1 of 2
1
Knowledge based religion? Religion defined
Posted: 06 February 2005 05:14 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2004-12-29

This is one of the definitions I found for religion:
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Is there room in this definition for a knowledge/science based system of religion?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2005 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

For America, politics should be respelt as POILITICS.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2005 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

Paul I have been thinking about this, and I am not sure it is doable at this time.

Remember, religion and science share the same basic needs of humans, to explain.

Science >>>>  Religion

as science progresses religion decreases, but in order to have a science based religion, people would have to accept “I dont know” as an answer.

Here are the areas where religion still holds sway:

Is there life after death?
Does my life have a purpose?
Why am I conscious?
Why do I exist?

The fact is science can not fully answer all these questions yet, so the religion based on science would have to allow for an acceptance on “faith” that the answers will be found someday, but not in your lifetime.  While thinking people can live and die with “I don’t know” as the answer, I am not sure worldwide humanity is ready to grow up to that point.
After all, it kinda requires a degree of ego transcendance that most people pyschologically can’t handle.

Secular Humanism has been around awhile, maybe it just needs more help

http://religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm

actually I didnt know I was a secular humanist, but it appears I just might be = p

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2005-02-20

“Knowledge based religion?” Now I’ve heard all the oxymorons.

Gary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

It seems to me that science and religion have nothing whatever to do with each other.  Science is a form of selective seeing that, before it can extract quantifiable data from the world, data that it can then re-contextualize as part of a formal model, it must remove human value from the world, see it as “occurent” in the Heideggerean sense.  Once one has removed human value from a material, no combination of that material (data), no matter how elaborate the arrangement of it, can re-create what has been removed once and for all at the outset of the process.  Bottom line: science cannot produce values.  There is therefore no sense in which “science” could “replace” “religion.”  I am very grateful to Mr. Harris for his book, but here I strongly disagree with what seems to be his point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2005 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Johannes de Silento”]Bottom line: science cannot produce values.


Actually religion doesn’t produce values. It can be used to affirm them (whether they’re positive or negative) or even amplify them (more a product of the community, really, than religion though), but people don’t derive their values from religion, they choose a religion that affirms their values. It’s just easy to get that mixed up when most people are raised into a given belief system, but it becomes obvious when people leave or change churches and/or convert.

Science does a much better job of hleping us understand reality (it’s based upon sound epistemology rather than systemically excused, institutionalized presumption), therefore it provides a much more sound basis for values.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2006 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  43
Joined  2006-01-14

[quote author=“Paul Hindle”]This is one of the definitions I found for religion:
“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”

Is there room in this definition for a knowledge/science based system of religion?

I think religion would have to be redefined.  My issue with this is including faith, which I understand to mean: accept something to be true without evidence of that something.  I don’t know of any science that doesn’t work from evidence.

I certainly think the rituals and principles could be replaced with something else.  I would probably go to Church again if I could learn about science, experiment, and discuss it.  I know I can do that now; I’m just saying.

Anyone know of good book(s) that have stories about science?  I could see myself reading such stories to my kids.  There’s no need to take humans out of science like I think Johannes suggested.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2006 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Paul Hindle”]This is one of the definitions I found for religion:
“a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”

Is there room in this definition for a knowledge/science based system of religion?


Nope. Faith and science are fundamentally anathema. IMO science could even be described (rather loosely, perhaps) as the systematic rejection of applied faith.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2006 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Bottom line: science cannot produce values. There is therefore no sense in which “science” could “replace” “religion.”

Science broadly is our objective truth and way of studying things. It does not replace religion…but, shows that religion is largely irrelevant if you really want to know something. Science can and has studied religion and it’s effects.
If you needed science to test the proposition that murder has a detrimental effect on society….go for it. I suppose science could prove that ethical behavior is beneficial to our species…and hence verify a “value system”.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2006 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

[quote author=“ScepticX”]Nope. Faith and science are fundamentally anathema. IMO science could even be described (rather loosely, perhaps) as the systematic rejection of applied faith.

Well, well, well. Some people think that science can be defined as pursuit of truth and I like that definition.

Yogananda proposes that religion be defined as pursuit of happiness.

New Age promises the merging of science and religion and I don’t see any contradiction here.

