The Future of Religion

[PBI]

I would disagree that science is a religion, I think it would be more accurate to say that science is a philosophy, and religions are also philosophies.

Otherwise we might as well dispense with the word "philosophy" altogether and simply describe every sphere of human intellectual endeavor as a "religion".

Yada yada, bottom line is human beings will never know everything. What happens to our bodies after death is known, but our consciousness, our connection to this universe, does it suddenly cease to exist? Does it fade away? Will we retain memories? Will there be an afterlife? Reincarnation? Or is it simply empty nothingness?

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion. Science will never give a definitive answer to enable to us cope with the idea of our own mortality in the way religion does. The best it can do is to give a rather noncommittal "as far as we know, there is no evidence for an immortal soul or an afterlife". My personal view is that those things do not in fact exist, but it is a deeply unpalatable one and I can't see it ever being very popular; in fact I rather hope I will be proven wrong. Certainly one would not have to deny any major scientific law to believe the opposite.

The thing I wonder about is whether the modern major religions will be able to adapt into such a role. There was a thread a few months ago in which it was eloquently argued that, contrary to being "set in stone" and incapable of ever changing, religions can and do evolve to fit the moral code societies want them to fit. I am interested to see whether this can happen in response to the changes in modern society. The homosexuality cat seems to well and truly out of the bag for example, and there seems to be a consensus among secular society that it would be neither possible nor desirable to put it back in. Similarly, modern contraception has allowed for a degree of relatively low-risk sexual freedom which would have been unthinkable in earlier times. I would argue that religious objections to these are elements of a moral code which would once have served a practical purpose, but have been rendered largely obsolete by modern developments; I certainly hope religion can evolve to come to terms with them.

More importantly, while I would argue that there is no reason why science and religion should be in conflict, the fact is that there are areas where they have been in recent years. The most prominent of these I suppose being "intelligent design"; for anyone who values the immense benefits scientific progress has provided to modern society, it should be deeply troubling that there has been a significant movement in one of the most advanced scientific nations to flatly deny a vast swathe of widely confirmed scientific principles, from virtually the whole range of scientific disciplines, purely because it is inconsistent with a certain reading of Biblical scripture. Similarly there has been religiously-led opposition to developments such as stem cell research. These issues are only going to become more common as fields such as bioengineering and neuroscience mature.

I would argue that when religion finds itself in the position of trying to delay or even roll back the progress of science, it becomes a serious social problem. I strongly hope that these conflicts are not irreconcilable, nor do I hope that religion becomes extinct. However I am clear that it is religion that must make the running here, not science, because as Feynman put it, nature cannot be fooled. Either the current religions must evolve to meet the requirements of modern society, or they must be replaced by ones which do so.

We may never fully understand the smallest of the small, the quantum universe. It's so bizarre that quantum physicists have difficulty explaining to me, a reasonably adequate mind, why it isn't a bunch of baloney built on assumptions which are based on very complicated math.

Any knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is built on assumptions. The point of scientific knowledge is that those assumptions must be justified by making testable predictions. It's a matter of personal preference whether you decide those assumptions reflect some deeper physical reality or are simply a useful calculating tool.

However, I would like to distinguish here between quantum mechanics, which is what we might call "proper science", and concepts such as string theory (including things like extra dimensions, multiple universes and the like), which is untested conjecture at present. Quantum mechanics is a complicated but nonetheless rigorous mathematical description of the behaviour of elementary particles, largely developed in the first half of the 20th century, which has been confirmed by a number of experimental predictions and has led to many useful applications. Where it gets fuzzy is when you try to explain what the theory means physically (if indeed it means anything), where there are a number of interpretations. I, like most of the physics community, adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation (in a nutshell, particles can be physically in two states at once, the universe is inherently non-deterministic), but as far as I know it is no more than a matter of preference.

String theory, meanwhile, is a modern attempt at providing a theory which explains both gravity and the behaviour of elementary particles; while it has several useful features which make it quite a "nice" theory, as yet has made no testable predictions which could serve to verify or disprove it, meaning that it is currently no more than a hypothesis.

[The Stranger]

One of the most characteristic qualities of religion is that it doens't allow any other truth to exist next to their own truth. Religion is designed to dominate, to dominate its subjects and eliminate any threat to its existence.

There should be careful distinction between belief and religion. Belief is very basic and personal, while religion is a (very) complex structure based on a (common) belief and it's community oriented. Belief can exist without religion, religion cannot exist without belief.

Islam is a religion because it doesn't let any other truth peacefully exist as truth next to theirs. Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Does this mean that every christian, muslim or jew is a religious person? no it does not. Nor does it mean that every atheist or scientific oriented person is one. A lof of these people do acknowledge other truths beside theirs, they just don't accept it as their own truth, which is their good right. These people should be adressed as believers. The other group, which doesn't allow other oppinions to exist as possibilities of truth, claim all the rest is nonsense and act as if they have patented the truth are religious persons.

(ill probably explain this more elaborately later this week.)

