want that seat, but only one of you can end up sitting in it, a conflict exists.

Quote :

"This is all technically accurate, but I don't see how it makes science a religion, for the most commonly used definition of religion. You can use an overly-broad-as-to-be-useless definition, but why would you in any honest context?"

Again, it doesn't make science a religion, it makes religion an attempted science.

Anyway, that "honest context" is normally called "philosophy", and that broad definition is used because there is no other singular rule or filter that can be used to sweepingly distinguish all science from all pseudoscience or all pseudoscience from all religion or all science from all religion, which implies that such a distinction does not exist... the only way to tell "Correct Science" from "Incorrect Science" (see diagram above) is that one is factual and the other is not. And with that as the only distinguishing factor, it is obvious that the two do, in fact, contradict.


EDIT: Also, reading more carefully, you're actually right that using the most commonly-used definition of religion does not present such a conflict between the two. However, the most commonly-used definition of religion is totally incorrect from the standpoint of philosophy, which is the standpoint from which we are currently discussing this issue. For more on the "traditional/societal definition of religion" argument, see my posts prior to when I started drawing diagrams.

[Edited on September 21, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2008 1:44:19 AM

Quote :

"Again, it doesn't make science a religion, it makes religion an attempted science. "

I don't buy this, because in the decades that i've been going to church and hanging around religious people, their goals are never to investigate the nature of their claims, or even make observations about the world around them (how science is defined). Their goals are to assert the world is one way, based on a their interpretation of a single doctrine. So I don't see how, in their implementations, you can say religion is an "attempted science." I would say religion disingenuously attempts to make people THINK it's a science.

Quote :

"there is no other singular rule or filter that can be used to sweepingly distinguish all science from all pseudoscience or all pseudoscience from all religion or all science from all religion"

This is primarily because language (our language at least) is not inherently this specific. There are agreed upon definitions of all those words though than you can use to filter each from the other.

Quote :

" the only way to tell "Correct Science" from "Incorrect Science" (see diagram above) is that one is factual and the other is not. "

The word "factual" itself only has a fuzzy meaning, but in any case, being factual/not-factual is a pretty drastic difference (see: Child rapist/conservative).

9/21/2008 1:55:18 AM