Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[Mr Spinkles]

Buddhism a religion? I would be most interested in hearing someone justify this claim.

Certainly, Buddhism stands apart from religions like Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and so forth, at least in my limited understanding of Buddhism. It lacks an ontology of personal gods, and it lacks a mythology that explains why things are. The distinctions you made between Buddhism and some other traditional religions are fair, I suppose.

But surely Buddhism is not accurately characterized as only a "philosophy". Buddhism does have certain features that make it stand apart from just "any old" philosophy (such as transcendentalism):

• Organization
• Symbols/Iconography
• Temples (often very elaborate--follow the link)
• Rituals (incense lighting, mantras, etc)

But let's not get bogged down by semantics. Whether or not we choose to define "religion" in such a way that Buddhism counts as one, we agree that Christianity counts as a religion, and my point earlier was that many Christians have an even more staunch commitment to seperation of church and state and to human rights than many atheists.

Your blanket criticisms of "religion" just do not recognize the nuances of the reality of religious belief; you make it seem like every person who calls him/herself "Christian" is of the Young-Earth-Creationist, anti-homosexual, anti-science and anti-human rights variety. I think it would be a vast improvement if you replaced the word "religion" with the word "dogmatism" in your previous criticisms.

After all, that which we might call "religion" is not the sole purveyor of intolerance, ignorance, and a commitment to slaughter those who disagree (in fact in many cases it is exactly the opposite). These things can also spring from nationalism, racism, political ideology, class/ethnic warfare, and so on. My criticism of religion would not be that it is responsible for groupthink and ignorance, but that it serves all too often as a convenient vehicle for groupthink and ignorance.

*edit: Actually I must add that I am fairly certain that the birth/spread of religious belief does, at least in some cases, produce groupthink and ignorance, or enhance them.

Although perhaps you might argue, as Richard Dawkins has done, that those who embrace faith--even those who are pro-science, tolerant, and human-rights-loving--are opening the door to those who would take their scriptures and their faith seriously enough that it will lead them to fanaticism. That's an argument I've been entertaining for some time.

 

[MBones]

Buddhism is probably the only religion that I have found to be sane. The only one. I would like to embrace Buddhism and be a part of it. The teachings are completley what this world should be. And that is coming from a Roman Catholic, brought up that way anyway, and denied it long before the pedofile cases came. If a Buddist would contact me and let me know how I could begin on the journey, I would be ever in great debt to them. Please let me know.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I find it amusing that a story about an elaborate parlor trick of something I’d do as a kid for amusement would generate so much interest. (I’m talking about the “research” that duplicated something likened to an out-of-body experience.) It’s as though people want to latch on to anything that seems to support their materialistic paradigm or debunk “supernatural” experiences.

While it may have been appropriate for the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, scientific materialism is dead. This mental fixation has to be shed or those who cling to it will live in the twenty-first century with a millstone around their necks and blinders.

Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Albert Einstein

Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed, it was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were also deeply religious souls. Even though they made no public show of their religious feeling. Max Plank

It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling, and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. Erwin Schrodinger

 

[andys]

I absolutely agree with Mr Sprinkles that Buddhism is not purely a philosophy, nor did I mean to suggest this. My point was/is that Buddhism does not share the same quantifiers as a "pure" religion. All the better for it.

 

[andys]

Rolling Stone's post (directly above) has everything completely topsy-turvy. He writes.

"While it may have been appropriate for the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, scientific materialism [science] is dead. This mental fixation has to be shed or those who cling to it will live in the twenty-first century with a millstone around their necks and blinders."

Slightly before the mid 20th century, and for centuries prior to that day, the millstone of religious dogma had its stranglehold around the necks of all within its grasp. For hundreds of years the Church's contempt for reason, scientific inquiry, and human life lead to the massacre of nearly one quarter of Europe. Innocent people who did not conform to the absurd dogmas of the Church were subject to condemnation, unspeakable torture and horrible deaths. Now that's what I call a millstone.

It was only after the Church's brute police state gradually gave way to freedom of thought and the independent pursuit of knowledge, that science could triumph over the the religious reign of terror, that had so vigorously persecuted it. If any "mental fixation" ever warranted being shed, surely it was the Church's obsessive fixation with absolute power and the need to dominate every aspect of its subjects' lives—their conduct, actions, sexual orientation, beliefs (both scientific and spiritual), and on and on.

In North America, we are so very fortunate to have religion at bay. Just look elsewhere in the world where it is free to assert its bloodthirsty agenda for control.

To the reader who may be unfamiliar with the term "scientific materialism" (used by the author to whom I am responding) it may prove enlightening to note that this expression is used by creationists to disavow evolutionary science in particular, and all science in general.
Wikipedia defines "scientific materialism" thusly:

"The term [Scientific Materialism] implies that scientists collude to force a materialist (or rationalist ) world view onto a population. The term is usually only used by critics of the scientific discipline, such as the proponents of intelligent design. The term has become somewhat more common, as laymen are introduced to the creation–evolution controversy."

So it seems evident that post that I am responding to is yet another assault on objective reason and the established scientific method. We free thinkers must be vigilant. These fundamentalists disguise themselves as free thinkers who wish to point out contrived flaws of science. All the while, of course, lurks the religious fanatic who harbours infinite patience and a fervent agenda. Indeed, to erode and eventually topple science would be a glorious victory. It would usher the return to blind acceptance of unchallenged religious dogma. Of course, this battle is already well underway. It started by sugar-coating religious beliefs in the guise of scientific theory, such as Intelligent Design, which is by no means a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination (it explains nothing and predicts nothing). Having achieved this goal, the next step was to introduce this propaganda into the public education system. I'm sure you are aware of many other insidious assaults. Not the least of which is the on-going movement to abolish that pesky separation of Church and State nonsense. (If they do succeed, buy warm clothes and I'll welcome you to Canada.)

