Scientific religious prejudice.

[lawcat]

What an ignorant comment. Science is a method. How exactly do you propose a method does anything... like wage war and label things?

 

This was addressed by Pyrotex in other posts, when he explained Korzybski--meaning of words is the problem of communication, and meaning is generally contextual. I fyou chose to ignore context, your loss.

 

What you mean to say is that people who engage in the method of science know better than to accept the religious mumbo-jumbo based on the bronze age fairy tales from barely literate tribal peoples, and that it is worthy of neither their deference nor their respect.

 

I find it humorous that the religious try to act all persecuted instead of addressing the criticisms... I suppose it's easier to call foul than to step up and respond with solid answers... Easier to avoid critical questions with claims of prejudice than to address them with integrity and merit.

 

Go figure. :eek2:

 

That is precisely your problem. You want me to fix the computer with sawzall, which is a tool of a carpenter. Then, when I can not, you say: "See, your method sucks."

Religion and Science are different, and methodology of one can not be used for the other. But, both are equally valid in their own domains.

[modest]

Religion and Science are different, and methodology of one can not be used for the other. But, both are equally valid in their own domains.

 

The trouble with this is that these domains are changing steadily. Typically the domain of science is "whatever can be explained by natural laws". The domain of religion is everything else. This has historically led to a lot of problems.

 

When someone built the first mercury barometer he created a vacuum (a place devoid of air). The church said no vacuum can exist. At the time the existence of a vacuum was in the religious domain. Likewise, Heliocentrism was religious dogma while the motion of heavily bodies was understood using region. Science claimed that.

 

The domain of Religion is always shrinking. The only solution to this is to say religion and the religious methodology you speak of answers questions which are completely unanswerable by any conceivable future method of investigation—things which science can never answer by future investigation.

 

The funny thing is... if "religious methodology" worked—f we could use it to show that there is a God for example—then it would be part of science. It may well be that the only thing that separates religious methodology from the scientific method is that the former gives no reliable results (i.e. it doesn't work) while the latter gives reliable results (i.e. it works).

 

So... that leaves us with the domain of religion. It is a method which is historically shown not to work which answers questions that never can be verified.

 

I'm not entirely sure how useful such a methodology is...

 

~modest

[lawcat]

The church said no vacuum can exist. At the time the existence of a vacuum was in the religious domain. Likewise, Heliocentrism was religious dogma while the motion of heavily bodies was understood using region. Science claimed that.

 

Scientific methods--and rigour in methods is the foundation and prerequisite of scientific inquiry--has yielded incorrect results many a times, throughout the history. Yet, methodology persists. Bt, more is at play here.

 

The domain of Religion is always shrinking.

 

Yes--in scientific community only.

 

The only solution to this is to say religion and the religious methodology you speak of answers questions which are completely unanswerable by any conceivable future method of investigation—things which science can never answer by future investigation.

 

Science should not be concerned with answering religious questions.

 

The funny thing is... if "religious methodology" worked—f we could use it to show that there is a God for example—then it would be part of science. It may well be that the only thing that separates religious methodology from the scientific method is that the former gives no reliable results (i.e. it doesn't work) while the latter gives reliable results (i.e. it works).

 

That is just the problem. There is no one methodology, as science claims. It is not the scientific way or the highway. There are two methodologies. One, of what the science can tell us, which are facts and warrants. Two, that which we ought to do based on our philosophy. Religion deals with the latter, but it is not concerned with warrants. Consider Catherine McKinnon's book "Towards a feminist theory of a State." Toward a feminist theory of the state - Google Book Search. Are women defined by nature, or by society? Should we make a political and philosophical decision on this issue, or should we make purely scientific decision?

 

The science asks for warrants, but that is not the goal or scope of religion. Religion is a judgment, based on philosophy. Science derives judgments, based on fact findings. Two very different things.

 

So... that leaves us with the domain of religion. It is a method which is historically shown not to work which answers questions that never can be verified.

 

I'm not entirely sure how useful such a methodology is...

