"Science is a religion"

[greenfairy]

I don't see how you can have a "scientific bias". What would this entail? From what I've seen, when people say someone has a "scientific bias", they mean that he doesn't softheadedly entertain every vacuous piece of conjecture and sophistry he encounters.

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.

 

[Coriolis]

that was an einstein quote, thought it was interesting. I don't belong to or participate in any religious activity. Science cannot stand on it's own, it needs a catalyst. religion was the catalyst at one time, what is it now?

Science can stand on its own, because it doesn't claim to do more than it can on its own. The perennial problem with religion is its claims to be able to answer questions ill suited to its mode of inquiry.

 

[greenfairy]

Science can stand on its own, because it doesn't claim to do more than it can on its own. The perennial problem with religion is its claims to be able to answer questions ill suited to its mode of inquiry.

And that's where religion differs from spirituality. Religion makes claims to truth, and spirituality is experience of truth.

 

[Coriolis]

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 suffers from overgeneralization, oversimplification, and just plain sloppiness.

1. It is demonstrably correct that the "scientific body of knowledge" is all the knowledge that exists, and scientific methods of observation are only way to increase that knowledge for certain questions/areas of inquiry.

2. Scientific observation and experimentation is experience, not the only kind of human experience, but the kind most suited to learning about the physical world. One hallmark of this type of experience is that it leads to results and conclusions that are impersonal. If the results cannot be reproduced elsewhere by others, the conclusions lack credibility.

3. Science does not provide certainty, since nothing can ever be proven. It provides an understanding that explains all available data, until new data appear which cannot be explained. Then the theory must be revisited, updated, and possibly even discarded.

4. Of course there is much that we do not yet have the capability to analyze scientifically. Looking for these answers in the realm of religion (or even spirituality), however, is just barking up the wrong tree. Religion rightly pertains to those things that science will never be able to analyze, because they are outside the physical experience.

5. Unquestioned faith and religious adherance to anything is the mindset of a simpleton, not a scientist. No one needs to tell scientists that our understanding of reality is far from complete.

 

[greenfairy]

This suffers from overgeneralization, oversimplification, and just plain sloppiness.

1. It is demonstrably correct that the "scientific body of knowledge" is all the knowledge that exists, and scientific methods of observation are only way to increase that knowledge for certain questions/areas of inquiry.

My point is that the other areas of inquiry are important too, and constitute a large body of knowledge.

2. Scientific observation and experimentation is experience, not the only kind of human experience, but the kind most suited to learning about the physical world. One hallmark of this type of experience is that it leads to results and conclusions that are impersonal. If the results cannot be reproduced elsewhere by others, the conclusions lack credibility.

Right, and I am referring to personal experience rather than empirical observation.

3. Science does not provide certainty, since nothing can ever be proven. It provides an understanding that explains all available data, until new data appear which cannot be explained. Then the theory must be revisited, updated, and possibly even discarded.

I never implied that it did; the different emphases in epistemology (to which I was referring- I know that wasn't clear) on either certainty or understanding are meant to be approached as closely as possible. Science seeks certainty and some other sorts of methods for attaining knowledge seek understanding (which is personal integration of truth).

4. Of course there is much that we do not yet have the capability to analyze scientifically. Looking for these answers in the realm of religion (or even spirituality), however, is just barking up the wrong tree. Religion rightly pertains to those things that science will never be able to analyze, because they are outside the physical experience.

I disagree that looking for answers in these areas is misdirected. They provide different sorts of knowledge, directions in which to look, and methods of inquiry and analysis. The error is in thinking that they can explain the same things. It's comparing apples to oranges. Like Fi and Ti- they're both rational in different ways, and have different sorts of wisdom.

5. Unquestioned faith and religious adherance to anything is the mindset of a simpleton, not a scientist. No one needs to tell scientists that our understanding of reality is far from complete.

True; the people who become "religious" about science usually aren't scientists. And those who are really are just attached to their methods and fear the unexplainable.

 

[Coriolis]

My point is that the other areas of inquiry are important too, and constitute a large body of knowledge.

My point is that all the criticisms you and others have levelled at scientific inquiry are valid only if one is asserting that those processes can be used to answer all questions facing humanity. My picking apart of your last post was to highlight the error of that assumption. There is a difference between questions that science cannot yet answer, and questions it will never be able to answer. It is as foolish to apply spiritual methods to the first as to apply scientific methods to the second. (Just recall those preachers of past generations who attempted to establish the age of the Earth using the Bible.) The areas of inquiry subject to scientific methods, however, are broad, diverse, and consequential. We do ourselves a disservice by approaching them with the wrong tools, and come no closer to the truth.

 

[greenfairy]

My point is that all the criticisms you and others have levelled at scientific inquiry are valid only if one is asserting that those processes can be used to answer all questions facing humanity. My picking apart of your last post was to highlight the error of that assumption.

I don't really understand what you are getting at with this, as I was not assuming anything of the sort. I have no criticism of science, only religious adherence to it.

There is a difference between questions that science cannot yet answer, and questions it will never be able to answer. It is as foolish to apply spiritual methods to the first as to apply scientific methods to the second. (Just recall those preachers of past generations who attempted to establish the age of the Earth using the Bible.) The areas of inquiry subject to scientific methods, however, are broad, diverse, and consequential. We do ourselves a disservice by approaching them with the wrong tools, and come no closer to the truth.

As far as I can see I agree with this post.


One more point of explanation which might point to a counterexample: sacred geometry. It looks first to math, then attaches spiritual value to the truth it finds. It's kind of a combination of the two methods. If patterns are reproduced in all areas of reality, then one can use observed mathematical patterns to symbolically learn about human experience. We can take these shared patterns and hypothesize that we should find them in nature in additional ways, and then investigate whether this is true. Like the pattern of separation and connection is represented in both human interaction and molecular and atomic interaction. The whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller.

 

[WALMART]

One word: "Hardly".

 

[Beorn]

 

[Coriolis]

I don't really understand what you are getting at with this, as I was not assuming anything of the sort. I have no criticism of science, only religious adherence to it.

The idea of religious adherance to science implies the assumption that science can answer all questions. If that assumption is dropped, then adherance to science is remains within its proper bounds.

One more point of explanation which might point to a counterexample: sacred geometry. It looks first to math, then attaches spiritual value to the truth it finds. It's kind of a combination of the two methods. If patterns are reproduced in all areas of reality, then one can use observed mathematical patterns to symbolically learn about human experience. We can take these shared patterns and hypothesize that we should find them in nature in additional ways, and then investigate whether this is true. Like the pattern of separation and connection is represented in both human interaction and molecular and atomic interaction. The whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller.

To the extent that we do this to learn about the physical world, this is scientific inquiry. If our object is to find spiritual meaning, it is not.

 

[Beorn]

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

http://www.christianpost.com/news/n...ges-personal-relationship-with-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."

 

[RaptorWizard]

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.

 

[Society]

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!" ?

 

[Coriolis]

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.

 

[Standuble]

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

 

[Society]

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.

 

[ehcriktic]

"Science is a religion"

I disagree.

 

[Mycroft]

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.)

 

[greenfairy]

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.

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.

As for the reference to South Park:

What?

 

[Mycroft]

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.