User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 126

  1. #31
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,806

    Default

    It certainly can't be denied that there are atheists who treat science and atheism as a religion.

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/ne...reality-89260/

    A large new atheist billboard has been unveiled along a San Diego freeway, the result of co-operative work of over 18 atheist and secular groups, which reads "Atheism: A Personal Relationship with Reality."
    "We want to express how using intelligence to free oneself of the god idea can open the curtain to a inspiring new outlook," said Debbie Allen, coordinator for the San Diego Coalition of Reason, in a statement. "Atheism is positive and offers grounding in the real world."
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Science has important metaphysical implications that religion can further build upon; like the theories of evolution, relativity, and cause-effect could easily be applied to the realm of spiritual development. We are on a journey through time of self-mastery back the source that started it all.

  3. #33
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    playing devil advocate here:
    in Judaism there are multiply discretionary measures in regards to how to identify a false prophet from a true prophet (messenger of god), to determine whether the information the prophet has provided is to be accepted or not. the entire tradition of Judaism can be said to be the accumulation & interpretation of such messages (and monotheism by extension).
    would that not constitute a method? in fact almost every religion discriminates between information, that's why their separate in the first place, almost every religion is telling the other religions that they are wrong.

    look, while most people who make this claim interpret the religiousness of science as "believing in the big bang / evolution / etc", which is a crappy interpretation, at the core of it the scientific method and application of probability demands the acceptance of certain axioms, and i don't think there's a way around it - philosophers of science have being trying to prove the basic assumptions for years as inherit, and so far there hasn't being any luck, because while describing science as a religion might be stretching the f' out of the word, the scientific method IS a natural philosophy.

    this means:
    1. the methodology itself requires a certain degree of faith in regards to the working of the universe.
    2. while those have proven to be incredibly useful at finding information about the universe given a certain set of requirements, we can't know that all the critical information to understanding the universe meet those requirements.

    so, when religious people look at science and see:
    1. accepted axioms.
    2 large institutions.
    3. selective scholars.
    4. financial backing.
    5. political influences.
    6. telling them they are wrong.

    can you really blame them for saying, "Wait a minute, these guys are sort of like us!" ?

  4. #34
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    playing devil advocate here:
    in Judaism there are multiply discretionary measures in regards to how to identify a false prophet from a true prophet (messenger of god), to determine whether the information the prophet has provided is to be accepted or not. the entire tradition of Judaism can be said to be the accumulation & interpretation of such messages (and monotheism by extension).
    would that not constitute a method? in fact almost every religion discriminates between information, that's why their separate in the first place, almost every religion is telling the other religions that they are wrong.

    look, while most people who make this claim interpret the religiousness of science as "believing in the big bang / evolution / etc", which is a crappy interpretation, at the core of it the scientific method and application of probability demands the acceptance of certain axioms, and i don't think there's a way around it - philosophers of science have being trying to prove the basic assumptions for years as inherit, and so far there hasn't being any luck, because while describing science as a religion might be stretching the f' out of the word, the scientific method IS a natural philosophy.

    this means:
    1. the methodology itself requires a certain degree of faith in regards to the working of the universe.
    2. while those have proven to be incredibly useful at finding information about the universe given a certain set of requirements, we can't know that all the critical information to understanding the universe meet those requirements.

    so, when religious people look at science and see:
    1. accepted axioms.
    2 large institutions.
    3. selective scholars.
    4. financial backing.
    5. political influences.
    6. telling them they are wrong.

    can you really blame them for saying, "Wait a minute, these guys are sort of like us!" ?
    Yes. A philosophy is not a religion. For that reason, people often dismiss Confucianism as true religion, since it does not require belief in a deity. You can have all the methods you want, but if they are not falsifiable and do not lead to predictable outcomes that are repeatable, it is not science. The Jewish method of identifying false prophets would thus be considered scientific only if the validity of a prophet could be disproven, which further implies the ability to prove a spiritual truth. (The Bahai's have a better test: they judge a prophet by his "fruits". If the results of his preaching bring observable benefit to the world, he is considered true. Still very subjective, but at least more transparent and rooted in observable reality.)

    Scientific methods require no faith in regard to how the universe works. They operate entirely on observation. Either the predicted outcome happens, or it does not. If it does repeatably, the explanation is accepted and used until contradicted by new information. Most religions do not have this built-in correction practice, and insist that their explanations are true forever, regardless of new information that comes to light.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    The scientific method is a dogma. A dogma is not a religion.

  6. #36
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Yes. A philosophy is not a religion.
    i am not saying that science is a religion, i am saying that given the listed similarities in my post above, the reasons religious people would look at science and see it as just another competing religion to theirs are incredibly understandable.

    it's like arguing with someone that a whale isn't a fish - you'd be entirely correct - and yet the reasons they'd think a whale is a fish are entirely understandable - it clearly has many visual similarities to a fish.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    23

    Default

    "Science is a religion"
    I disagree.

  8. #38
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    This means clinging to the presumption that the scientific body of knowledge is all the knowledge that exists, or that the scientific method of observation is the only method of attaining knowledge of reality. There is another way, that of experience and relationship. It yields a different sort of knowledge, that of understanding (as opposed to certainty). It is personal integration of truth. Also, there is plenty to be known which we do not yet have the capability to observe with technology. Having unquestioned faith in and religious adherence to science is to reject the idea that humans have access to only a small portion of reality at any given time. We can't know what lies in the past or the future, for example. We don't know what things are like on the other side of the galaxy. We don't even know what thoughts are in other people's minds.
    This really doesn't make very much sense to me. What is this "other way"? Are you proposing that experience isn't a part of the method of gathering empirical data? Because that's completely untrue. And we can't "know" the thoughts on others' minds because there's nothing to be known there: thoughts are subjective experiences of material states of the thinking organ that have no existence to themselves.

    As for the reference to South Park: I'm impressed we made it an entire three pages into this thread before someone demonstrated his ability to recall an episode of a television program and to paste a gif. Bravo.

    That episode also servers as nothing more than a reminder that human beings can use anything as a pretense for engaging in in-group / out-group squabbles leading to warfare. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific method. Similarly, the question of whether people treat science as a religion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is a religion. (I would also argue that there are qualifiable differences in thinking and approach, but it would just devolve into the sort of fruitless argument over definitions of which I've tired.)
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  9. #39
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    This really doesn't make very much sense to me. What is this "other way"? Are you proposing that experience isn't a part of the method of gathering empirical data? Because that's completely untrue.
    Nope. That's the mystery of the mystics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    And we can't "know" the thoughts on others' minds because there's nothing to be known there: thoughts are subjective experiences of material states of the thinking organ that have no existence to themselves.
    This is debatable by philosophers of mind, scientists, and people who experience telepathy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    As for the reference to South Park:
    What?

  10. #40
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    Nope. That's the mystery of the mystics.

    This is debatable by philosophers of mind, scientists, and people who experience telepathy.

    What?
    Well if you've got a definition for what it entails to "exist" that allows for thoughts to fall under the umbrella of the term, it must be an extremely idiosyncratic one.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO