Philosophy Now Forum

rantal wrote:Yes, the diferences in methodologies are sufficient to show that science is not a religeon
NO! The differences in methodologies are sufficient to show at least one area where they differ. They differ in their methodology.

but I could have pointed out other diferences, domain for example or your own aim.
For aim, see def of religion below, especially blue.

Science offers no advice on how to live, religions do, in that they are different in aim
Incorrect, Anatomy, medicine, nutrition, are just a few things that are of science that tells us how to live, if we're not idiots. There are many other examples, including those sciences that show the human effects on our biosphere, as they pertain to global warming. There's all kinds of directives from science, for how humans should live, for the non-fools. One just has to pay particular close attention.


all the best, rantal

Science offers no advice on how to live, religions do, in that they are different in aim
Incorrect, Anatomy, medicine, nutrition, are just a few things that are of science that tells us how to live, if we're not idiots. There are many other examples, including those sciences that show the human effects on our biosphere, as they pertain to global warming. There's all kinds of directives from science, for how humans should live, for the non-fools. One just has to pay particular close attention.

rantal wrote:Sorry I don't accept your definition, let us instead consult the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the definitive source

Definition of religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion

Origin:

Middle English (originally in the sense 'life under monastic vows'): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) 'obligation, bond, reverence', perhaps based on Latin religare 'to bind'

Science offers no advice on how to live, religions do, in that they are different in aim
Incorrect, Anatomy, medicine, nutrition, are just a few things that are of science that tells us how to live, if we're not idiots. There are many other examples, including those sciences that show the human effects on our biosphere, as they pertain to global warming. There's all kinds of directives from science, for how humans should live, for the non-fools. One just has to pay particular close attention.

No, mediciine, anatomy, nutrition do not tell us how to live, they offer information not ethical values. We may hold the value of being healthy, science tells us how of if, strangely, we held the value of not being healthy science also tells us that. Indeed it is sceince that has told us how to develop many drugs that are harmful

So, science is not a religion because,
1. it conforms not to the definition
2. it offers no values

all the best, rantal

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it's a fact! Oh by the way it came from "© Random House, Inc. 2013."

Do you 'value' your life? I rest my case!

Science is a religion of sorts, while religion is definitely no science.

As a matter of fact it's my religion, of sorts!

rantal wrote:

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it's a fact! Oh by the way it came from "© Random House, Inc. 2013."

Do you 'value' your life? I rest my case!

Science is a religion of sorts, while religion is definitely no science.

As a matter of fact it's my religion, of sorts!

The only fact is that your definition is quoted in Random House... BUT the Oxford Dictionary is the definitive source here and if there is a fact regarding definition then it is the definition given there
Who, says??? You and a bunch of Brits. I'm here to tell you that I'm from the land where the NUMBER ONE university is (HARVARD) you can take your England dictionary and stick it up your redcoat! Just kidding! Actually my sir name is in fact English, from bloody old England. But seriously, who is to say which is definitive. I say that the one I quoted is right on the money, and is how I've always seen it, prior to ever checking the dictionary for proof.

Yes, I value my life but that is not a value taught to me by science, therefore your claim fails, science teaches us nothing about how to live
Incorrect, the value is taught, in oh so many ways, just by having so many Sciences dedicated to preserving it, teaches one. Teaching comes from everywhere. The fact that you value it and they tell you how to optimize it is a form of teaching it. I hope this isn't above your head, you seem like a smart individual.


Sceince or more correctly speaking sceitism may be your belief structure but it is not a religion and just claiming it is does not make it so
It is the truest religion there is because it is "...a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." You people that say otherwise are just religion haters because of the crimes that's been committed historically, by religion. So am I, I hate those that messed with Galileo, the Crusaders, and the ones responsible for the Inquisition. You guys got to lighten up!


all the best, urban

rantal wrote:The only fact is that your definition is quoted in Random House... BUT the Oxford Dictionary is the definitive source here and if there is a fact regarding definition then it is the definition given there
Who, says??? You and a bunch of Brits. I'm here to tell you that I'm from the land where the NUMBER ONE university is (HARVARD) you can take your England dictionary and stick it up your redcoat! Just kidding! Actually my sir name is in fact English, from bloody old England. But seriously, who is to say which is definitive.

