The things they do in the name of religion

[brgnorway]

Myself I am an atheist! However:
I'm a bit tired of people a dogmatically preaching about science over religion. The points made are always consisting of arguments embedded in a "rational scientific way" - and many of you fall for it without thinking criticaly about what science really is!
In a historic perspective science have largely surpased religion as an explanatory ideology over religion in our western society. People easily accept scientific explanations and the way they do it resembles early naive positivism. Yet they don't know what science really is! Is science truth? Is science a pattern of truth waiting to be uncovered? Is it universal or is it relative in any way?
The answer is a huge NO! Science is not truth and it can never be! Science is only a process which establishes paradigms - and the nature of science is that paradigms are paradigms only as long as they are not "falsified" or proven unguilty by a new paradigm. So science is not true, it's not a static "something" - but relative and dynamic. Still, some people believe in it like it's the only rational thing to do - even if science fails to give us "all the answers" .
To those of you preaching the final truth of science - maybe you should go and read up on Paul Feyerabend and really understand that science is not only problematic because of failing correlations between "the real world" and the percepted or represented, but please do also discover that science is also all about politicoeconomy and the effects of the lack of resources. Paul Feyerabend is a good starting point.

Give me an example of something that cannot be found out through scientific means that is true or exists.

Yes, science is not an ideology. ***No, there is nothing that exists which cannot be discovered by thinking and experimenting on it in a rational manner.

Any other 'way of knowing' is not as good. ***Period.

Read 'The Devils Chaplain' (Richard Dawkins) to find out why this argument of yours is jibberish.

There is no need for religion.

Quote[/b] ]The funny thing is that when most of us praise the medical science etc. we still crave for alternative treatment rejected by all "sane" medical communities.

ummm. No. ***I certainly don't, and I'll bet denoir, Kuja and the rest of the people here who think somewhat rationally do not.
Alternative medicine does not work. ***If it worked, it'd just be medicine. ***Any treatment that results in people getting better without merely being a placebo (placebos are slightly more effective than nothing at all for some reason) will become medicine. ***

Quote[/b] ]However, in a functionalistic perspective one could very well say that science is our the new black - it has become our religion - yet it doesn't fulfill our needs!

Name a need that involves religion. ***A need that you think I'd have.
That is not what science is for. ***You are demonstrating a very naive miscomprehension of science (or should I say, this guy in your book you quoted that from).
If you have a need, science can help you find the best way to fulfil it. ***It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.

Sorry, but there is no point in discussing with you as you obviously prefer to disregard everything that has happened during and after postmodernistic philosophy.
Maybe you should have lived before the Great War when everything was progress and dandy.
Have a great life and long live positivism!

[shinRaiden]

Pascal posed a little thought something like this: (i'm generalizing)

Quote[/b] ]Suppose you did good all your life because you believed in the judgements of God. What have you actually lost if when you die you discover that there actually is no God?

On the other hand, suppose that you lived life up assuming that there is no God, and as soon as you die you discover the paddywagon for your ride to perdition?

I would also assume that the accepted humane approach to dealing with the presumed insane would be to help them and care for them, rather than beat them with the rod of presumed intellectual superiority. Then again, as your choice of a moral system is inherently self-centered, survival of the fittest is exclusive of peers. I prefer the company of peers in so-called ignorance than the inherent mono-pedestal of self-worshiping aggrandizment.

Science is the discovery of knowledge via logical and physical tools as applied by the human intellect, iirc. Therefore is not your understanding of the ultimate power and enlightenment your ownself, in your current form?

But wait... what if you learn something new tomorrow? Then you tomorrow is superior to you today. But as tomorrow does not yet exist to science and thus not evaluatable, your own idol is of an unknowable God.

[Albert Schweitzer]

If an alien would arrive on earth they would put him into a centre for mentaly disabled, and they would probably do the same with jesus II. All I got to say!

[shinRaiden]

Having counted 10 groups of 10, I personally 'know' that (10 x 10) = 100. Given the logic of that equation (=tool) I 'believe' that (17 x 10 x 10) = 1700, although I have not counted personally to 1700.

Science does not declare the 'truth' that 10 x 10 = 100, science gives me the tool to discover for myself that using the science-defined tool of equations, I can learn independent 'truths'.

[brgnorway]

Quote[/b] ]Science does not declare the 'truth' that 10 x 10 = 100, science gives me the tool to discover for myself that using the science-defined tool of equations, I can learn independent 'truths'.

