Separation of Science and State

[gaelic cowboy]

-_- if you dont read what i write than there is no point in exchanging words.

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

[HoreTore]

Uhm....

The hypothetical-deductive method has been around since man first started using tools... And its also the reason why man learned to use tools...

[Tellos Athenaios]

There's no appreciable difference in reasoning between either method. Both require some kind of inherent logical consistency, both require a simple “law” of causality that makes QED after a proof a logical consistent statement, both extensively use empirical evidence as well as inductive and deductive logic and both are specifically designed to explain the empirical evidence. The difference is in the predictions that they make. Science purely limits itself to reasoning about empirical evidence, i.e. this bridge design will support that much weight. Religion however goes two or three steps further and offers damnation and salvation based on essentially the equivalent of nothing but pure extrapolation of previous theories. So that's theory a assuming theory b assuming theory c explaining some empirical evidence. Example:

After praying to $deity some person is cured. Religion first theorises that praying to $deity will work for curing, then goes on to theorise the existence of $deity and finally theorises that $deity has the “power”/“ability” to cure. After that we take a leap of faith (litteraly) and jump to the concluding theory that $deity may be able to grant you an after life (i.e. the ultimate cure, the cure of death...).

Arguing for a separation of “science” and “state” is useless, since it effectively asks for a separation of “reasoning” and state. Arguing for separation of “religion” and “state” is not quite so useless because all it does is restrict us to empirical evidence.

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

The exception is during times of war, but one only has to look at conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries to see that is not a facet of religion, but of human nature.

Rhy's point, I believe, is that 300 years ago Science would have been castigated and restricted for dissagreeing with "obvious" religious truths, while today the opposite is happening.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

Coincidentally, explicit freedom of religion provisions didn't emerge until that started happening, either. You got a lot of misery for having the pope interfere with appointing bishops in Germany, you got really rather gruesome wars for having the popes play out France and Spain against each other in Northern Italy; but you got Freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State when the USA was founded. And the secularism is simply borne out of the recognition that where religion is allowed to dictate state policy or where a state is allowed to dictate religious convictions you get a Civil War.

[Meneldil]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.
Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier. And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

[The Stranger]

nothing you say is in conflict with what he has said. the last thing you say though has a point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Meneldil;2053265869]Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.

Well, for starters, Jews were ostracised throughout the Imperial period for being "atheists" as were Christians. You are correct that there was inter-religious violence in the Late-Empire, but the period was generally violent and suffering from breakdown of infastructure, religion may have been the lighting spark for some violent episodes but it was not the fuel.

Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier.

Would you like me to cover some of the things those Pagans were doing to Christian missionaries at the time. Did you know that the boast of the English in the Medieval period was that they were the only people who hadn't killed the monks sent to convert them.

And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

I've read some of the transcripts of trial from the period, and they generally consisted of the Bishop saying, "well look, really..." and then giving a sermon to the heretics. Not a set of thumb screws or a red-hot poker in sight.

Religions "promote" violence? No. Religious people can sometimes be intollerant and resort to violence? Yes

Your anti-religious revolution was far more bloody than our religiously motivated one, as evidenced by the fact that our society was recovered within a generation.

The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

Oh rubbish. The whole "Christianity and Islam locked in a brutal struggle" is a myth perpetrated by historians from the Renaissance onwards, Edward Gibbon probably deserves a fair share of the blame, but not him alone. Try reading some of the contemporary opinions of Saladin.

Wiki is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

This is a fair point, but the criticism extends to atheism, as is seen in the "New Atheists" today, some of whom are less palitable than the Cathars.

[The Stranger]

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say



This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

your analogy is wrong.

technology: this is how you build a house, stone by stone.
science: mortar consists of this and that and will dry at this min temp and this max temp because (and the important part is the BECAUSE, it only really starts after the because) we have tested this in 1000 occasions and it has been retested by 10.000 other scientists and all got the same result.
belief/faith/metaphisics/religion/whateveryouwanttocallit: mortar (consists of this and that and) will dry (at this min temp and that max temp) because god wants it so. [per example]

im not saying that the ancient masons didnt know how to build a house, neither am i saying that they didnt know how to improve from experience. they very well understood what they were doing. they saw lightning flashes and thought it was the gods who showed their fury. now think that lightning comes from electrical discharge. the lightning flash is still the same as it was 100.000 years ago, whichever explanation we give to it. only because those masons gave a different explanation doesnt mean they didnt know what they were doing.

and why would you assume that people then would think less about how a building stood up or similar matters than people now?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That website was the biggest facepalm I have read this month. From the article:

BUT, the same Judeo-Muslim majority can get Pork products BANNED from America if a Jewish scientist proves that eating pork is harmful for health.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's conflating that somehow because the scientist had a viewpoint that coincided with the evidence he turned up that his evidence is suddenly invalidated. Secondly, a single "scientist" does not prove anything! For this Jewish scientist to get pork products banned due to being unhealthy, he needs to have his findings verified by at least 2 or 3 other independent scientists/scientific teams/agencies.

And most importantly, by proving that pork is harmful for health, the scientist has not worked towards getting it banned at all! The scientist shows his findings and these findings are used by politicians who ban and unban things. No decent scientist would get politically entangled with his findings, because his credibility would automatically take a hit because you have to be impartial and objective to be open to findings that go against your hypothesis.

Example: The one guy whose findings indicated that vaccines cause autism (and campaigned to get rid of vaccines) was exposed as a fraud who falsified his work. His credentials have been stripped from him.

[ajaxfetish]

Make faith falsifiable in the same way scientific theory is and then the two will be comparable.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

[ajaxfetish]

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

You're gonna need to explicate the dozen or so logical leaps connecting those two statements for me.

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This:



Is answered by this:



Science measures, but measurement is not the only way of gaining information. In answer to why the Church stands up, it stands because all it's arcs were drawn in alignment and the stone is perfectly balanced, or as near as possible. Medieval architects understood form, but they didn't understand things like tensile strength and loadbearing supports. That's why medieval buildings look so different to modern ones, and personally I prefer them.

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?

They can't force views that have been shown to be false.

[Greyblades]

North Korea does.

[The Stranger]

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

i will have to agree with sasaki here. though perhaps it is arguable that those tools you speak of are the result or an exponent of the scientific method in the sense that its verifies things ultimately by going outside (the mind and logic) and testing and retesting phenomena and then draw conclusions based on those results

[Shibumi]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

Separation of Sense and State - now that is the "in"-words of the religious wacksters!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am still not getting the connection between science and religion here. Are people unaware that these are completely different kinds of concepts? I mean, they are both ideas... but that's like saying an apple is a baseball because they are both round.

Religion = a set of beliefs, usually organized into codes, doctrines, laws, and practices. These beliefs are based in faith, and not on falsifiable data, because a belief cannot be falsified. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, one can still believe. Often times a religion will change, not because of falsification, but because of shifting societal values or cultural norms.

Science = a system of obtaining knowledge through hypothesis, testing, and falsification. That knowledge is then considered as useful, until it is replaced with something which has proven it false or at least questionable. Science as a system has become more formal, and the knowledge we have has changed, but it is just another name for how we learn things and test ideas. How we learn things and test ideas, is a wildly different concept from beliefs we hold which we refuse to test or cannot test.

So, one is like data sitting on your hard drive and the other is a system which adds data to your hard drive and updates obsolete data. Comparing the two without nothing the gigantic differences between them seems like intentional ignorance, and anti-intellectual propaganda.