[The Stranger]

In my opinion-

One reason why a secular/atheistic person agrees with about 90% of what a religious person would find immoral, is because what we consider morality is really common sense, and it really is stuff that we should know if we actually spent two seconds thinking about it. The rest is the "if you don't perform ritual A or praise deity B, you are a sinner" stuff which makes it faith rather than common sense. And then of course we focus solely on our differences instead of our commonalities, and the perception of a larger division in society exists, when we should be living in relative harmony.
.

they agree because some morals are based on fundamental survival skills/concepts. and because other morals are simply a product of their time/culture/etc and it is fashionable to indulge in them. however that still doesn't change the fact the science is free of morals. the fact that we most likely have evolved from apes still doesnt tell us how we should behave. nor does the fact that we now know how to alter someones dna, that still doesnt tell us wether it is good or not to do so. science is simply the knowing of a lot of complicated stuff (wether it is true or not is beside the question now), but when you know how to make and use a bomb, still doesnt tell you wether it is good to do so...

religion (in the traditional definition) can and does tell, so does society and law and some philosphies... science will always play a major role, atleast i believe it will, but it will never completely replace the others because while it does explain why and how it is possible that you live, it can never tell you why and how you should live. and the moment it does exactly that it ceases to be science as we know it.

[LittleGrizzly]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Those Atheists (aside from being slightly rude) are lacking faith in some magical higher being. Lacking the faith to believe in something unseeable and unknowable isn't a religon in the slightest. Faith is key to most religions and science lacks any faith whatsoever, the worst it does is make educated guesses when it isn't sure... and an educated guess is done through the process of logic so again no faith required...

And the whole paragraph about science in the same way sometimes deny things from other religon like religon's do from each other. That also does not make it a religon, these other religons ask you to take it on faith that the other religon is wrong and thiers is the right one...

Science just gives you the truth of the matter (or as close to it as we can know) if science is a religon then so is the truth, nutrition advice, exercise advice, every school textbook (those not about religon)

Basically if science is a religon then so is almost everything were we understand something (from mechanics to math to cooking) so obviously this definition of religon is far too wide ranging... best keep it as a definition for just religon...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Science assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. Ergo, there cannot be any room for the Supernatural.

It's a belief system based on untestable assumptions, and therefore a religion.

[LittleGrizzly]

I almost feel the need to argue for that point now my names on top of it....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I almost feel the need to argue for that point now my names on top of it....

I don't see why, I was modifying the point you argued against, rather than writing the same post again in different syntax.

[LittleGrizzly]

Heh, there's nothing wrong with what you wrote (or how you wrote it) I was just joking about the fact that Originally posted by LittleGrizzly ended up on top of TheStranger's quote.

[Reenk Roink]

In the beginning, mankind believed that the sun and the moon were gods, and they believed that doing certain things would make it rain, and that their leaders were gods...

The notion of a sun god is prevalent in near eastern cultures, and certainly it may be more widespread than that (any anthropologists here?) but I take issue with a couple of things. That the sun was itself worshiped is true about some societies, but for example, if you take a look at the Sumerian/Akkadian pantheon, it's kind of hard to definitively state that the conception those people had about their sun god was just that bright thing in the sky itself. There were anthropomorphic depictions and personifications of the sun god. It is certainly reasonable (and speculative - but given the evidence of anthropomorphizing the gods the other position is much more so) to assume that the sun god was not just the sun in the sky or more than that.

On the infallible leaders being worshiped front, this is more the exception than the rule. I can only think of Egypt as an example of an ancient civilization deifying its rulers commonly. In Sumerian civilization for example, the leaders of the city states were never considered to be anything but mortals, despite the fact that they were also believed to be the actual spouse of the patron god of that city. I believe Naram-sin was the first Sumerian/Akkadian king to declare himself a god, and he was remembered quite negatively for it.

However more importantly, the sentiment you have about the reason for these kind of beliefs. You say it "is because they lacked a scientific knowledge of the world" and this strikes me as way off base.

I would state that the reason religious beliefs shifted was (and still is) due to other societal factors. The Egyptians and Babylonians had quite remarkable knowledge of astronomy, yet their religion did not fade until radically different religions began influencing it (basically Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam). Kings were not worshiped in Akkad until great conquerors forged vast empires. Belief that the sun was divine died out in most areas long before people had ever started saying it was a giant ball of hydrogen and helium.

3. We may never fully understand the smallest of the small, the quantum universe. It's so bizarre that quantum physicists have difficulty explaining to me, a reasonably adequate mind, why it isn't a bunch of baloney built on assumptions which are based on very complicated math. To me, some of their theories smell of nothing more than wholly fabricated nonsense. Sure, 1 plus 1 equals 2, but does that necessarily mean there are unlimited parallel universes connected by membranes? You can't prove that using math. Prove it with a dimensional gateway or something. Until then, you also have to deal with the problem of people being unsure if there are ten dimensions or twenty six or umpteen million, and whether or not the infinite parallel reality theory meshes with the limitless universe theory meshes with the everything that could ever possibly happen does happen theory, and other such koo-koo bananas theories which have as much weight as the big crunch and the big rip and the heat death theories about the universe ending, in that they can't all be true, at least in regards to this universe. Finally, if there are other universes.... but they are connected to this one... then they aren't really other universes, are they, Einstein? Same reality, same universe. That's why they call it a universe. Separating one parallel reality from this one if it is possible to share matter or energy between them means that the division of realities is as arbitrary as a political border on a map; the boundary only really exists because we say it does. What prevents me from saying the sun is in a different reality from mine, except for the light I perceive of course? Now, let's define our terms...

