Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:13 am Seems to me most everyone here has great respect for science (as tool, as method).

Scientism, as religion (and that's exactly what it is): not so much.

If scientism is a religion, Henry, then what is:

- its god?

- its supernatural element?

Both of these are required for any religious system. So please defend your claim, Henry.

What is the God of Buddhism?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:49 am What is the God of Buddhism?

Buddhism is not a religion. Idiot. You are really, but really stretching it now.

So, you're asserting that Buddhism is not a "religious system," (your phrase.)

You also assert that religious systems require a God.

Interesting.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:09 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:49 am What is the God of Buddhism?

Buddhism is not a religion. Idiot. You are really, but really stretching it now.

Your piss stream is weak.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:22 am

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:09 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:49 am What is the God of Buddhism?

Buddhism is not a religion. Idiot. You are really, but really stretching it now.

Your piss stream is weak.

You're blocking it, that's why.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:37 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:22 am

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:09 am

Buddhism is not a religion. Idiot. You are really, but really stretching it now.

Your piss stream is weak.

You're blocking it, that's why.

That’s because pissing on people is part of your "religious system". (Your phrase).
More echoes of Sagan.

The question is, is belief also your God?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:50 am
The question is, is belief also your God?

No. God is not part of every belief system. God is a specific belief object.

I'll withhold my piss for the time being if you want to be serious and not play games.

But I am still pissed off about what you answered to my question why Christians are denying the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory... your answer there was too much, and my answer to your answer very well illustrated that.

But that's fine if you are in denial of your denial on evolution, I won't force the issue.

Let's talk about god an faith instead, and how the two relate to each other. Until you say something outrageous again.

The worship gene requires that you worship, just as Dillon requires that you serve somebody. It's the way things are. If science hasn't yet found the worship gene, just give it time. What you worship becomes your God.

Traditions are put in place so you don't go off and worship something stupid, like a moron would, or an idiot.

"Whatever we cling to becomes the disease that carries us away."
- partial quote

(Edit: Dylan. Obviously I rarely think of the fellow, and can't spell.)

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:37 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:13 am Seems to me most everyone here has great respect for science (as tool, as method).

Scientism, as religion (and that's exactly what it is): not so much.

If scientism is a religion, Henry, then what is:

- its god?

- its supernatural element?

Both of these are required for any religious system. So please defend your claim, Henry.

I think Henry is overstating it by saying that Scientism is religion, but he is making a serious point. Science can be described as the project of understanding nature without reference to supernatural causes. Scientism is generally taken to be the belief that everything can be explained without supernatural causes. We don't yet know if that is true, so until we do, any such belief is an article of faith. A bit like religion, but without the god bit.

-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:37 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:13 am Seems to me most everyone here has great respect for science (as tool, as method).

Scientism, as religion (and that's exactly what it is): not so much.

If scientism is a religion, Henry, then what is:

- its god?

- its supernatural element?

Both of these are required for any religious system. So please defend your claim, Henry.

It’s god? Knowledge.

It’s supernatural? This could be the sticking point. For Science claims there is no supernatural. Perhaps Science is a semi-religion or a pseudo-religion.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:41 pmFor Science claims there is no supernatural.

As I explained above, that is scientism. Science is simply trying to discover what we can without resorting to gods, it doesn't assume there are none.

"your cromism is nothing more than wishful thinking and fantasy"

No, it's just bullshit, like all religions.

#

"Science or scientism is based on logic and reality..."

Science (as method) is fantastic.

Scientism (a religion where science is elevated to 'god') is bullshit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I think Henry is overstating it by saying that Scientism is religion, but he is making a serious point. Science can be described as the project of understanding nature without reference to supernatural causes. Scientism is generally taken to be the belief that everything can be explained without supernatural causes. We don't yet know if that is true, so until we do, any such belief is an article of faith. A bit like religion, but without the god bit.

Science is the tool we use to understand the world.

Scientism is the belief that tool is applicable to 'everything'.

Science can explain the mechanism of the Flu, but cannot explain the comfort my kid experiences when I just sit with him quietly when he has the Flu.

The scientism-ist claims science can explain that comfort (which it cannot: Philo sez scientism "is reductionist at core", but to understand life (specifically human life) you can't reduce it to constituents cuz the human individual isn't the sum of his parts but is the sum of the idiosyncratic interaction of his parts. In other words: you got to talk to my kid to understand my kid's sense of comfort cuz you'll not find that comfort (or the one who's comforted) in a dissection.