Most of us on this forum think of religion as some set of dogmas and articles of faith, something for the intellect. However, there is also a mystic tradition in every religion where the mystic experience is what counts. Mysticism and dogma make for a very uneasy marriage and one threatens the other if you study different religious traditions. However, without mystic tradition the religions would crumble. Not only that but many regular religious people have had their own little mystic experiences at some point in their life and that reinforces the beliefs they have. Explaining and exploring those experiences is definitely a job for science.

T.O.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 12:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Thomas Orr”]Well, well, well. Some people think that science can be defined as pursuit of truth and I like that definition.


Actually I’d consider that a pretty poor definition—“truth” is a philosophical, not a scientific issue. Science is about what works. The way I understand it, truth in any other than the fuctional sense is ultimately irrelevent.

The most obvious (and most cited) case in point is the fact that we use Newtonian equations for space flight even though we know they’re not “true” representations of the way nature operates. If it were about truth we’d've rejected Newtononian physics altogether by now. But the equations work, and that’s all we need.

Discovering truth is an important by-product of the process (what works is generally an accurate representation of reality at the very least, even if only in function), but that’s for philosophers of science to focus on. Practitioners of science will stick to the data that produce results.

Religion is about truth, but it’s more about satisfying the emotional need for perceiving truth than actually sincerely seeking it (at least that’s cerrtainly been my experience with religion here in the US). Unfortunately it’s also almost always at least as much about bypassing any sincere or responsible measures of discernment. It’s the presumption of truth, which then leads immediately into the main focus of then defending that investment, mostly through emotion and further presumption.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 03:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

[quote author=“ScepticX”]Actually I’d consider that a pretty poor definition—“truth” is a philosophical, not a scientific issue. Science is about what works. The way I understand it, truth in any other than the fuctional sense is ultimately irrelevent.

Truth was a bad choice. Replace it with knowledge.

Some say “business is about what works”. Is therefore business the same as science? Corporate science is an obvious oxymoron. Looks like playing with words we will not advance us far ...

T.O.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 04:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2807
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“Thomas Orr”]Truth was a bad choice. Replace it with knowledge.

Some say “business is about what works”. Is therefore business the same as science? Corporate science is an obvious oxymoron. Looks like playing with words we will not advance us far ...

T.O.

T.O., “validity” works as an excellent synonym for “truth”—at least for the lower case “t”-type truth.

Scientists seek validity to their theories. They also seek to exclude what is invalid. But they don’t seek Truth unless they have become trapped in a kind of Platonic naivete CanZen referred to recently.

This is far from merely playing with words in my opinion.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Thomas Orr”]Some say “business is about what works”. Is therefore business the same as science?


That’s about like suggesting that because baseball and military combat are both about operating in teams, therefore they’re the same thing. Because two things have an aspect in common, even a critical aspect, clearly does not equate them. Frankly I suspect you know better.


[quote author=“Thomas Orr”]Corporate science is an obvious oxymoron.


Is it? Sounds like large group social science would apply, and a branch of that science could very well be appropriately called “corporate science.” Maybe you meant something more specific by the term than is implicit?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

[quote author=“ScepticX”]The most obvious (and most cited) case in point is the fact that we use Newtonian equations for space flight even though we know they’re not “true” representations of the way nature operates. If it were about truth we’d've rejected Newtononian physics altogether by now.

If it is the most cited case I must say it is bad. Designing a space flight is engineering, not science. Engineering freely uses “approximation” if it is good enough to work.

But you touched on the interesting topic of a paradigm. Kuhn pointed out that such disciplines of science as nuclear physics and chemistry may have contradictory paradigms. This would be a good example for what you wanted to state.

T.O.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2006 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

[quote author=“SkepticX”][quote author=“Thomas Orr”]Some say “business is about what works”. Is therefore business the same as science?


That’s about like suggesting that because baseball and military combat are both about operating in teams, therefore they’re the same thing. Because two things have an aspect in common, even a critical aspect, clearly does not equate them. Frankly I suspect you know better.

You are right about that grin

[quote author=“SkepticX”][quote author=“Thomas Orr”]]Corporate science is an obvious oxymoron.


Is it? Sounds like large group social science would apply, and a branch of that science could very well be appropriately called “corporate science.” Maybe you meant something more specific by the term than is implicit?

Byron

I meant “privatization” of science, which in my opinion is the greatest harm the corporation friendly culture inflicted on our society. The direct results of this process is that “scientific opinion” in medicine and nutrition lost its credibility with the public. And I would argue that the public is right. Just don’t tell this to Rod who is accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories.

T.O.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Simple Man      unlikely bedfellows? ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed