Separation of Science and State

[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

[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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

Measurement is just another form of testing. Think about it: you measure for new curtains, then you measure again to be sure your measurements are right. It's science writ tiny.

So far as we can deduce medieval building were built essentially by deciding how long and wide you wanted it, and then everything else was described by interceting arcs using a giant pair of compases.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

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

I don't believe science and the state should be separate, this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of some peoples idea of secularism. Institutionalised separation of the church and state, by all means. But religion does have a role in the political sphere if people want it to.

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

Ajax

But who's logical leaps are they?

*postings*

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

[The Stranger]

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.

-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

[ajaxfetish]

But who's logical leaps are they?

Looked like they were yours, since you took my statement and ended up with a conclusion that seemingly has nothing to do with it.

Ajax

[The Stranger]

btw the idea that no arguments founded on logic and reason needed to be provided in theology is wrong. if you would walk into a christian university in 1250 and say God is infinite because i believe it. they would throw you out without hesitation. no empirical proof is provided, that is true, but no empirical matter is discussed.

that science as a practice and practiced religion are very different is obvious but thats also not what is the debate is about.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

[Rhyfelwyr]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Your attitude is my whole point.

It's because although the theocrats said they were right, but you actually are right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

Well that's just prejudiced.

Isn't it?

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Religion deals with quite different issues to science, and in a completely different way. For all that Theology and Divinity are actually higher up the scale in the traditional Academy, largely because they A) took longer to master and B) required a greater ability to make critical use of logic and to think abstractly, etc., etc.

"Science" is just a form of investigation, that is only applicable to a portion of human appreciation of reality I might add, it is not a substitute for philosophical or theological study.

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

Well then, that is why you are being hypocritical.

No. Don't you see how absurd it is to complain about science being allowed in the government because it is truthful? Yes it's the same logic as saying "religion is truthful, therefore", but religion isn't truthful, which is the whole point...

I could turn that on it's head very easily, but I won't.

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So, why do we have scientific advisors on drugs to cover their physical aspect, but not philosophers or theologians to cover their spiritual or moral aspect? Politicians are not experts in either.

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/members.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please do, please do turn it on its head. The inanity of complaining about the logic of "this is right and true, and therefore can be justification" is overwhelming. It's obvious that the issue is whether it really is right and true. But that's being skirted entirely in favor "well science thinks it has the answers and so does religion, what's the difference??????".

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

I never said any such thing, I said that science and religion are wholly separate, very different kinds of phenomena.

They are not competing, opposite viewpoints, that you can complain one or the other is being favored. You can be a totally religious fundy and still respect what science says about the universe. 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.

Science, on the other hand, is a name for a formal method of gaining knowledge. Knowledge and how we gain knowledge are not the same, they aren't in competition, they are wholly different concepts.

The entire premise of this thread is based on a huge misunderstanding of the key concepts involved. That is why I won't bother to respond to why there is a separation between religion and the state, until the fundamental assumptions underlying this argument are revised.

-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.

Breathing is based on a set of beliefs as well, such as the belief that if you breathe you will remain alive, and that remaining alive is a good thing.

I propose we separate breathing from the State, since we're being intentionally absurd and ignoring everything I just said.

Any concept that involves the conscious mind also involves thinking and arguably, "belief". That does not mean everything the brain does is comparable with everything else it does, and that it's all the same. Opinion is learning is thought? No.

Thinking is different from knowing, knowing is different from learning. Some things are beliefs, and others, are methods. Beliefs and methods are not the same. An apple and a baseball are not the same.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

I never said any such thing, I said that science and religion are wholly separate, very different kinds of phenomena.

They are not competing, opposite viewpoints, that you can complain one or the other is being favored. You can be a totally religious fundy and still respect what science says about the universe. 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.

Science, on the other hand, is a name for a formal method of gaining knowledge. Knowledge and how we gain knowledge are not the same, they aren't in competition, they are wholly different concepts.

The entire premise of this thread is based on a huge misunderstanding of the key concepts involved. That is why I won't bother to respond to why there is a separation between religion and the state, until the fundamental assumptions underlying this argument are revised.

You're missing the whole point. There you go again, with religion its an 'opinion', with science its 'knowledge'.

[The Stranger]

Breathing is based on a set of beliefs as well, such as the belief that if you breathe you will remain alive, and that remaining alive is a good thing.

I propose we separate breathing from the State, since we're being intentionally absurd and ignoring everything I just said.

Any concept that involves the conscious mind also involves thinking and arguably, "belief". That does not mean everything the brain does is comparable with everything else it does, and that it's all the same. Opinion is learning is thought? No.

Thinking is different from knowing, knowing is different from learning. Some things are beliefs, and others, are methods. Beliefs and methods are not the same. An apple and a baseball are not the same.

what alot of bs. breathing isnt based on a set of beliefs. you try to hold your breath and see how long you will succeed in doing so. breathing is a neccesary bodily function. it is not something that you do and could not be doing. it is animal instinct.

you are being a tool at the moment and still your comparison falls short of the mark. besides that, i never advocated for science and state to be seperated. and definitly not based on whats on that website. science is supposed to have neutral values and therefor will less likely hamper politcal descision, thats for starter, for main i would have to give it some more thought

i never said that a belief and a method are the same. they are most definitly not. but at the base of the method is the belief in certain concepts that are the foundation of that method and THEREFORE cannot be proven by that method.

so try to read what people write plz. you are better than this. or to quote you

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

if this is all you can come up with let sasaki handle it

[ajaxfetish]

You're missing the whole point. There you go again, with religion its an 'opinion', with science its 'knowledge'.

You're not reading very carefully. He defined 'opinion' as a subtype of knowledge, so it wouldn't make sense to contrast opinion and knowledge any more than it would to contrast cats and mammals. Also, his point was that science is not knowledge. It's methodology. In other words, with religion it's 'knowledge', with science it's not 'knowledge'.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're not reading very carefully. He defined 'opinion' as a subtype of knowledge, so it wouldn't make sense to contrast opinion and knowledge any more than it would to contrast cats and mammals. Also, his point was that science is not knowledge. It's methodology. In other words, with religion it's 'knowledge', with science it's not 'knowledge'.

Ajax

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.

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You said science was right and religion wrong, but the issues where science impinges on religion are areas where science offers nothing more than "best guess", so you argument is without foundation. In any case, science is never "right" or "true" it simply postulates to fit the available evidence.

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Postulates that fit the available evidence are often true

In say, the terry schiavo case, pulling the plug is made legal by the government because of the scientific finding about the state of the brain. Religious people disagreed. Now, the point was that merely pointing at the disagreement is useless--it's an attempt to turn the debate into one about hypocrisy instead of one about whether in fact the brain is in such and such state. They both claim truth, but they do so in different ways, and that difference is the significant one.

If something is just a best guess, it's just a best guess...the leap of faith would be the part that's without foundation.

...and often made by the Laity with regard to science, witness "Evolution is a fact".