I agree - but the point is that embedded in science is the principle of paradigm. Basically, if tomorrow brings you a new paradigm proving the current/todays to be false, then 10 x 10 might not be 100 but 1700.
The point is that science cannot fulfill all our needs for explanation - on all levels. Also, my point is that science takes on a form as a cognitive "folk model" (ref Keesing) that serves as an explanatory ideology - not in a way that people "pray" to science, but on a purely explanatory basis. This used to be a privilige of religion in our society before Emmanuel Kant said man was his own measurement and not Gods.

All in all cooks down to science's lack of ability to explain "why" - but only "how" .

[denoir]

Before embarking on a discussion of religion vs. science, we need to make some definitions. As there is quite a bit to write. I'll separate it in sevral parts and we can discuss it step by step. This is a complex subject due to the lack of general definitions so I think the best thing to do is to see that we are talking about the same thing before we start throwing tomatoes at each other

Idea for layout: 1. What is science, 2. What is religion, 3. Differences between science and religion, 4. God?


Part 1: What is science?

Let's for the sake of simplicity limit ourselves to the natural sciences. The social sciences have a completely different rules which are nowhere as general as the rules of natural science. We can look at physics here.

The goal of physics is to build accurate models of the nature that can be used for things as function approximation, classification, time series prediction and clustering. Natural sciences are practical and their methodology reflects that. With physics, you build models so that you can predict nature in a manner that gives the best numerical accuracy. These models have boundaries and limitations which you define. Within these limits there is a requirement that the proposed theory is conflict free. Is that the same thing as saying that it is true? Well, it's not quite as simple as that as real world measurements cannot ever be 100% precise (thank you quantum mechanics) as there are no non-intrusive ways of measuring something. When you look at an object, you're not actually seeing it, but the light getting reflected of it. If that object is small enough then the light will start changing the object itself. Anyway, for scientific truth, it can by my book be defined as: If the theory produces a model whose predictions have a defined level of numerical accuracy within defined limits relative repeatable empirical measurements then the theory is true within the defined limits and accuracy.

Let's take a practical example. Everybody with an elementary education knows Ohm's law:

U = R*I

voltage = resistance * current

Is this correct? Is it true? If you ask that, then I'll have to ask: within which limits? It is true that Ohm's law gives good results when the current I is low and when R is a linear resistance. In real world however if you put a large current through the resistor, you'll burn it and no more current will go through it. If you look at the resistance of a diode or some other non-linear element, you'll see that Ohm's law is not at all correct. Does that mean that Ohm's law is wrong? Not at all. It is right within the defined set of limits.

On the other hand, if you took a linear resistor and you kept the current small and respected all the limits and accuracy definitions and managed to get results that contradicted Ohm's law, then it would mean (assuming that all measurements were correctly made) that Ohm's law is false.

Which brings me to the second point about science. It is dynamic. There is no such thing as the final absolute model. There are theories that get replaced by better theories over time. Science does not look for absolute truth. It looks for accurate models of nature. It looks for practical models of nature. It even often prefers practicallity than accuracy. For instance we're still using Newton's laws of physics although the theory of relativity found that they were incomplete. Why? Because in the normal world, Newton's laws are still quite accurate. Unless you have objects moving at extreme speeds the theory of relativity and Newton's laws will give you the same results while Newton's laws are easier to handle both numerically and conceptually. If you start calculating stuff that goes very fast, then you'll use the theory of relativity instead, because it gives much better accuracy. On theory has been replaced by another because the second one outperforms the first one.

To conclude: A scientific theory is valid only within certain limits, and can be replaced by a better theory any time. Science does not look for some absolute truth but builds practical models for predicting the nature as accurately as possible.

These things are actually not limitations for science; on the contrary, it's main strength lies in exactly those points. And I'll try to demonstrate it in a later text.

[brgnorway]

Good post Denoir!

Quote[/b] ]Which brings me to the second point about science. It is dynamic. There is no such thing as the final absolute model. There are theories that get replaced by better theories over time...........To conclude: A scientific theory is valid only within certain limits, and can be replaced by a better theory any time.

This was a point I made above. A set of theories placed within a discourse are called paradigms. They can never be static and if they were they would be negations of science. Another point is that science is limited by various factors such as politics (within scientific communities) , economic factors and last but not least the unescapable human factor: perception and interpretation.