I don't understand this paragraph. It seems somewhat of a flippant rejection of theories about the universe. Fair enough I guess, those are highly speculative (though you might want to look at some other scientific theories that are more commonly held as strong as there isn't TOO much of a difference (gravity for example)). What I don't understand is the comment about QM early on and how exactly you relate it to the speculative theories about the universe that you mention later on? I will note (don't know if this will apply to you) QM seems odd because it goes against the commonly held paradigm in scientific enterprise that the universe is ordered, rational, and accessible. It isn't intuitive (it might not be exactly logical ). Funny enough this entire paradigm of the rational universe came from the scientific revolution and the religious sentiments at the time... I never liked it though.

The big answers to the big questions will always be "I don't know"

Not at all. One could easily say the big answers are already known! And then go on and say your problem comes because you are fixed on a concept on knowledge based exclusively on science (I assume this by your later statement in which you state: "And opinion is another thing, there will be political and philosophical differences always, regardless of scientific or mathematical or historical data which suggests some ways of living are more harmonious and efficient than others" from which I gauge that you hold that science, mathematics (probably can extend this to logic?), and history are objective sources of knowledge and not classified as 'opinion'?).

And yet in our modern age, some people believe that shattering a mirror is bad luck, when any amount of testing would show the only way it is bad luck is if you injure yourself on the broken mirror.

Not at all, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that shattering a mirror does not bring you bad luck, simply because "bad luck" is so broadly defined. Perhaps if someone believed that shattering a mirror would conjure a demon visible to human eyes within 5 minutes, you could actually test that.

One begins with the premise that we do not know and must discover, the other begins with the premise that we do know and must reject other theories. They are totally incompatible.

Your characterization of 'religion' is much more workable and accurate than your characterization of 'science'... This naive-inductivist view of scientific enterprise has been pretty roughly beat down as not only NOT being the way scientific discovery works, but also being theoretically problematic.

Science is falsifiable.

Religion is non-falsifiable.

Well, these two assertions mean very little as both nouns in both sentences are vague predicates...

The point that needs to be made (I spent quite some time trying to point this out in an earlier thread), is the metaphysical bases that science rests on are empirically unfalsifiable themselves. This is probably not news to you at all, and it wouldn't even merit pointing out, if people (not you - but I've seen this done way too many times) love to point out in the creationism/intelligent design debates that the existence of a transcendent creator figure who is not material is unfalsifiable... Essentially, they go after a metaphysical base and try to apply an empirical falsification criterion to it which is very wtf-ish.

When I think of applying the falsification criterion to something, I think it is reasonable to assume we are applying it to some empirical claim instead. For example, certain young earth creationists assert that the Earth is 10000 years old or younger. This is obviously an empirically falsifiable claim (some would say it has been already falsified...)

Another topic which may be outside the scope of the topic is the value of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion. For example continuing the above mentioned example, I notice a general trend that tends to criticize those who try to respond to attacks against the assertion that the Earth is 10000 years old or younger by attacking say, carbon dating, or stating that older dated rocks do not imply that the earth itself is such an age, and so on. This is criticized as being "cheap" among other things and I can see why. Yet this stuff happens all the time in the scientific community as well. I point to the Quine-Duhem thesis about the practical impossibility of any kind of falsification criterion...

It's a matter of personal preference whether you decide those assumptions reflect some deeper physical reality or are simply a useful calculating tool.

Great line from a great post! Do I sense another fellow instrumentalist?

Science...denies spiritual truth

I don't see how this is so at all. "Spiritual truth" is way too vague by the way, but if it is what I think it is then my position is no, not at all. "Science" cannot even itself be said to actually deny the supernatural, if we assume that the 'method(s) of science' apply a methodological naturalism rather than an actual epistemic commitment to naturalism (and that is probably a fair assumption).

[Reenk Roink]

Ok time to get to PBI's post:

I would disagree that science is a religion, I think it would be more accurate to say that science is a philosophy, and religions are also philosophies.

Otherwise we might as well dispense with the word "philosophy" altogether and simply describe every sphere of human intellectual endeavor as a "religion".

I think this recent discussion of "science being a religion" is quite silly myself. It seems that from both sides, religion seems to be a dirty word, with one side trying to elevate science over religion and the other trying to drag it down (in fact, for me personally religion is something I am in awe of, especially the Abrahamic tradition, while science is the stuff I study at school and do at work and so it causes me stress at times and seems so mundane ).

I agree with your pointing out that science and religion are both human intellectual endeavors (I liked that phrase more than the word philosophy which I consider something else, though I get what you are trying to say).

I think the point that the "science is a religion" people are trying to make is the simple one that science, like religion, results on its own set of metaphysical assumptions. Now unlike "science" the metaphysical assumptions of "religion" are criticized frequently*, hence the comments that religion has no 'evidence' while science does. That really depends on what you are talking about now...

*In the context of say, internet discussions on message boards , you will certainly see the assumptions of "science" copiously criticized in a philosophy journal say - philosophy of science seems to be a much more lively subject than philosophy of religion at this point...

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion.

I don't think I agree with this. For example, science offers explanations of the natural world in terms of the common sense view of cause and effect, but that explanation is only really satisfying if you already hold to the view of natural cause and effect.

Since QM was brought up, let's illustrate with the explanation of the photoelectric effect. When a photon strikes an electron it is ejected if the frequency of the photon exceeds the threshold. In terms of natural cause and effect, this is pretty much the standard explanation.

