Dharma

I was trying to find the difference in definitions between a cult and a religion and almost any fanatical belief system (science as well) in the dictionary and I could not find one --- I think I know the difference! So here are the definitions according to dictionary.com:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cult ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe a cult is only a cult as long as the followers can no longer use their own mind and no longer can think independantly of a group of leaders or leader who call themselves "experts"...

Many religions have descended into cultdom in their decline or have branches that can be deemed cults, fanatic Islam is just one example of today...however, I think another thing that is cultic is Science...for example, some brilliant minds make scientific finds, and the rest of us are supposed to somehow take the word of the "scientific community" for it...in other words, have faith in the scientists and the institutions they set up...


So again, I reiterate, anytime human beings follow something without using their own minds and questioning things, it is in danger of spawning a cult...

PoodleLovinPessimist

Except that nobody says that we have to take the word of the scientific community or to have any sort of faith in science.

If you yourself wish to become a science-cultist, I suppose that's possible, but that's entirely your decision; no one that I've ever seen is ever exhorting you to do so.

Danhalen

i don't see how science can be a cult, or even a religion. unless, of course, you consider making observations about how things work is religious. :huh:

BioBeing

In science, one is supposed to use ones mind, and not follow blindly. Not even the general public are supposed to bow down to the great scientists. Take each case on its merits, and evaluate the data for yourself.

Plus, who is the charismatic leader of such a Scientific cult anyway? Science is not some monolithic entity with one person speaking for all fields.

NeverByte

Not bloody likely. There must be hundreds of cults that have sprung up and died away throughout history - not one of them based on science. The reason science will never be a good platform for cult-forming is that it encourages people to think for themselves. And if everyone thought for themselves, there would be no cults period..

Science does not have a Messiah. Science does not offer Divine Forgiveness. Science doesn't threaten with Eternal Damnation. Science simply says "This is how shit is, and that is our best explanation for why it is." Plus, if you manage to come up with a better explanation, you get respect. In a cult, if you challenge the predominating theory you get stamped on, or booted out. That's a critical difference. (scuse the pun)

BDS

Huh? Have you ever worked in academia? Getting booted out for challenging the predominating theory is standard practice in most academic fields. (Of course, occassionally someone SUCCESSFULLY challenges the predominating theory, in which case there's a paradigm shift, according to Kuhn).

Autonemesis

No scientists do that, or encourage that. If you aren't publishing the details of your experiments, your research and your results, you aren't doing science. So for any of those scientists doing science, everything they know and did is published, and you can look at their material and decide for yourself. There is no appeal to authority, no attitude of "take my word for it."

Autonemesis

Can you cite a situation where this "standard practice" has been applied? Who was involved, and who was expelled, and for challenging what dominant theory, with what evidence?

JGL53

I googled 'liberal academic hegemony' and got 132,000 hits. There's a good place for you to start your own research on the obvious, Autohemesis.

BTW, this planet you come from - where every one is treated fairly all the time, and people are judged strictly on merit, and no one is ever discrimminated against based on political belief - is it in this galaxy, or really far, far away on the other side of the universe - and how the hell did you get here from there?

BDS

Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revlutions", autonemisis? It's a standard philosophy of science text. The theme of the book is that science does not progress in a consistent, linear way. Why? Because academic departments are political, and academic careers depend on certain paradigms. (I could cite examples form my own grad school days, but why bother? You wouldn't know the people involved anyway.)

Kuhn's idea is that those trying to suggest new paradigms (i.e. different ways of looking at the world, or different basic theoretical constructs) generally fail to succeed in academia. Their works aren't published. They don't get their PhD.s accepted. They get turned down for tenure. I admit that I don't know if Kuhn is 100% right, but this conforms with my experience, and since Kuhn is widely respectd as a philosopher of science I assume many others agree.

So (acc. Kuhn) scientific progress is hardly steady; it occurs in great revolutions. Eventually, the ruling, politically correct (academically) paradigms DO shift, but not by steady progress, rather by revolutionary new discoveries or theories that force them to collapse. The political forces that maintain academic status quo are powerful, but not indestructable.

Does that anwer your question?

Of course Kuhn's book is subject to the same political forces, and maybe there are other philosophical treatises on how science works that are even now being repressed.

p.s. None of my work was ever repressed for political reasons. I was just too lazy to do anything worthwhile.