Separation of Science and State

[ajaxfetish]

No he didn't, he only referenced "opinion" when talking about "beliefs", and we all know how he feels about beliefs from that farcicul "Faith vs Reason" debate he staged where he left in a huff after I pointed out that his fundamental premise was fundametally flawed.

You can cling to a belief, but also understand that the belief itself is an assumption that cannot be falsified and is thus a different kind of knowledge; opinion.

Regardless of how AtPG feels about belief, here he explicitly classifies it as a subtype of knowledge.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Regardless of how AtPG feels about belief, here he explicitly classifies it as a subtype of knowledge.

Ajax

The problem though is that he has said different things before and since. You're a philologist, they must have taught you about quoting out of context, and how to identify key words, in this case "cling".

[ajaxfetish]

The problem though is that he has said different things before and since. You're a philologist, they must have taught you about quoting out of context, and how to identify key words, in this case "cling".

Oh, I understand he doesn't have much respect for belief. I just jumped in because Rhy's response to his post completely misrepresented AtPG's statements.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

[The Stranger]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

i agree. they are institutions with a monopoly on truth to keep a few in power and keep the rest ignorant and calm. to qualify for the title religion though, imo no worshipping of deities is a requirement.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

I agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

Seen Dogma?

If "religion" means a power structure then I'd tend to agree - see my opinion of the Roman Catholic Church vs Roman Catholics or Roman Catholic beliefs. On the other hand if you mean "a group of people who come together to try and agree on shared beliefs" then I don't.

Religion is a natural phenomenon, it isn't "man made" any more than language is.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess he meant organised religion.

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess he meant organised religion.

As opposed to what unorganised religion

[Viking]

If blind faith in the scientific method is present, then yes, it is starting to look like religion. The scientific method cannot be proven; not for the present, the future nor the past. Nothing is certain in this world, at best it is very likely.

Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.

Imagine that you had replaced 'anarcho-capitalist' with an ethnicity. Pick your favourite.

Religion is a man-made tool to suppress people.

Then people wouldn't make sacrifises to gods in/of nature; it gains no leader. Fact is people like to control each other. That's one of the reasons that we have debates; we do not like to see that people have other opinions than those of our own.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Imagine that you had replaced 'anarcho-capitalist' with an ethnicity. Pick your favourite.

Why not just say he shouldn't have called them tards...that analogy doesn't work

[Viking]

Why not just say he shouldn't have called them tards...that analogy doesn't work

Oh yes it does. It is impossible to know everything about a group of people only because they share some traits in our perception of them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As opposed to what unorganised religion

I guess so. Or at least, top-down authoritarian style religion. There's nothing oppressive about people choosing to meet together to worship eg Brethren halls.

[gaelic cowboy]

I guess so. Or at least, top-down authoritarian style religion. There's nothing oppressive about people choosing to meet together to worship eg Brethren halls.

it's still organised yes/no.

I never understand that idea "Organised Religion" sure all religion is organised, if they did not they would have no core beliefs or canon to draw off.

I cant just go to a Brethern hall and start talking about the spaghetti monster if I want.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well obviously everything is organised to some extent, are football teams going to be oppressive next.

Plus evangelical Christianity is more about a relationship with Jesus. Some take if further than others, eg Quakers, who's entire faith is based on following the 'Holy Spirit'. OK they might meet up but it's not what you think of with the social/political power people mean when they talk about organised religion.

[HoreTore]

@Viking: are you seriously suggesting that ethnicity and political ideas are similar in some way....?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh yes it does. It is impossible to know everything about a group of people only because they share some traits in our perception of them.

Well, it's impossible to know everything about a group of people.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This thread has splintered off into the absurd.

[Beskar]

Well obviously everything is organised to some extent, are football teams going to be oppressive next.

Plus evangelical Christianity is more about a relationship with Jesus. Some take if further than others, eg Quakers, who's entire faith is based on following the 'Holy Spirit'. OK they might meet up but it's not what you think of with the social/political power people mean when they talk about organised religion.

Problem with evangelical Christianity is that it usually jumps in bed with fundamentalism.