However, say I held fast to an occasionalist metaphysics where I denied any actual cause except God. Then I drop all that bit about the ejected electrons and state that God directly caused the photoelectric effect and the bit about the ejected electrons was just a prior temporal occasion.

No matter what scientific explanations come up regarding things in the natural world, they will never be accepted by the occasionalist because he simply does not accept the view that contingent beings can be causes. He will interpret any scientific explanation as only discovering an occasion for an event that is caused directly by God.

[The Stranger]

Science assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. Ergo, there cannot be any room for the Supernatural.

It's a belief system based on untestable assumptions, and therefore a religion.

thank you very much

[The Stranger]

Science is a religion because it does exactly the same thing, it denies spiritual truth. So does atheism. (I actually believe pure atheism is a paradox and can't possibly exist in the context we place it, but thats another matter) Atheists who claim that god does not exist and that anyone who believes in one is a superstitious idiot, are just as "religious" as the people they criticize.

Those Atheists (aside from being slightly rude) are lacking faith in some magical higher being. Lacking the faith to believe in something unseeable and unknowable isn't a religon in the slightest. Faith is key to most religions and science lacks any faith whatsoever, the worst it does is make educated guesses when it isn't sure... and an educated guess is done through the process of logic so again no faith required...

And the whole paragraph about science in the same way sometimes deny things from other religon like religon's do from each other. That also does not make it a religon, these other religons ask you to take it on faith that the other religon is wrong and thiers is the right one...

Science just gives you the truth of the matter (or as close to it as we can know) if science is a religon then so is the truth, nutrition advice, exercise advice, every school textbook (those not about religon)

Basically if science is a religon then so is almost everything were we understand something (from mechanics to math to cooking) so obviously this definition of religon is far too wide ranging... best keep it as a definition for just religon...

that is exactly my point, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE, IS ACTUALLY TRUE? It's the whole bible story all over again man, but now we just have a different explanation. Christians also had all kinds of proof for the existance of god a thousand years ago. And everyone believed it to be truthful and right. just wait another 1000 years and there will be another explanation, and probably another approach.

By claiming science as the one and only way to the truth you deny the existence of any other truth (on the same field ofcourse) next to you yours. By doing so you are doing exactly the same thing as a muslim or christian who says the word of God is the only truth, you say the word of a scientist who writes down tons of books i dont understand shit of is truth... there is very little difference in the approach, there is only difference in the endstation.

[The Stranger]

I don't see how this is so at all. "Spiritual truth" is way too vague by the way, but if it is what I think it is then my position is no, not at all. "Science" cannot even itself be said to actually deny the supernatural, if we assume that the 'method(s) of science' apply a methodological naturalism rather than an actual epistemic commitment to naturalism (and that is probably a fair assumption).

By claiming objective truth to be the only truth you deny the existence of the subjective truth of which our existence is made of... and so you deny spiritual truth, which is a very subjective truth.

and ofcourse you are right, science itself claims nothing, in the same way that the bible on itself doesnt claim much. its the people behind the books that claim a whole lot (and its usually based on thin air)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I saw a similar thread on another forum, and it got me thinking... what sort of position will religion occupy in the world come 50 or 100 years time? On the Evangelical forums I browse, it's always a picture of doom and gloom, and while I think this is true to an extent, I don't agree with it completely.


?

People who need a church that suits them are missing the point. It's about community, sacrifice and being better in God's eyes than you currently are. The Catholic church will be only Christian church in 100 years. Too many U.S. evangelical proddies believe that humans have lived for c. 6000 years for that strain not to be a dead end. Anglicans and Lutherans will either stop being religious all together or merge back into the Catholic Church. tee hee


So it was written (by me) so shall it be done.

[The Stranger]

I'll try make my point more clearly now.

What I'm actually trying to do is give a broader (or maybe narrower, depends on the way you look at it) definition of what religion actually is.

Science is not a religion, not in the old sense of the word, nor in the new one. But actually neither are Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, certain philosphies etc. They are all theories of how to model reality. I'll therefore refer to them as Lifemodels.

These Lifemodels in themself are just theories and nothing more, they give a version of how reality, this world and life can possibly exist. Some of these theories also add a moral dimension to it, of HOW life should be lived, ACCORDING to the way they have modelled reality.

We can distinct to groups amongst the people that believe in these lifemodels. The first group takes their lifemodel as a personal truth and as personal guidelines. They say this is what I believe in, what is true for me. It might not be true for anyone else, but it is for me. You may believe in whatever it is that you believe in and I'll do the same. Then there is the second group, who takes their lifemodel as the universal truth. They claim it to be the only truth. And everyone that has any wits will see the truth of it, anyone who doesn't is either dimwitted or hardheaded. When enough of the second group unite it will turn into a institute. This intstitute will fight other institutes (sometimes litterally) for the right of truth and for the mind of the people who they try to get to follow them. And so religion is born. Neither group will acknowledge the other group as a legitimite way to the truth and will always dispute anything that group will bring forward.

So the lifemodels are primarily just what they are, theories. They are made secundarily into either religious institutes or personal guidelines.