It's our language but seriously, I think most people would understand religion to include the criteria mentioned by the OED
Here you go:
"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. ---On religion, from Wikipedia---

In terms of 4,200 religions in the world, I'd say your use of the word 'religion' as it relates to this particular argument' is ambiguous at best and dead wrong at worst. Did you actually consider all 4,200 of them before making your case?

Here's another, Encyclopaedia Britannica (opening statement in the micropaedia): "Religion, man's relation to that which he regards as holy. The "holy" need not be thought of as supernatural, much less as personal; and if the word god be defined in personal or supernatural terms, it follows that religion includes far more than the relation to God or a god." ---Britannica - the most respected Encyclopaedia of them all---

Encyclopaedia Britannica trumps Oxford Dictionary, because a dictionary is a short format work, much like the Britannica micropaedia is, relative to it's macropaedia. But even it's micropaedia has more than a dictionary, at a paragraph (at best).

I say that the truth of the universe is indeed holy!

Yes, I value my life but that is not a value taught to me by science, therefore your claim fails, science teaches us nothing about how to live
Incorrect, the value is taught, in oh so many ways, just by having so many Sciences dedicated to preserving it, teaches one. Teaching comes from everywhere. The fact that you value it and they tell you how to optimize it is a form of teaching it. I hope this isn't above your head, you seem like a smart individual.

I'm not buying that but if you seriously belief it, tell me one value invented by science
They don't have to invent it, in order to teach it. Anything health related, such as proper nutrition was born of science such that personal health via proper nutrition and exercise is a value.

"2 (values) principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life: they internalize their parents' rules and values" ---Oxford dictionary---

Science or more correctly speaking scientism may be your belief structure but it is not a religion and just claiming it is does not make it so
It is the truest religion there is because it is "...a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." You people that say otherwise are just religion haters because of the crimes that's been committed historically, by religion. So am I, I hate those that messed with Galileo, the Crusaders, and the ones responsible for the Inquisition. You guys got to lighten up!

Please do not presume to tell me what I believe or hate, you do not know and it is arrogant to assume you do
I see that you only addressed where my finger was pointing, so as to label me arrogant, in lieu of the point I made. This lends to the belief that I was right, why else would you avoid rebuttal of the point.

all the best, urban
Same here, it's a pleasure, SOB

rantal wrote:
It's our language but seriously, I think most people would understand religion to include the criteria mentioned by the OED
Here you go:
"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.

Science does not nor does it even seek to relate humanity to spiritual values, So science is not a religion by this definition either

They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. ---On religion, from Wikipedia---

Again, science fails to meet this definition as science derives not ethics

In terms of 4,200 religions in the world, I'd say your use of the word 'religion' as it relates to this particular argument' is ambiguous at best and dead wrong at worst. Did you actually consider all 4,200 of them before making your case?

More to the point, did you consider any?

Here's another, Encyclopaedia Britannica (opening statement in the micropaedia): "Religion, man's relation to that which he regards as holy. The "holy" need not be thought of as supernatural, much less as personal; and if the word god be defined in personal or supernatural terms, it follows that religion includes far more than the relation to God or a god."

Again, science fails to meet the criteria since it holds nothing holy

---Britannica - the most respected Encyclopaedia of them all---

Encyclopaedia Britannica trumps Oxford Dictionary, because a dictionary is a short format work, much like the Britannica micropaedia is, relative to it's macropaedia. But even it's micropaedia has more than a dictionary, at a paragraph (at best).

I say that the truth of the universe is indeed holy!

You may say that but that is not science

Yes, I value my life but that is not a value taught to me by science, therefore your claim fails, science teaches us nothing about how to live
Incorrect, the value is taught, in oh so many ways, just by having so many Sciences dedicated to preserving it, teaches one. Teaching comes from everywhere. The fact that you value it and they tell you how to optimize it is a form of teaching it. I hope this isn't above your head, you seem like a smart individual.

No, science teaches no value nor creates any, it is we humans that teach and create value

I'm not buying that but if you seriously belief it, tell me one value invented by science
They don't have to invent it, in order to teach it. Anything health related, such as proper nutrition was born of science such that personal health via proper nutrition and exercise is a value.