 

Again, you only know of one methodology which will satisfy, or warrant, the rendition of your judgment upon fact findings. But, there is a wide field of humanities which does not need, nor necessatiates, the type of warrants or fact findings that you, as an individual or scientist, need. one of those fields is a field of philosophy, or religion.

[Boerseun]

Religion and Science are different, and methodology of one can not be used for the other. But, both are equally valid in their own domains.

The thing is, you see, that religion doesn't have a method. It's dogma.

[lawcat]

The thing is, you see, that religion doesn't have a method. It's dogma.

 

"Men are providers" - is a dogma, or has been a dogma. If science finds a gene that say that men are designed to be providers, and women are not, should we follow science? or, should we accept the findings and say that we have decided that women can be providers too? It is a judgment call, and it is a dogma. Science is only relevant to certain humanities' decisions, to the extent that it is persuasive to some.

 

"I like to eat bones" -- is my dietary judgment. if science finds that bones are bad for me, and broccoli is great for me, then should we force people to eat only broccoli?

 

In certain areas of life, science is wholly irrelevant, or only relevant to the extent that its information is persuasive.

 

When it comes to religion--god and worship--science can hardly be more persuasive than religion, because there is no positive proof on either side. The best science can do is appeal to logic, by arguing by negative implication that the belief in god is unfounded. However, religion has equally persuasive claim to logic--as in, "I like it, and this is how I want to live my life."

[modest]

You confuse religion and philosophy. Philosophy can be based on science or religion. It can focus on metaphysical questions or not. Philosophy is neither theistic or atheistic.

 

You are correct that the scientific method doesn't really answer questions of morality. But you incorrectly set up a false dichotomy in thinking that places in the domain of religion. You'd have a hard time explaining how Humanism is anywhere in the domain of theism for example. :eek2:

 

Have you honestly not considered this?

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Religion does not have to be theistic. Many world religions are not theistic. (consider yin/yang model, or pantheism) Religion, is not different than philosophy (obviously there are differences in philosophical movements). Religion offers way on how we ought to live our lives.

[modest]

Religion does not have to be theistic. Many world religions are not theistic.

I agree that religion does not have to be theistic, Buddhism and Hinduism could be categorized as such. But, my point stands. You are confusing philosophy and religion which seems very uninformed.

 

Religion, is not different than philosophy

As per the site rules, you need to provide a scientific source backing up this claim.

 

To say religion is not different from philosophy is to say all philosophy is religious. Once again, how is Humanism religious? You'll have to make that argument to make your point and I'm quite sure you'll be unable to. I doubt you'll try.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

You are correct that the scientific method doesn't really answer questions of morality.

Well, yes and no. It may not "answer" those questions, but it certainly "informs" them. A good talk about using science to inform morality was given by Harris and is linked below. He makes an interesting comment that really resonated with me.

 

Harris comments how morality is a lot like food. There is no one "right food." However, we're still able to objectively distinguish between food and poison. Just because we can't all agree on the one "right food" does not mean we cannot collectively and objectively agree that some are foods and some are poisons.

 

 

Watch his short 20 minute talk below:

Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark - Sam Harris http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1565668410019519034

 

 

 

Btw - Lawcat is continually referencing the idea of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria," an idea popularized by Stephen Jay Gould.

 

 

Non-Overlapping Magisteria - SkepticWiki

Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a principle described by Stephen Jay Gould in Rock of Ages, defining the relationship of the authority of religion and science.

 

According to NOMA, science discovers matters of fact and theory (“what and how”), whereas religion is concerned with purpose and moral precepts (“why”). Science and religion are said to possess independent and complementary tools of inquiry, and any apparent conflict comes from one mode of investigation trespassing on the domain of the other.

 

 

This approach, however, has come under enormous (and well deserved) criticism from all sides of the debate:

 

Far from Gould’s assertion that NOMA was “"a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion", the principle has been attacked by philosophers from both sides of the science/religion divide.