What I'm trying to say is that "Religion" is not the lifemodel, but the people behind the lifemodel, or better said how certain people portray this lifemodel. Therefore science can just as well be a religion as christianity, but it doesn't neccesarily has to be like that. I've met a lot of christians that were fervent believers but were not religious. They believed the word of god, but they acknowledged that it was only their truth and that i had the right to have mine. This however doesn't mean that we can't talk about it or have a discussion about it.

(i'm losing my point in translation... i have to write it out first... its a difficult matter :P)

[PBI]

Great line from a great post!

Thanks! Nice to know someone read it, I do tend to worry I'm talking to myself when I post a massive wall of text on some obscure technical point of physics.

Do I sense another fellow instrumentalist?

Alas, I'm afraid I'm a scientific realist (mostly). I am aware however that that is simply my personal preference.

I guess I would say I believe there is such a thing as objective reality; however I would concede that we can never really be sure whether any given theory reflects what is actually going on or if it is simply a convenient method for making correct calculations.

Hence why I draw a distinction between the rigorous mathematical core of quantum mechanics and the interpretations which try to explain what it all means physically. If all you are interested in doing is calculating atomic decay rates, it doesn't matter especially whether the theory is real or not; I guess I would contend that all the worrying about interpretations is "just for fun", although I think it can have instructive value in extending or refining the theory.

[to ATPG's criticism of QM] I don't understand this paragraph. It seems somewhat of a flippant rejection of theories about the universe. Fair enough I guess, those are highly speculative (though you might want to look at some other scientific theories that are more commonly held as strong as there isn't TOO much of a difference (gravity for example)). What I don't understand is the comment about QM early on and how exactly you relate it to the speculative theories about the universe that you mention later on? I will note (don't know if this will apply to you) QM seems odd because it goes against the commonly held paradigm in scientific enterprise that the universe is ordered, rational, and accessible. It isn't intuitive (it might not be exactly logical ). Funny enough this entire paradigm of the rational universe came from the scientific revolution and the religious sentiments at the time... I never liked it though.

I'm not quite sure I would agree that QM is not rational, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this; as I have mentioned, the mathematical structure is no less rigorous than any other theory. I would agree it is unintuitive; I would argue it describes the universe as being innately probabilistic rather than deterministic. I'm not sure that means it is not rational.

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion.

I don't think I agree with this. For example, science offers explanations of the natural world in terms of the common sense view of cause and effect, but that explanation is only really satisfying if you already hold to the view of natural cause and effect.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say science provides an alternative explanation, for people who do hold to the principle of causality. I was referring to the so called "god of the gaps", the idea that the purpose of religion is to explain the phenomena in our natural world which have no apparent cause; and that science, by attributing phenomena to mundane causes, is effectively removing the need for religion and rendering it obsolete. I would simply contend that explaining why rainbows and earthquakes and the like happen is only one of the purposes of religion, and that therefore religion is always likely to exist no matter how complete a picture of the natural world science can present. I simply don't see why a moral code must always be attached to a cosmology, and vice versa.

Of course if you take the view that everything is directly caused by god (not that I'm saying you do) then any scientific explanation is meaningless so the discussion is irrelevant. Is this a common view in religious circles? My understanding is that most Christians at least lean more towards the "cosmic watchmaker" view, that of a god who created the universe but then largely leaves it to run its own course according to the laws he set for it without much further intervention, but since most of the Christians I know are also physicists, I may have a somewhat biased sample of this.

I think the point that the "science is a religion" people are trying to make is the simple one that science, like religion, results on its own set of metaphysical assumptions. Now unlike "science" the metaphysical assumptions of "religion" are criticized frequently*, hence the comments that religion has no 'evidence' while science does. That really depends on what you are talking about now...

I agree. I think people are getting confused between a given scientific theory, which is falsifiable, and the idea of science itself as a means of enquiring about nature, which is not; one must simply take the fundamental assumptions on faith (though I prefer the word "confidence") and hope that they will allow you to give a better prediction for the mass of an electron, or more accurately determine the trajectory of an artillery shell, or build a more efficient nuclear reactor. Ultimately it is the success of science in achieving these material objectives which is its main selling point in my opinion, not some innate philosophical superiority over other means of intellectual endeavor.

I would be interested to hear what you think the fundamental assumptions of science are, but it is perhaps a subject for another thread. The point is that having fundamental assumptions in and of itself is not enough for science to be accurately described as a religion.

[The Stranger]

cause and effect i believe is one of the most fundamental assumptions of science... but i'm not very knowledgable at that point, although I'd like to hear more about it...

Some good things are said by Reenk and PBI :)

[Strike For The South]

People who need a church that suits them are missing the point. It's about community, sacrifice and being better in God's eyes than you currently are. The Catholic church will be only Christian church in 100 years. Too many U.S. evangelical proddies believe that humans have lived for c. 6000 years for that strain not to be a dead end. Anglicans and Lutherans will either stop being religious all together or merge back into the Catholic Church. tee hee


So it was written (by me) so shall it be done.

In 100 years Christianity in America will be the evangelical protastents who had 10 kids and Mexican catholics. The white catholic will all but vanish in America save for some old Itals in Jersey. The catholic church is to archaic to survive. The pope is infallible huh? Then why was he a NAZI? Have no other idols ring any bells?

[Aemilius Paulus]

The catholic church is to archaic to survive. The pope is infallible huh? Then why was he a NAZI? Have no other idols ring any bells?