I wanted to expose this seemingly harmless little post for what it really is—yet another poke at independent scientific inquiry. We are the trustees of this precious commodity and should be willing to defend it lest we forfeit it and all its rewards.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So it seems evident that post that I am responding to is yet another assault on objective reason and the established scientific method.

No such thing as "objective reason." All reason takes place subjectively. "Consensus reason" would be more accurate.

We free thinkers must be vigilant.

Sure, but being a "free thinker" means meeting life on its terms and not excluding the possibility of something just because you can't wrap your head around it.

These fundamentalists disguise themselves as free thinkers who wish to point out contrived flaws of science.

Me? a fundie?

All the while, of course, lurks the religious fanatic who harbours infinite patience and a fervent agenda. Indeed, to erode and eventually topple science would be a glorious victory.

Why would I want to topple science? I love science.

It would usher the return to blind acceptance of unchallenged religious dogma. Of course, this battle is already well underway. It started by sugar-coating religious beliefs in the guise of scientific theory, such as Intelligent Design, which is by no means a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination (it explains nothing and predicts nothing). Having achieved this goal, the next step was to introduce this propaganda into the public education system. I'm sure you are aware of many other insidious assaults. Not the least of which is the on-going movement to abolish that pesky separation of Church and State nonsense. (If they do succeed, buy warm clothes and I'll welcome you to Canada.)

How does that song go? "Paranoia strikes deep"?

I wanted to expose this seemingly harmless little post for what it really is—yet another poke at independent scientific inquiry. We are the trustees of this precious commodity and should be willing to defend it lest we forfeit it and all its rewards.

 

[Yerda]

While it may have been appropriate for the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, scientific materialism is dead.

What does 'scientific materialism' refer to?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What does 'scientific materialism' refer to?

scientism+the notion matter is the bottom line

 

[Willamena]

scientism+the notion matter is the bottom line

As far as I know, science doesn't have that notion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Divide? What divide?

 

[ChristineES]

After a few weeks, I have to say that religion and science are not the same thing at all nor are they the opposite of each other and therefore you can believe in both.

 

[logician]

After a few weeks, I have to say that religion and science are not the same thing at all nor are they the opposite of each other and therefore you can believe in both.

You don't believe in science, it's not a discipline of faith.

 

[ChristineES]

You don't believe in science, it's not a discipline of faith.

In my way of thinking, you either believe something or you don't believe in something. Erroneous it may be, but...

Can I ask a question?: Why are some atheists so against the words faith and believe? They don't always denote God.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You don't believe in science, it's not a discipline of faith.

Actually, it is based on an assumption. To do science, one needs faith that the underlying assumption is true.

 

[camanintx]

Actually, it is based on an assumption. To do science, one needs faith that the underlying assumption is true.

Or at least faith that it makes more sense than the underlying assumption of the alternatives.

 

[Fluffy]

Actually, it is based on an assumption. To do science, one needs faith that the underlying assumption is true.

Which particular assumption do scientists make? How can you tell that they are making that assumption? Do you need to make the same assumption in order to tell that they are making that assumption?

Can I ask a question?: Why are some atheists so against the words faith and believe? They don't always denote God.

I am personally not against the word "believe" but I don't like the word faith. Why? Because I don't feel that it is defined rigorously enough to ensure clear communication.

Also faith implies a lot more that is usually irrelevant to the case at hand. Faith has implications about the motivations, emotions and actions of a person as well as about belief and justification. However, often the discussion is only about belief and justification and so it is often difficult to see the relevance of faith. That is not to say that faith is irrelevant. Just that often the introduction of faith confuses a discussion about epistemic worth because of the non-epistemic connotations which it carries.

A common difficulty that faith brings to a conversation is confusion over what "justification" means. We can have rational, causal and epistemic justification. Faith can talk about all 3 whereas often we are only interested in the latter. However, the distinction is not sufficiently clear for many people and so miscommunication results.

There is also a question of degree. If we strip faith of its non-epistemic connotations and use the concept we have left then it can still result in confusion because it is not readily agreed upon the level of epistemic worth that faith lends a proposition. In fact, some will say it lends no worth, some will say some worth and some will say the highest sort of worth. I don't mind using faith in conversation but often it requires us to have a detailed discussion first about what faith means and often people are just not prepared to engage in that.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Which particular assumption do scientists make?

Here's 2:

1. Matter exists
2. The universe is understandable

Now, stop being silly.

 

[Fluffy]

Here's 2:

1. Matter exists
2. The universe is understandable

Now, stop being silly.

It is not necessary for a scientist to make those assumptions. For example, propositions about matter should be phrased "If matter exists, then..." and thus science should be about logical entailment given certain conditions. Similarly, "If the universe is understandable, then..." Science is about understanding the reality that we perceive and does not, and should not, make any claim as to the truth of the conditions upon which such a perception is granted.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It is not necessary for a scientist to make those assumptions. For example, propositions about matter should be phrased "If matter exists, then..." and thus science should be about logical entailment given certain conditions. Similarly, "If the universe is understandable, then..." Science is about understanding the reality that we perceive and does not, and should not, make any claim as to the truth of the conditions upon which such a perception is granted.

Silly sophistry. It would be a waste of time to go through the books I own written by scientists who agree with me on this. (Where do you think I got the idea?)

 

[Fluffy]

Silly sophistry. It would be a waste of time to go through the books I own written by scientists who agree with me on this. (Where do you think I got the idea?)

I am not claiming that scientists make such assumptions. Only that it is wrong for them to do so.