The problem with fundamentalism is, it takes everything literally. Problem with this can be summed up with the "Fundamentalist Christian hatred of Harry Potter". Even when I was a Christian, I viewed such fundamentalism with disdain because it is sheer idiocy.

It is well within Common Knowledge that "Harry Potter" is a children's book hero who features in a series which isn't particularly that good (objectively) but can entertain people and no one takes it or him seriously. Now comes the Fundamentalist Christians who organize great book burnings, write works about how Harry Potter is in league with the devil, corrupting children's minds, amongst other things. [1][Google Search for thousands more]

So while organized Religion is a big factor in the suppression of people [See: Egyptians, Romans, Catholic Church, Voodoo Cults, etc], it also has a tendency to have extreme elements which can be summed up as 'Religdumb' (Religion+Idiocy).

[Reenk Roink]

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

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.

In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Science doesn't work this way (this is an naive inductivist ideal held by many scientists and more non-scientists, but the position has frankly been smoked like a bad cigar). I think that the evidence is actually fit to the theory more. See Chalmers' What is this thing called Science first chapters (3rd edition, the 1st and 2nd editions are actually better in regards to the first chapters though the 3rd improved the last chapters significantly and made them more accessible) for a really good discussion.

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?

to qualify for the title religion though, imo no worshipping of deities is a requirement.

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.

Appeal to (certain religious) authority is a much sounder epistemic basis for knowledge than philosophical argument. Not even close. Good thing 'philosophy' isn't too much at a disadvantage seeing as there have been philosophical schools since the beginning which can be nicely characterized as appealing to authority.

I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?

There are an infinite (potentially infinite) number of postulates that can fit the available evidence. What percentage true range did you have in mind for 'often'?

We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

[Reenk Roink]

I never really understood that as a criteria either. But it is easy to just say "must be falsifiable" I guess.

It's the purported demarcation principle (along with the related testability) which many scientists and lovers of science, and a few philosophers of science uphold. I never liked it but it seems to persuade judges for now.

I don't understand what you mean. Using, say, moral intuitions as the foundation for a system of ethics and then arguing from there philosophically compared to saying that the people who did the same thing in ancient times got it right?

Right, the latter (in specific cases) is a lot better than the former.

We were talking about actual postulates, i.e. things that have been postulated (he said something like, "science is never right, it just postulates..." and the point is it has been right about a great many things).

Well, there have been a ton of 'postulates' in that case, though not a potential infinite. Also, science is probably not right in most (all?) of its postulates. For example, Geocentrism is probably wrong, so is heliocentrism. GR is probably wrong as well.

All of them are good (in the sense that they fit the evidence or rather the evidence fits them) models though, though you might favor one or another for whatever reason.

Can you tell me something? I'm under the impression that it used to be a debate between "faith and reason", did this morph at some point into "science vs religion"? Why?

Or maybe it was "reason vs revelation".

Science and religion seem to be synonyms for or at least very closely tied to reason and faith for a lot of people. Science (and reason) have had some good PR of late I guess.

[Viking]

@Viking: are you seriously suggesting that ethnicity and political ideas are similar in some way....?

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

Well, it's impossible to know everything about a group of people.

Yes...? It is. The fact that they seemingly share some traits doesn't change anything.

[The Stranger]

In its most literal sense, I'd agree with this statement, but I know what you're trying to get at, and I have to respectfully disagree here. Science shouldn't be characterized as a religion. First of all, I feel it is a great insult to religion to do something like that.

I know what the point you're trying to make here is something like: 'science and religion both rest essentially on metaphysical axioms which can't be distinguished from each other' and I agree to a point (though I do think we can distinguish, just perhaps not rationally or in a value neutral way).

However, going beyond that, I'd add these major differences between the two. Religion really has to have ritual tied to it. I think ritual is a necessary condition, otherwise I would say something was 'philosophy' (for lack of a better term). And I really don't think something like research programs could be counted as ritual.

Furthermore, religion and science are even more distinguished today due to the secularization of science. Lindberg, Grant, and Hannam in their histories of science do an excellent job of showing how premodern science was very closely tied with religion and ideas of the supernatural. However, methodological naturalism now is the de facto methodology and actual metaphysical naturalism is assumed quite often. This to the extent that you will have people nowadays argue that science as we know it did not exist until 400-500 years ago, or even later than that (and if you accept their definition of science, they have a point).