See, that is what I thought before studying religion in earnest. And your words do make sense. However, there is another side. As peculiar as it may sound, Catholicism has a long tradition of erudition, of creating and encouraging intellectuals.

Sure, they admitted Galileo was right only in 1980s, but still, their impact on learning was immense. It still is to some degree. Now, go to a Southern Baptist Convention... Ugh, the doctrine - I love it. The actual reality - I loathe it. Southern Baptists are number one on hit list :P.

I am an atheist, but I see the differences. And mainly, the Baptists are such due to the nature of the people who buy it, and not necessarily because of its theological stance. Like I said, I approve of the theory behind this denomination, unlike Catholicism, which I deem as outdated, but in practise, the Catholics are he winners for their behaviours. Rarely, if ever have I seen more anti-intellectual, brainwashed non-cultist denominations.

Not all Southern Baptists are like it, of course, and regular Baptists are fine. Really, Southern Baptism is tainted by its believers, not beliefs - many of whom are "rednecks"/borderline-"rednecks". One of my chief grievances is Young Earth Creationism(for the lucky few who still do not know what it is). I shall not go any further.

But no offence, to you, SFTS. You are an intelligent, fairly open-minded person, and not just some redneck. You are not the type of Southern Baptist I would dislike.

[Furunculus]

There will be the Religion of Science!!!

But seriously - Secular Humanism. That is all there is to it.

there already is, and it is led by the messiah Hansen, and his desciples monboit and gore.

i'm sticking with indifferent agnostic.

[Strike For The South]

See, that is what I thought before studying religion in earnest. And your words do make sense. However, there is another side. As peculiar as it may sound, Catholicism has a long tradition of erudition, of creating and encouraging intellectuals.

Sure, they admitted Galileo was right only in 1980s, but still, their impact on learning was immense. It still is to some degree. Now, go to a Southern Baptist Convention... Ugh, the doctrine - I love it. The actual reality - I loathe it. Southern Baptists are number one on hit list :P.

I am an atheist, but I see the differences. And mainly, the Baptists are such due to the nature of the people who buy it, and not necessarily because of its theological stance. Like I said, I approve of the theory behind this denomination, unlike Catholicism, which I deem as outdated, but in practise, the Catholics are he winners for their behaviours. Rarely, if ever have I seen more anti-intellectual, brainwashed non-cultist denominations.

Not all Southern Baptists are like it, of course, and regular Baptists are fine. Really, Southern Baptism is tainted by its believers, not beliefs - many of whom are "rednecks"/borderline-"rednecks". One of my chief grievances is Young Earth Creationism(for the lucky few who still do not know what it is). I shall not go any further.

But no offence, to you, SFTS. You are an intelligent, fairly open-minded person, and not just some redneck. You are not the type of Southern Baptist I would dislike.

I'm just trying to out do Tuff-Stuff. All in jest.

I know what you mean about the baptists, I grew up in a SB church and lived next to a preacher (great guy I'm just saying I was in the thick of it.) Hell my city just started selling beer last week and this was after a 6 month court battle after the vote. Did I mention 35% of people voted against alcohol sales?

I really have a love-hate relationship with the church right now. These people, despite there beiliefs are still the best people I have ever met and the pecan pie the old ladies make is amazing. As much as I go to church and shake my head I can't seem to leave the flock. But alas I'm getting off topic.

[Reenk Roink]

I'm not quite sure I would agree that QM is not rational, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this; as I have mentioned, the mathematical structure is no less rigorous than any other theory. I would agree it is unintuitive; I would argue it describes the universe as being innately probabilistic rather than deterministic. I'm not sure that means it is not rational.

Sorry, I probably phrased that poorly.

I was confused by Askthepizzaguy's mentioning QM alongside the speculative 'theories of everything' as somehow being "wholly fabricated nonsense" and trying to say while the latter may certainly be wildly speculative, the former is not in that sense, regardless of it's lack of intuitiveness.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say science provides an alternative explanation, for people who do hold to the principle of causality. I was referring to the so called "god of the gaps", the idea that the purpose of religion is to explain the phenomena in our natural world which have no apparent cause; and that science, by attributing phenomena to mundane causes, is effectively removing the need for religion and rendering it obsolete. I would simply contend that explaining why rainbows and earthquakes and the like happen is only one of the purposes of religion, and that therefore religion is always likely to exist no matter how complete a picture of the natural world science can present. I simply don't see why a moral code must always be attached to a cosmology, and vice versa.

Of course, and I definitely hold to an interpretation, as you also seem to, that the major religions are not really majorly concerned with explaining in detail the natural world anyway. It seems to be quite a minor topic, as religion as a whole seems to concern itself with other things more, as you pointed out.

Of course if you take the view that everything is directly caused by god (not that I'm saying you do) then any scientific explanation is meaningless so the discussion is irrelevant. Is this a common view in religious circles? My understanding is that most Christians at least lean more towards the "cosmic watchmaker" view, that of a god who created the universe but then largely leaves it to run its own course according to the laws he set for it without much further intervention, but since most of the Christians I know are also physicists, I may have a somewhat biased sample of this.

Occasionalism isn't really prevalent in Christianity. There have been notable figures who held this view, but for the most part, is never caught on in Christian thought (Aquinas famously argued against it).

In Islam however, I believe the dominant theological schools adhere to such occasionalism, at least the Sunni branch.

