Amos

I actually thought that metaphysics is a science with much greater accuracy than any other science.

This would be based on the fact that essence precedes existence and if we understand the essence of existence we can predict the outcome of the essence long before its existence.

Until then must we study the physics as if they were gods before us.

never been there

Some more recently revised religions at least learned from their seniors' mistakes. The Bahai and Sikh faiths seem to avoid pronouncing on anything that is likely to be the subject of a scientific paradigm shift.

Scientology, on the other hand, cashes in on the strange mixture of science worship and science hatred that characterizes our age.

never been there

No it doesn't.

Corwin

There are some small branches of traditional pagan groups that are highly scientific. (They take a very jungian/laveyan view of the gods... that they exist as symbols rather than as actual beings.) They also don't contradict established scientific fact. (Creation myths are seen as allegorical and not refering to actual creation. To an extent I think the UU's are a bit like this too.)

galiel

Nice try. But religion and science are not tangential, they are orthogonal. And you don't get to just redefine the term "religion" as convenient. Religion by definition is faith in the supernatural, whether you consider "god" to be a white-haired anglo male in the sky or the "spirit in all things". Religion is by definition irrational. Science works from the bottom up, religion from the top down. Science includes the possibility of disproving any and all of its premises, even he most fundamental; a religion could not exist if it allowed questioning of its basic premises. Science does not seek truth, only workable models for human experience; religions claim to be "true".

Face it. "Scientific religion" is a logical impossibility.

MBR

I would agree galiel, with that definition they are mutually exclusive. But I did get this definition from Merriam Webster that doesn't seem to have as many problems.

This definition would seem to be a little more compatible with science, but the "held to" does raise questions, but if a tenant that you are holding to is compatibility with science, as long as you hold to that, it still fits.

Are we to simply go through life denying ourselves from any speculation about our existence that isn't based in fact. It would seem that such an existence would leave one to wrestle with the subject for their entire lives with no real chance of finding an answer. Though it is a lesser evil than living a lie, there has to be something else that atheists do besides accepting ignorance. What if you fill in the blanks with an educated guess that doesn't contradict what we know? Is that religion?

Do critical thinkers and atheists in their own private thoughts actually have a semi-faith based definition of our existence that is in accord with science, but not completely supported by it? It seems like this would be necessary for the science to begin to prove a theory.






What it is that inspires the direction scientific discovery? Isn't the practice of experimentation simply attempting to prove an idea based in faith?

Rusting Car Bumper

Most dictionary definitions are not broad enough to encompass all the things we recognize as religion.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

In a pure sense your last statement is true. That is, you cannot have a religion based solely on science. Its not for the reasons you stated.

One reason is because science is limited in scope and cannot answer certain questions and cannot, in and of itself, provide for certain human needs.

Science and reason are not orthagonal as you claim. That is simply false. Its not a matter of "redefining it" for convenience. Its simply a matter of sitting back and seeing what religion is, what role it plays in life and in the world.

Clearly, there are religions that take into account science and don't try to oppose it. There willalways be conflicts but that is always true when any two ways of looking at things come together.

DC

garthoverman

I study science in order to formulate a workable model for the tough questions that religion is supposed to answer for you.

What is the nature of existence? What is its purpose? What is right and wrong? Is there a God?

Of course, this results in a dogma in the strictest sense, however the dogma (if you really want to call it that) is infinitely malleable to conform with further scientific revelation.

Some aspects of what I believe are intuitive assupmtions based on interpolating certain progresses of science and where those appear to be headed. For example, I believe that all matter has consciousness. I think particle phsyics is headed toward revealing that.

Just my thoughts. I'm kind of an odd duck.

galiel

I disagree. There is no consensus on this point. You are promoting a NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) point of view. It is not one I share, being a scientific rationalist. As Pigliucci*, another scientific rationalist, points out, critical thinking, the underlying principle behind the advances of science, relies on thee "ways of knowing":
- Empiricism, which is "the idea that knowledge must come in part from actual data about the world that surrounds us";
- Rationalism, which is "the use of rational and logical thought to reach reliable conclusions about the nature of the world that we get to know through empirical means"; and
- Skepticism, which is "the attitude of cauting that is required in evaluating any claim before reaching a tentative conclusion".

There is nothing inherent in this methodology that implies its inapplicability to any problem, "hard" or "soft". As I have said repeatedly, the trend is for science to explain more and more aspects of human experience that previously required religion. There is no particular reason to believe that this trend will not continue.

Can you provide me with evidence to substantiate your claim, which, as I understand it, is that reason will never answer certain questions that religion claims to answer? Saying "that is simply false" may be emotionally satisfying, but it is hardly a reasoned argument.

Name one.

What evidence do you have that it will always be true? Does religion try to explain thunder any more? Does religion try to explain how the earth is a flat square with four corners topped by a hemispherical "firmament"? Other than a dogmatic statement, what do you have to back up your argument?