The single and largest problem with a positivistic scientifical approach is that the human being want's to gain knowledge that are unaccesable with "scientific tools" .

[shinRaiden]

I'll take a stab at religion here.

Religion is a philosophical study primarily focusing on the role and purpose of the self. It is a system, a framework of filters and tools of evaluation, like scientific equations, that is used to process and evaluate the whole nature of the self and it's relationship to presumed 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical' content, not presently measurable by reactive scientific processes.

While religion touches on general public topics such as the development of the earth and space and social history, it generally focuses more on the 'why', rather than the 'how'. In fact, it often says that the 'how' is unattainable, or irrelevant.

One of the core parts of religion is a supreme enlightened being, that is interested in the 'benefit' of humanity. Communication and relation between the 'self' and this 'God' is primarily personal and private.

Religion also uses as a foundational principal individual liberty. While initially that may seem opposite of Islamic "submission" and eastern caste systems, remember that theocratical sharia and forced caste compliance is the societal implementation, not the individual belief. I believe that A and B are wrong, but that is my choice, not a statement forced upon me.

For example, I know an practicing Islamic professor who feels that the Mormon leader is his prophet for today, as Mohammed was for the start of Islam. He is choosing to discover and express his self, using a framework of thought and logical evaluation built personally from various sources, for him to relate to and understand the world around him, and the 'best' path of personal development to guide his family on.

As religion covers two primary sections, philosophical advancement and evaluation of the world around us, and the study of 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical' relationships and development, should we try to fork() the discussion there, or do you have some ideas how we can continue a unified progression?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I agree - but the point is that embedded in science is the principle of paradigm. Basically, if tomorrow brings you a new paradigm proving the current/todays to be false, then 10 x 10 might not be 100 but 1700.

If you cannot answer my earlier questions, why are you still posting?

And you are wrong, by the way.
10x 10 (in base 10) will always be 100, no matter what happens. The sun will never change its state and start orbiting the earth.

Quote[/b] ]
The point is that science cannot fulfill all our needs for explanation - on all levels. Also, my point is that science takes on a form as a cognitive "folk model" (ref Keesing) that serves as an explanatory ideology - not in a way that people "pray" to science, but on a purely explanatory basis. This used to be a privilige of religion in our society before Emmanuel Kant said man was his own measurement and not Gods.

All in all cooks down to science's lack of ability to explain "why" - but only "how" .

Blah blah blah. Once again.

Quote[/b] ]Give me an example of something that cannot be found out through scientific means that is true or exists

Quote[/b] ]Name a need that involves religion. A need that you think I'd have.
That is not what science is for. You are demonstrating a very naive miscomprehension of science (or should I say, this guy in your book you quoted that from).
If you have a need, science can help you find the best way to fulfil it. It is not a tool for fulfilling needs, though - its just the best way to find things out.

If you cannot answer these questions, just admit it.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Pascal posed a little thought something like this: (i'm generalizing)

Quote[/b] ]Suppose you did good all your life because you believed in the judgements of God. What have you actually lost if when you die you discover that there actually is no God?

On the other hand, suppose that you lived life up assuming that there is no God, and as soon as you die you discover the paddywagon for your ride to perdition?

I would also assume that the accepted humane approach to dealing with the presumed insane would be to help them and care for them, rather than beat them with the rod of presumed intellectual superiority. Then again, as your choice of a moral system is inherently self-centered, survival of the fittest is exclusive of peers. I prefer the company of peers in so-called ignorance than the inherent mono-pedestal of self-worshiping aggrandizment.

Science is the discovery of knowledge via logical and physical tools as applied by the human intellect, iirc. Therefore is not your understanding of the ultimate power and enlightenment your ownself, in your current form?

But wait... what if you learn something new tomorrow? Then you tomorrow is superior to you today. But as tomorrow does not yet exist to science and thus not evaluatable, your own idol is of an unknowable God.

No wonder I get annoyed when people post things like pascals bloody wager.

Can there be a more refuted piece of 'reasoning'? I don't think so.

There are thousands of pages on the net and thousands of passages in books shooting this down in flames.
If anyone wants (and is unable to use google :P ) I shall post the many arguments against it, but I think its too old and too often beaten to bother.
This wager also beats it:
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."


And spare us the pseudo intellectual ramblings about enlightenment and science as god. Its simply not true that anyone views science as a religion.