I would be interested to hear what you think the fundamental assumptions of science are, but it is perhaps a subject for another thread.

The bare minimum I would say would be the acceptance of some kind of theory of natural causality (and again, it may be different from the common sense as at least at the quantum level) as well as a methodological though not actually epistemic commitment to naturalism. Of course, you can go farther than that, if you wish to speak of actual objects than commitment to realism is required.

I agree. I think people are getting confused between a given scientific theory, which is falsifiable, and the idea of science itself as a means of enquiring about nature, which is not; one must simply take the fundamental assumptions on faith (though I prefer the word "confidence") and hope that they will allow you to give a better prediction for the mass of an electron, or more accurately determine the trajectory of an artillery shell, or build a more efficient nuclear reactor. Ultimately it is the success of science in achieving these material objectives which is its main selling point in my opinion, not some innate philosophical superiority over other means of intellectual endeavor.

Well stated. The fact is, much of creationisms claims are actually (at least naively) falsifiable (age of the earth, pre flood vapor canopies, and so on).

I never understand why so little emphasis is placed on that, and yet so much is placed on stating that metaphysical foundations such as a creator are unfalsifiable. Well, of course they are, but that's not the point when we talk about something being falsifiable...

The point is that having fundamental assumptions in and of itself is not enough for science to be accurately described as a religion.

Exactly, as you pointed out, both should be classified into something more broad-based, philosophies, if you will. As it is, there is too much separating the enterprise of science, and the enterprise of religion. They have different methods, goals, and scopes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sure, they admitted Galileo was right only in 1980s

In 1992 John Paul II spoke against how Galileo was treated and how he was, in fact, correct, condemning the body which tried him for the errors it made. On the other hand, Galileo was quietly quasi-accepted by the Church in the mid-1700s, and by 1835 it was no longer in any kind of opposition to him or his theories.

What many people don't know is that the Catholic Church accepted Darwinian ideas as being compatible or potentially compatible with Christianity long before many other people and organizations did.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Meh, Guinness World Records Book said that... That was the date of the official proclamation. Obviously it did not take them that long, but the point remains.

[LittleGrizzly]

that is exactly my point, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS TRUE, IS ACTUALLY TRUE? It's the whole bible story all over again man, but now we just have a different explanation. Christians also had all kinds of proof for the existance of god a thousand years ago. And everyone believed it to be truthful and right. just wait another 1000 years and there will be another explanation, and probably another approach.

By claiming science as the one and only way to the truth you deny the existence of any other truth (on the same field ofcourse) next to you yours. By doing so you are doing exactly the same thing as a muslim or christian who says the word of God is the only truth, you say the word of a scientist who writes down tons of books i dont understand shit of is truth... there is very little difference in the approach, there is only difference in the endstation.

Just a disclaimer to start with incase your getting at this, I fully accept theres a chance that I know nothing and everything is a lie (matrix or something) and that anything and everything could be true... (a small chance)

The bible storys about creation and the scientific version of creation came about through very different means, one came about from men who claimed to be talking to god the other came about through evidence based theories... surely you see a difference ?

The scientific method basically involves tried and tested, does the rock break the window ? throw 1000 rocks at 1000 windows with the same speed and angular velocity and if it breaks every time then the rock breaks the window

That or they are based on best possible guess... Science doesn't claim one all defining simple truth like religon does with some of the stuff that isn't testable and easily provable like gravity there can be competing thoeries and if something is found to be wrong over time it gets removed... with religon the passage just gets reinterpreted or said to be off the times. With science there is no such luxury, once something is wrong its not science (not say partial wrong is not okay, Newtonian mechanics only work above the atomic level once you get down to really tiny objects you need Qauntam Mechanics) which is a good example of errors being corrected...

[The Stranger]

PBI

I agree. I think people are getting confused between a given scientific theory, which is falsifiable, and the idea of science itself as a means of enquiring about nature, which is not; one must simply take the fundamental assumptions on faith (though I prefer the word "confidence") and hope that they will allow you to give a better prediction for the mass of an electron, or more accurately determine the trajectory of an artillery shell, or build a more efficient nuclear reactor. Ultimately it is the success of science in achieving these material objectives which is its main selling point in my opinion, not some innate philosophical superiority over other means of intellectual endeavor.

And AP

Science assumes the world is ordered and that all things are testable and explicable. Ergo, there cannot be any room for the Supernatural.

It's a belief system based on untestable assumptions, and therefore a religion.

said it better than I ever could in english.

and then this

Science is not a religion, not in the old sense of the word, nor in the new one. But actually neither are Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, certain philosphies etc. They are all theories of how to model reality. I'll therefore refer to them as Lifemodels.

These Lifemodels in themself are just theories and nothing more, they give a version of how reality, this world and life can possibly exist. Some of these theories also add a moral dimension to it, of HOW life should be lived, ACCORDING to the way they have modelled reality.

and this

What I'm trying to say is that "Religion" is not the lifemodel, but the people behind the lifemodel, or better said how certain people portray this lifemodel. Therefore science can just as well be a religion as christianity, but it doesn't neccesarily has to be like that. I've met a lot of christians that were fervent believers but were not religious. They believed the word of god, but they acknowledged that it was only their truth and that i had the right to have mine. This however doesn't mean that we can't talk about it or have a discussion about it.

so were actually talking about two different things. :P

[PBI]

Of course, and I definitely hold to an interpretation, as you also seem to, that the major religions are not really majorly concerned with explaining in detail the natural world anyway. It seems to be quite a minor topic, as religion as a whole seems to concern itself with other things more, as you pointed out.