Also, the domains of science and religion are different. I definitely don't agree with people who say they do not intersect as there is some overlap, but despite that, science (nowadays) is almost wholly exoteric in focus. Religion is both exoteric and esoteric, and the latter plays a big part in its identification.

i actually meant it in literal sense. imo science isnt a religion, not even in the sense that i described it. practical science never will be such a religion because practical science is supposed to have neutral or no values. theoretical science does have the potential when what viking has said will happen.

as for your further points i think there should be a difference between the theoretical parts of both on which the practical parts actually rests but in day to day business does not really rely on (more so in the case of deities than in the case of science). practical science and practical religion (for the lack of a better word, deitism) are nothing alike indeed. and i would never compare them. but for the theoretical part only the first argument is needed, the one which you agree too. and perhaps the last argument would fit in there as well, im not yet sure about it, it is difficult. i share that intuition of domains, but i doubt you can maintain that position under philosophical scrutiny.

[The Stranger]

the debate reason vs faith is a tricky one anyway. where is to find the balance? no one would like a world of one absent the other, even it was possible. in a fully rational world that has been technologically developed as far as ours, the human species would die out rather quick. i guess in a world full of only faith, the same would happen. though i havent given that much thought.

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

[HoreTore]

What gives you that idea? The characterisation of entire groups is a method of induction. You see some traits that you do not like in some individuals belonging to a particular group, and conclude that these traits belongs to all members of the group - because it is convenient. Also known as bigotry.

Some forms of bigotry are less taboo than others, however. Therein lies the difference.

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

[Viking]

No.

I am not refering to the persons themselves, I am referring to the prominent ideas that makes up anarcho-capitalism.

This is what you said (bold face added by me): "Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.". You labeled the persons, not the ideas. That requires the assumption that if someone follows a stupid idea; or more precisely: a set of stupid ideas; then the persons themselves must be stupid; which does not automatically follow (as a matter of fact, there are...quite a few different ways to arrive at the same conclusion).

Furthermore, you have concluded that the ideas that make up the ideology are "stupid"; as you write above, which I for some funny reason suspect that you haven't spent time to "prove" logically, provided that such things are of such a nature that they can be "proven". After all, if you mean that a state - or rather the lack of it - should appear in a particular fashion only because the principles appeal to you; then what can be proven? What can be said to be "retarded"?

Anyway, regardless of what I write above, it is sort of an unnecessary statement to put forward - it is not going to help rational debate.

[ajaxfetish]

I think the comparison doesn't work because it is of two different domains. Also, using falsifiability as a demarcation principle between science and non-science doesn't seem to work at all, not in the least because scientific theories can be said to be not falsifiable unless you stretch falsifiability so far in which case pseudoscience like creationism and astrology can be said to be falsifiable.

That was actually my point. It's ridiculous to say that because religion is separated from the state, science should be, too. They're completely different beasts, and the OP was trying to fit them into the same box.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

not everything is and should be reasonable, i doubt that everything can be reasonable. the same goes for faith. i guess the seperation that is most popular now is a good one. in the public domain we would want reason to flourish and have the upperhand. but in day to day life what most people do is believe in a good outcome and make that step forward. because had you been fully rational you would end up afraid to step out of your door because you cannot know what is out there.

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

[The Stranger]

Should only reason hold sway in the public sphere though? What about Human Rights, which were founded on the theistic principle that all man (later extended to women) are created equally? In a non-theistic and purely rational world Human Rights would never have emerged, so it seems reasonable to allow room for faith and belief in public life, religious or otherwise, given that all of us value the results those qualities have brought to public discourse in the past.

Personally, I don't like the seperation between "public" and "private", it implies I can be a good public servant but go home and beat my wife, or ruthlesslessly persecute the poor in government and still read my children a bed time story, asnd those two lives be seperate and non-reflective of each other.

i didnt say that it should be the only thing, i said i think most people would prefer the rational side to dominate in the public sphere, atleast that would be the most rational thing :P i dont believe you can ever fully seperate them and even if we could that it would be a good thing, amongst other reason because what you said.