Is Science a Religion?

Originally posted by red g jacks
yes but how many trivial examples of human inquiry can also be described as 'trying to understand the world around us,' alongside the more lofty cosmic examples?

Originally posted by red g jacks
the more mundane details of science are no less scientific. but they're much harder to picture as part of a religious doctrine. i think that's because they're less awe inspiring, which has always been priority number 1 for religious narratives.

Originally posted by red g jacks
in addition to the myths religions used to try to explain the world around us, they also served people in other ways that science does not. they served as a source of symbolic inspiration, of moral authority, of cultural unity, etc.

Originally posted by red g jacks
should we classify non-religious sources of symbolism, morality, or cultural unity as religion simply because they share one of its traditional functions? i think these overlapping areas of interest merely indicate how ambitious these religions have traditionally been.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Humans are industrious, and do not like waist. Religion has taken on many hats, but I don’t think that is what religion really is.

Surprised no one's referenced the non-overlapping magisteria [sic] from...crap, it wasn't Russell. I forget. Some famous scientist, who threw that bone to religion despite doing a lot of work that undermined its credibility.

But the idea that religion answer "why" and science answers "how" has never seemed right to me. Science answers how, true. but anything can answer "why" because we form our own "why" answers. Religion is a popular way to do that, but once you're not in a religion it's kinda like "Oh, wow. Anything can answer that." Religion is just a commercially successful "why." It doesn't have a monopoly on it. So that distinction is a false one created largely by theists who don't see the possibility for "why" outside a religious framework. It's the same mentality that caused dozens of incredulous Christians to demand of me "where do you find your meaning?" after I left religion, when it seemed like an absurd question to me. It's a valid question in and of itself, because everyone has a unique answer to it, but was coming from the perspective that it was impossible for me to form a legit answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing is trivial.

Science doesn’t have a religious doctrine, it has a scientific doctrine (method).
I understand that nonlinear differential equations are quite awe inspiring.

Humans are industrious, and do not like waist. Religion has taken on many hats, but I don’t think that is what religion really is.

Religion and science are part of the same tree.

Science can only answer why in relational terms, and not in absolutes.

"Why is the sky blue?"

"Because the particles in our atmosphere primarily absorbs and scatters the blue light from the white sunlight."

"Why is that?"

"Because the quantum levels of said particles are such that the energy in blue light has a greater tendency to be absorbed and then scattered than other visible light."

But if you continue to answer the question "why" you'll eventually reach a halt. That said, I'm not entirely sure why people seek to know the "why" knowing that ultimately they'll have to put the trust in the words of someone as fallible as themselves.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think you know what i mean. there are some questions about 'how the world works' that are much more fundamental than others. religion typically tries to tackle some of the big ones. science tries to tackle them all.

We only pursue the questions we have enough information to ask.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't understand what you mean. what does waste have to do with it? i think those aspects of religion are every bit as important as its answers to questions about the universe.

which tree is that?

Is your phone just a phone or does also take photos and film?

“Which tree is that?” Ha ha ha ha ha ha Metaphors are not your strong suit?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We only pursue the questions we have enough information to ask.

i think religion generally has more use for the 'big' questions than it does for the details. even today when many of the details are known and available, they are generally ignored when it comes time to worship. for the most part it's just not necessary to the outlet that religion provides.

Is your phone just a phone or does also take photos and film?

“Which tree is that?” Ha ha ha ha ha ha Metaphors are not your strong suit?

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's not even what i'm getting at though. even back in the day there were scientific/mathematical insights to how the world works that were not part of any religious narrative.

I’m going further back, to a time when the difference between what religion and science are today was nonexistent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i think religion generally has more use for the 'big' questions than it does for the details. even today when many of the details are known and available, they are generally ignored when it comes time to worship. for the most part it's just not necessary to the outlet that religion provides.

Religion has changed.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you're saying that religious morality/symbolism is akin to an ap on an iphone? what makes their answers to cosmic questions any more important?

I was explaining what I meant by waste. It is more efficient to have an iphone instead of a phone, a camera, and a camcorder. You will have to go back to see the context.

Is there a hierarchy of cosmic questions?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i got that it was a metaphor. i was asking what you would call that tree.

I would call the tree, religion. Only because that is the oldest name I can think of.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I’m going further back, to a time when the difference between what religion and science are today was nonexistent.

lets say you go all the way back to tribes hunting game and smearing paint on walls depicting that game. the skill of hunting is learned by trial and error. science. the act of depicting the game had some sort of ritualistic/symbolic value. religion.

the later agricultural civilizations unsurprisingly had myths of their own which reflected that way of life instead of hunting. but they undoubtedly learned to till the fields through trial and error, rather than being passed down that knowledge by sacred entities as their myths depicted.

once again we see the 2 aspects of human inquiry tackling the same subjects but from completely different angles. they might each have been important in their own way. but they do not accomplish the same thing.