You misunderstand, people may create value from what they learn in science and teach it, for instance; they learn how to maintain proper nutrition, decide that is of value and teach it

"2 (values) principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life: they internalize their parents' rules and values" ---Oxford dictionary---

Again science fails this establishing no principles of behavior or judgement of what is important in life

Science or more correctly speaking scientism may be your belief structure but it is not a religion and just claiming it is does not make it so
It is the truest religion there is because it is "...a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." You people that say otherwise are just religion haters because of the crimes that's been committed historically, by religion. So am I, I hate those that messed with Galileo, the Crusaders, and the ones responsible for the Inquisition. You guys got to lighten up!


Science makes no comment on the PURPOSE of the universe

Please do not presume to tell me what I believe or hate, you do not know and it is arrogant to assume you do
I see that you only addressed where my finger was pointing, so as to label me arrogant, in lieu of the point I made. This lends to the belief that I was right, why else would you avoid rebuttal of the point.

No, your reasoning to derive my belief is false. I commented not because it is outside the scope of this topic and because it was arrogant of you to assume my belief

all the best, urban

rantal wrote:On all points where you say science does nothing to create values or principles you are dead wrong, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, I hate to tell you this son,

Why have you used the denotation 'son' here?
Yes I was being just as nasty and condescending as you were when you called me arrogant, I apologize, for allowing you to get to me, I should have been the bigger man, again I'm sorry. Keep in mind that here and elsewhere you'll seldom get an apology, if you know what I mean.


all the best, urban

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

rantal wrote:On all points where you say science does nothing to create values or principles you are dead wrong, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, I hate to tell you this son,

Why have you used the denotation 'son' here?
Yes I was being just as nasty and condescending as you were when you called me arrogant, I apologize, for allowing you to get to me, I should have been the bigger man, again I'm sorry. Keep in mind that here and elsewhere you'll seldom get an apology, if you know what I mean.


all the best, urban

rantal wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

rantal wrote:On all points where you say science does nothing to create values or principles you are dead wrong, as you act as though science is separate from mankind, I hate to tell you this son,

Why have you used the denotation 'son' here?
Yes I was being just as nasty and condescending as you were when you called me arrogant, I apologize, for allowing you to get to me, I should have been the bigger man, again I'm sorry. Keep in mind that here and elsewhere you'll seldom get an apology, if you know what I mean.


all the best, urban

No, I think you called me 'son' because you felt your belief to be threatened.
Not at all, I know that I'm right no matter what you say, It would seem you didn't understand the passage I quoted from Britannica. It's apparently true for them as well. And I'll take them over OED any day. OED just eliminates all the other facts that pertain to a given word, so as to only mention those which they believe are the crowning differentiation, a matter of perspective. I mean, how much can be said in a sentence or two anyway. Encyclopaedia Britannica is a much different story, they include paragraph after paragraph of pertinent information. I especially like how that which I quoted, was in fact, their opening lines, perfect!

I was not being condescending when I called you arrogant merely factual, though perhaps presumptuous might have been a better word, since you presumed to know my belief
From where I sit, such a fact, as you call it, is a matter of perspective. And so as to enlighten you, as though you really don't know any better, many things can be said of calling someone arrogant, and condescending is one of them. The point is you picked the one thing that was easiest to argue, because it was hurtful to you, as I diminished you as an underling. Truth is, I had just gotten tired of you responding in the exact same way, over and over again, which was you saying that it was a particular way, merely because you said so. As if you and your pocket version of the OED, are the definitive version of anything at all, how laughable! Mankind's wisdom is surely not necessarily to be found contained in any one resource. And one surely cannot reduce anything down to one or two sentences. I have found that explaining anything here within this medium is exhaustive. So many things can be left unsaid so as to make explanation look like Swiss cheese.

If the truth be told and we were to explore what we each believed to it's fullest extent, I have found that many times, two individuals that initially believe they are at odds, often find that they agree on a great many things, it was just that, given a limited amount of time and verbiage, it seemed as thought they saw things 180 degrees opposite. Often, many more words are required so as to fully explain why a particular perspective is initially projected, as the initial prospective is almost always, not all inclusive.


All the best, rantal
Yes, and to you as well.