 

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion criticizes NOMA on two points. First, he notes that many, if not most, of the pronouncements of religion lie within the domain of science, according to this scheme. Since claims such the efficacy of prayer, the historicity of scriptures, the authenticity of miracles, and the very existence of a creator, are all claims about the natural world (“what”), according to NOMA, they are within the realm of science, even if they are not currently testable in any practical way. To strip religion of these teachings would leave something unrecognizable as modern religion.

 

Indeed, religious institutions have occasionally ventured into scientific (and pseudoscientific) inquiry into their religious beliefs, and have certainly not discounted any apparently positive results as being outside the scientific magisterium.

 

Secondly, Dawkins questions whether religious institutions are any more qualified than science or any other method to address the issues of purpose.

 

If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse.

 

Religious Fundamentalists are likewise not so keen to give up any ground to the scientific inquiry. The Answers In Genesis site, in fact, agrees with Dawkins that religious claims are scientific; “..the Resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the Christian faith but it is also a matter of history, it passed the ‘testable’ claim that the tomb would be empty on the third day…” AIG goes on to attack NOMA thus:

 

Christ is the Lord of the universe, and the Bible is accurate on everything it touches, not just faith and morality, but history, science and geography also

 

It has been argued that any respect for NOMA among scientists has had the effect only of abandoning the middle ground to religious fundamentalism. [5] A parallel argument from the religious corner claims that NOMA “seems to dull the senses of many Christians more than an overt declaration that Christianity is false.”

[modest]

I agree INow, and I'm about to watch the video.

 

I believe wholeheartedly that morality based on the scientific method (e.g. Humanism) is better for having a better foundation. Morality based on religion (most especially the theistic kind (more western / less eastern)) often goes terribly wrong because it asks people to base decisions on something which could easily be completely fictional.

 

I'm not saying religious philosophy can't be a good and useful thing... I'm saying it often is not. It is faulty by design and can therefore lead to bad results.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

"The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,[2] a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists[3] sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.

 

The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of Secular Humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example Christian humanism."

Fellowship of Humanity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Philosophy is not religion. But, religion is part of philosophy.

 

"Dr. David Saville Muzzey, a leader in the Ethical Culture Movement, states in his book, Ethics As a Religion (1951), that "[e]verybody except the avowed atheists (and they are comparatively few) believes in some kind of God," and that

 

"The proper question to ask, therefore, is not the futile one, Do you believe in God? but rather, What kind of God do you believe in?" Dr. Muzzey attempts to answer that question:

 

"Instead of positing a personal God, whose existence man can neither prove nor disprove, the ethical concept is founded on human experience. It is anthropocentric, not theocentric. Religion, for all the various definitions that have been given of it, must surely mean the devotion of man to the highest ideal that he can conceive. And that ideal is a community of spirits in which the latent moral potentialities of men shall have been elicited by their reciprocal endeavors to cultivate the best in their fellow men. What ultimate reality is we do not know; but we have the faith that it expresses itself in the human world as the power which inspires in men moral purpose.""

[modest]

:eek2: The Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 468 (1961) refering to Secular Humanism as a religion applied only to a particular group of humanists known as the Fellowship of Humanity.

 

Nonetheless, I think, Lawcat, you bring up an interesting question as to whether secular humanism should be granted rights under the establishment clause of the first amendment. A bit off topic for this thread, but I'd say yes. I do not think public schools should teach humanism any more than they should teach Christianity. I'd also say they should have the right to gather in public and profess their beliefs and be tax-exempt for whatever charity work they do or whatever collections they take.

 

I don't think, however, the language of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes Humanism a religion even if Humanism is granted such protections. I personally find fault in the constitution's language. But, again, this is off topic.

 

The typical definition of religion:

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.

Always reference the supernatural, transcendent, or some kind of higher power. This is specifically rejected by secular humanism. This makes it a non-religious philosophy. It now appears you agree such a thing can exist:

Philosophy is not religion. But, religion is part of philosophy.

Quite right, philosophy is not the same as religion.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

By Modest: "I don't think, however, the language of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" makes Humanism a religion even if Humanism is granted such protections. I personally find fault in the constitution's language."