I would certainly contend that this is how it should be, that science and religion fulfill distinct, separate roles and it is best for everyone if they stick to them. The problem is that historically religion certainly was expected to explain the natural world, and these old explanations are not always compatible with the scientific ones.

I feel it would be better all around if these obsolete explanations could be quietly discarded, and the major religions move to a position of deliberate ambivalence on scientific matters. Whether this is likely or even possible within our lifetime I have no idea. I am convinced, however, that free scientific enquiry provides such great material benefits to modern society that allowing it to be distorted by religious doctrine could be disastrous.

The bare minimum I would say would be the acceptance of some kind of theory of natural causality (and again, it may be different from the common sense as at least at the quantum level) as well as a methodological though not actually epistemic commitment to naturalism. Of course, you can go farther than that, if you wish to speak of actual objects than commitment to realism is required.

I essentially agree (although I should admit I had to look up several of those terms in the dictionary). In addition my understanding is that science requires the assumption that inductive logic is valid, something I am told is very problematic from a purely philosophical perspective.

Certainly realism is not required. I hold to a scientific realist view, but largely I suppose on a gut feeling rather than any particularly good logical argument; working in science has left me with the impression that it is extraordinarily difficult to systematically apply the wrong method to a problem but still get the right answer.

Well stated. The fact is, much of creationisms claims are actually (at least naively) falsifiable (age of the earth, pre flood vapor canopies, and so on).

I never understand why so little emphasis is placed on that, and yet so much is placed on stating that metaphysical foundations such as a creator are unfalsifiable. Well, of course they are, but that's not the point when we talk about something being falsifiable...

Pretty much. If creationism makes concrete predictions about biology, geology, astrophysics etc, it is falsifiable and should be challenged on those predictions. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter. I don't particularly have a problem with people viewing the Big Bang as the moment of creation, for example, although I would argue that since a naturalistic explanation may provide material benefits it is always worth looking to see if there is one to be found. I take a similar view of gauge theory/gravity unification; I don't see any problem with concluding that gravity occurs due to masses distorting space time and the other fundamental forces occur due to virtual boson exchange, but it's probably worth having a look to see if there is some single theory which explains both.

In 1992 John Paul II spoke against how Galileo was treated and how he was, in fact, correct, condemning the body which tried him for the errors it made. On the other hand, Galileo was quietly quasi-accepted by the Church in the mid-1700s, and by 1835 it was no longer in any kind of opposition to him or his theories.

What many people don't know is that the Catholic Church accepted Darwinian ideas as being compatible or potentially compatible with Christianity long before many other people and organizations did.

Sometimes the Church gets it right (I understand the Vatican was an early advocate of the Big Bang theory as well), sometimes it doesn't, but wouldn't it be better for all concerned if the Church simply refrained from taking a scientific position? It would make it easier for the scientific community to discard the theory if it is later shown to be deficient, and it would save the Church from having to make another embarrassing volte-face.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It will very slowly die out until it is dead or becomes a small minority barely able to claim a percentage point of the total population. I don't know if I want to say why I think this way because I really don't want to deal with a ********* of a conversation right before a major test I have to take this week.

[Cronos Impera]

The religion of the next millenia is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and its collective prophet are XXXXXXX. On a social level it manifests itself through: social guilt; cherem is a substitute for Hell; its Inquisition is public denial and legal repercussions. The splendid fact about this religion is that it functions without a God or an individualistic principle.

Its existance prove once again that Psichohistoric Necessisty and OligoSoc can **** on you, evolution, common sense, everything. It also shows that you don't need a religious background to be as foolish as a religious person.
If a XXX told you tomorrow that he could fly without a device and the rest of the world believed him, would you out of social guilt and legal consequence not aknowledge that and agree with him? Would you be so foolish as to endenger yourself?

Than come the obvious axioms of Psichohistory:

1) The Master is always superior, regardless of his nature because he is the master.
2) If something can harm you and you can't help yourself you have a master
3) There's always something that can hurt you while you're powerless. Therefore you always have a master.
4) You can not be free and equal to the rest at the same time, because by then you would have already been able to control the rest or be controlled by anyone else.
5) Many idiots chose equality over freedom. Most become equal in slavery, others like the XXXXXXX become equal in mastery.
6) All religion tries to persuade us that Freedom and Equality stack when they don't.
7) The only reason to presume we're equal is that we all share a hidden master and that master treats us with the same disgust.
8) That master is but a strawman for his preachers who are the actual masters.
9) There's always a religion
10) And the people who rule it are the Masters.
Religion will be XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and its heretics will dominate the future world.
Would you be willing to sacrifice your psychological comfort zone and oppose it like a true heretic or is heresy reserved only for easy pickings nowadays.Prick all holes with your random heresy.The hole which strikes back and stabs you with a sarissa is the religion.If you can prick it without being pricked that isn't the religion of the moment.
If Christianty can not overpower its critics, than its no longer a religion. If XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX can put you behind bars, ruin your life, kill you or turn you into an outcast than that is the new religion.

XXXXXXXX to you. All Hail XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.