The Boy on Top
2 is the class of all couples (Russell).
Religion is the class of all beliefs in a god and/or gods(Nick).
If that's true, science, surely, isn't a religion, merely a search for laws and logics.
I think I can only respond with a question. What is the search for laws and logic if not a search for the meaning of life or god? TB
I would say the major fundamental difference between the two is that with Religion there is a tacit acceptance of the 'belief', which I guess you could call 'faith'.
With Science, we are constantly challenging the 'beliefs' in search of a definitive 'truth' (which will potentially never be reached, but the quest goes on regardless).
If you're looking for a site which has an athiests take on Religion, and many attempts to apply scientific thinking to it in an amusing way, then try this guy: http://skorohnomis.blogspot.com/
There is clearly tacit acceptance of beliefs in science, else what are axioms? If you think those in the realm of Religion never challenge belief you've never been in a room full of Theologians! Me dear old dad was one, and they are always, always arguing about the fundamentals of Christianity.
I'm actually not an athiest. I'm just provoking thought that Science is somehow different. It isn't, its just much more developed and with a method at its core. TB
Hmm. My head is all fuzzled with sickness, but I'd just like to say, I'd rather be a member of the Church of Science, where dissent is welcome, even encouraged, rather than any Church of Religion, which is based on the sense that one subgroup is better/worthier/holier than any other and dissent is actively discouraged.
If you enjoy podcasts, may I suggest last week's episode of This American Life (www.thislife.org/), titled Heretic. About a popular minister who stopped believing in hell. And what that did to his ministry.
I do agree with you on religious membership, though there are a few of the godly persuasion who enjoy a bit of disent. Not a lot, but a few. I shall check that podcast out. TB
If science could tell me the reason for my existence then I'd be more inclined to be less sceptical about what science has 'proved'
I never stop questioning...be it science or 'religion'.
I don't know that science will ever get that far, at least not in our lifetimes. Then again, I somewhat prefer that being unknowable. TB
You're not an atheist? Good heavens. I might well write you a long reply to this, but not now owing to paclitaxel. Meanwhile, are you familiar with Hume's views on inductive method? Also, you might find thisinteresting (the blog in general, but also the comment I left on the most recent post).
Sorry, "good heavens" sounds rude doesn't it. Not intended that way at all.
I take your point that any argument is based on axioms and that axioms are are a matter of belief, if only in the rather everyday sense word that philosophers use the word ("I believe the bus will come along in a moment"). But those belief can themselves be subject t revision in the light of further evidence.
Not convinced about the definition of religion, though. I can't open the wikipedia page because my broadband is temporarily buggered, but I think I need something about non-naturalistic explanations in my definition. Let's resort to books: Chambers Dictionary: "belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers".
Some of the fundamental axioms, though examined in their oposite (ie set theory where 1+1 /= 2) are essentially not subject to revision. Even if you take the Chambers Dictionary, can that definition not be applied to science? What is science if not an a recognition or awakened sence of an unseen power that we are trying to understand through a logical and deductive process? TB
The word "controlling" to me suggests a personal god (ie one who takes a interest in individual human affairs, whether or not he intervenes; as in mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism). Also, a scientific theory is always provisional in that, however well-supported it is at the moment, it could be superseded in the light of new evidence. Much of what people normally call religion is not like this; it is meant to be absolutely true and continuing to believe even if the facts seem to suggest otherwise is considered to be a virtue. (I know in practice scientists sometimes seem to have a similar faith commitment to their pet theory, but it is not of course how science is supposed to be done, and the overall community of scientists will not take a lot of notice of them).
I guess we are just arguing about the use of words here. One could broaden the term "religion" to cover attempts to understand the world which involve neither a personal god nor a faith commitment to a particular solution, but it means that if you want to say "science is a religion", you have to explain what YOU intend by the word "reilgion" which seems to me significantly different to what Chambers means, let alone what the man on the Clapham omnibus means.
Trying to avoid a descent into semantics, the point I was trying to put across was the Science does rely on an element of faith and is therefore not infalable. I was certainly trying to present a definition of "religion" to back up that point. Despite that, I do not think that definition is grossly different from the Chambers one. TB
I completely agree with you. People are way to apt to take whatever a scientist tells them as an ultimate truth. Science is full of mistakes, science is great, I love it, but I'm truely annoyed by people who can't seem to think for themselves..
Thank you, like anything Science needs questions and not believed with unwavering faith. We tread on dangerous ground when Scientists become the new priests. TB
Commenting by HaloScan