 

I'd like to persuade you to think differently, for the current, historical, and future reasons underlying First Amend. and how we ought adjudicate rights. But, that will take several steps of reasoning. let me know if interested, and I promise it will be worth your while.

 

Humanism, in courts, has a sort of presumption of religious character, since 1950's. however, claimant's assertion that their beliefs are or are not religious, is not determinative. For example, in one case, proponents of meditation class in school claimed that it is not religious, but simply a relaxation. Court ruled, that it is a religion. On the other hand, some moral believers who claimed that they could not serve in the government for fear of God's impetus have been rejected since their beliefs were purely personal moral codes.

 

If, you read Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you will find that a large part, but not all, of humanist movements are considered religious. Those who do not want to be labled as religoius, are those who believe that their credibility is better preserved if the movement is seen as scientific. But courts do not buy it all the time.

 

For that reason, I conclude, that generally humanism is religious in character--although, not always, because there are as many movements as their are thoughts. Conversely, to say that all or most of secular humanism is not religious, does not comport with facts.

[modest]

It's an interesting position you have. Religious humanism and secular humanism are both religions EDIT: perhaps you're not saying that.

 

Many people disagree with or even loathe secular humanism. A common complaint heard from critics, usually Christian fundamentalists, is that secular humanism is actually a religion — but upon what basis would they make such a claim? Is secular humanism really a religion?

 

It is a curious claim because it seems to be motivated by hypocrisy. Whenever fundamentalists assert that secular humanism is a religion, they suddenly find a new belief in the importance of the separation of church and state, arguing that in order to preserve church-state separation, secular humanism must be removed from schools, universities, the media, etc.

 

One argument often used by fundamentalists is that the Supreme Court has ruled that secular humanism is a religion. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo Black wrote in a footnote that:

 

”Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, secular humanism, and others.”

 

As a footnote, it qualifies as an obiter dictum — this means that it is simply a personal observation of the judge, and hence is only incidental to reaching the opinion. It has no real weight when it comes to legal precedent and cannot be properly considered the “decision” of the court. In accordance with this, in the 1994 9th Circuit Court decision in Peloza v. Capistrano it was ruled that the Supreme Court had never “held that evolutionism or secular humanism are ‘religions’ for Establishment Clause purposes,” essentially refuting the argument made by the fundamentalists.

 

Another argument commonly offered for the idea that secular humanism is a religion is through reference to the devotion which secular humanists have for their principles and beliefs. Presumably, the defining characteristic of a religion is a person’s zeal and earnestness — but is that a valid way to understand what religion is? As Paul Kurtz has written:

 

Is feminism a religion? Are we devoted to it? Is communism a religion? Is libertarianism a religion? Libertarians are devoted to the free market and actively support it. Is vegetarianism a religion? It seems to me if we were to use the term religion in that way, its definition becomes so wide that it applies to everything. If you’re a devout pinochle player, if your whole life is spent playing pinochle, are you religious in that sense? By such a definition, religion applies to everything and to nothing. It’s a misuse of the language, and it makes no sense.”

 

Is Secular Humanism a Religion? Many Say It Is, but Secularists Say It Isn't

 

Honestly Lawcat, I'm not interested in debating an absurdity. Look up "secular".

 

~modest

 

***** EDIT ********

 

The point is, philosophy is not equivalent to religion, there are non-religious philosophies. It appears you now agree with that. I conclude that morality is not the exclusive domain of religion.

 

***** EDIT ********

[lawcat]

I said religion is philosophy. Which can be restated as: That which is not philosophy is not religion. (BTW, the article listed above is irrelevant, as it mentions earnestness, zeal, strength, devotion, and such characteristics; it does nothing constructive, but clouds the issue. Philosophy, religion, etc is not defined by how you charcaterize that which you wish you measure.)

[modest]

Yes, quite clearly a misunderstanding. I took this statement:

Religion, is not different than philosophy

to mean they are equivalent. I find much more agreeable the idea that religion is a form of philosophy (although I imagine many philosophy majors would get angry at me for saying that).

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Well, practice of certain philosophies is certainly different from practice of many religions. Both math and botany are sciences, but practice of botany is not equal to practice of math.