Religion has changed.

I was explaining what I meant by waste. It is more efficient to have an iphone instead of a phone, a camera, and a camcorder. You will have to go back to see the context.

Is there a hierarchy of cosmic questions?

I would call the tree, religion. Only because that is the oldest name I can think of.

Originally posted by red g jacks
even if they didn't have different categories for them, i would argue the two separate approaches probably existed back then as well.

There is no way to know.

Originally posted by red g jacks
lets say you go all the way back to tribes hunting game and smearing paint on walls depicting that game. the skill of hunting is learned by trial and error. science. the act of depicting the game had some sort of ritualistic/symbolic value. religion.

New findings have shown that religion may have existed before agriculture, and may have been the catalyst.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the later agricultural civilizations unsurprisingly had myths of their own which reflected that way of life instead of hunting. but they undoubtedly learned to till the fields through trial and error, rather than being passed down that knowledge by sacred entities as their myths depicted.

I generally would agree.

Originally posted by red g jacks
once again we see the 2 aspects of human inquiry tackling the same subjects but from completely different angles. they might each have been important in their own way. but they do not accomplish the same thing.
and yet many core aspects remain the same.

We are both speculating. You say they were separate, and I say they were unified. They could have been a little of both.

Originally posted by red g jacks
ok, i get what you're saying; that religion took on these other roles for the sake of efficiency? i don't really see that. but i'm still wondering how you can deduce that it didn't start out at symbolism and then adopt cosmic answers as part of that, rather than the other way around.

It could have been the other way around, but symbolism is always grounded in some aspect of reality. In other words, there has to be a reason for symbolism. Symbolism for symbolism, I think, is a little too abstract for primitive humans. Even today, much of the symbolism we use to draw something like a human hand, can confuse primitive tribes. I read an article once about a researcher showing isolated tribes images and asking them what they saw. When they came to a drawing of a hand, the fingernails made them think the ends of the fingers were cut off.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't understand the question.

You suggested that one question about the universe is more important then some other. That maybe true at the individual level, I don’t think it is true in the big picture.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so then they're not part of the same tree; religion is the tree and science is merely one of its branches. i think you give religion too much credit here.

I am talking about relationships between the two. I am not giving one more weight then the other.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

New findings have shown that religion may have existed before agriculture, and may have been the catalyst.

We are both speculating. You say they were separate, and I say they were unified. They could have been a little of both.

It could have been the other way around, but symbolism is always grounded in some aspect of reality. In other words, there has to be a reason for symbolism. Symbolism for symbolism, I think, is a little too abstract for primitive humans. Even today, much of the symbolism we use to draw something like a human hand, can confuse primitive tribes. I read an article once about a researcher showing isolated tribes images and asking them what they saw. When they came to a drawing of a hand, the fingernails made them think the ends of the fingers were cut off.

You suggested that one question about the universe is more important then some other. That maybe true at the individual level, I don’t think it is true in the big picture.

like "why are we here," "how did we get here," "what happens after we die?" these are questions that are just basic to human beings. questions like these have typically been the most central questions in religion.

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the last sentence. I thought a little more context was interesting.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the last sentence. I thought a little more context was interesting.

That is perfect. Exactly what I have been struggling to say.

Life is nothing but an eigenstate. 😛

I wouldn' t regard it as a religion as science lacks the major characteristics which define religion.

I would say there are people that treat Science like a religion, in that they have blind faith in whatever they are told.

So in some ways I guess that does make it a religion imo.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would say there are people that treat Science like a religion, in that they have blind faith in whatever they are told.

So in some ways I guess that does make it a religion imo.

Wassup peoples! This thread caught my eye and at first I thought that perhaps science was like religions in that it requires some faith. However science is based in fact in the same way that math is. Religion is not about provable facts, it's about an individual's interpretation of information, whether that information can be proven or not. Unknowns are part of math, and theories are part of science but they are intellectual deviations of the teachings of those subjects. The fundamentals of science are about facts that can be proven and can be proven consistently.

Originally posted by Astner
Science can only answer why in relational terms, and not in absolutes.

"Why is the sky blue?"

"Because the particles in our atmosphere primarily absorbs and scatters the blue light from the white sunlight."

"Why is that?"

"Because the quantum levels of said particles are such that the energy in blue light has a greater tendency to be absorbed and then scattered than other visible light."

But if you continue to answer the question "why" you'll eventually reach a halt. That said, I'm not entirely sure why people seek to know the "why" knowing that ultimately they'll have to put the trust in the words of someone as fallible as themselves.

Science is the antithesis of religion. Religion makes no sense. Science makes life on earth bearable.

Originally posted by Jim Colyer
Science is the antithesis of religion. Religion makes no sense. Science makes life on earth bearable.

😆