Family Man

Of course religion has changed over time. Sometimes the change is sparked by eternal ideas (science) or dissatisfaction with the current system (the Reformation, for example).

That doesn't mean that religion isn't resistant to change. I think my OP pretty well established that it can, and often is. But that is not the same as saying that religion is a stubborn mule that won't move.

I suspect that much of this perception has to do with religion's refusal to give up some key concepts that us infidels find foreign: God, spirituality, the supernatural. While I agree that these concepts are valueless, it is unfair to expect religion to give up these core beliefs then accuse it of failing to change. Just because it doesn't change in the direction that we want doesn't mean it doesn't change.

Majestyk

What is “codswollop”? Is it the stuff left behind after you clean a bunch of cod?

Why would demarcation be a headache for those who consider the methodology of science as something special when, demarcation is what marks its significance? Before science all humanity had was experience and superstition. The development of the scientific method is what has allowed us to accumulate and refine the knowledge of our existence. You most certainly cannot suggest that a machine as technologically complex as a Magnetic Resonance Imager could have been developed using the methodology of the theologian or the alchemist? No reading of tea leaves, shaking of rattles, or tossing of bones is going to provide us with the insight necessary to understand the interactions of cellular connections and chemicals that comprise the mechanics of our own brains. The science constructed by humanity is “something special”. It is the discipline to not succumb to our natural tendency to fabricate answers for that which we do not know and then stubbornly adhere to them.

Could large portions of that knowledge be inaccurate? Are there phenomena that we cannot confidently explain? Yes, on both counts. It is that acknowledgment that demarcates science from every other methodology that man has developed.

Yes. That’s certainly an abuse of the metaphor. But then I should not have labeled it as a metaphor, as it is intended to be an example.

The issue is not that the scientist does not ask the questions that the superstitious do. The issue is that scientists determine that they have inadequate information for postulating a probable answer and then, testing it. Therefore they can form no conclusion. This does not mean that they cannot operate on what is their best guess when necessary until, a conclusion can be formed. The superstitious, on the other hand, tend to create elaborate fantasies by assigning human characteristics to naturally occurring phenomenon and then, proclaim these fantasies to be true and unquestionable.

The methodology of science may not be able to answer some of the more esoteric questions of philosophy, but give it time. Once we crack that nut which rests inside of our skulls we will be….well, we won’t know until we do it. Will we?

There you go referring to religion as a thing unto itself. “Religions are no more…” would have been a more appropriate way of phrasing that wholly erroneous statement. I suppose the fact that one of the largest religious cults that the world has ever known still has its foundation in 2000-year-old scripts is evidence of its openness to change?

Religions are based on dogma. By their definition they are matters of faith to be accepted as whole and unchanging.

Aside from the fact that, the diversity of religions in the world is more likely explained by isolated populations developing their own culturally based superstitious explanations for natural phenomena, I think you have reversed the cause of changes within a particular religious sect.

Religions, as a construct of people, are often used as political tools. Throughout history the government and the religion, of a society, have been mutually supportive. I’d say that there is a good case to be made that religious evolution occurred most often, not in spite of political resistance but as a result of political ambition.

Yes and perhaps I meant to set my hair on fire and put it out with a shovel. But then again, since that is not what I did, perhaps that is not what I meant to do.

Hugo Holbling

The difficulty lies in finding demarcation criteria that separates science from non-science, or good science from bad. If Celsus were here he would no doubt explain that Laudan's paper The demise of the demarcation problem is worth your while.

If you mean "experience" in the mythical positivist sense then you perhaps need to expand on this claim.

Unfortunately the notion of the scientific method is deeply problematic; you could look into the well-known critiques in methodological terms or try Galison and others on disunity and boundary concerns.

You are making a common mistake in assuming that someone who takes exception to your characterisation of science is thereby anti-science.

Once again, this is the positivist mythical account of scientific practice. It is straightforwardly impossible to explain the history of science in these terms; famous examples like Millikan's and Einstein's attitude toward empirical testing on many occasions refute it.

Perhaps they do, but speaking in general terms about the superstitious while complaining (quite rightly) at others doing likewise with the religious isn't cricket.

Many of the foundations of science also go back a very long way, so your argument is poor indeed. Moreover, no-one has made that claim.

Given that the actions of individuals within religions have and do demonstrate the falsity of this idea, perhaps you should continue to follow your own advice and "refrain from granting them the property of autonomy"?

Celsus

[off topic]
That would be a tad difficult as I haven't read it. I could however, point you to Laudan's brilliant chapter "Science at the Bar," in Beyond Positivism and Relativism, in which he says exactly the same thing, and explains why Overton 1982 (the Arkansas ruling) was the right decision made for the wrong reasons (i.e., simplistic criteria demarcating science and nonscience which made it possible for the Creationists to turn into the fully fledge ID movement and so much harder to stop now that the legal precedent has been set). Laudan wrote the chapter long before the ID movement became a force, so it's well worth looking at.

[/off topic]

Joel

Majestyk

I fail to see the difficulty you mention. I included at least one of the criteria, clearly stated, in my last post. You will also find two others imbedded in that post.

As for separating good science from bad: that is inherent in the nature of the methodology. A scientific theory is not proved to be true. It is accepted because it has not been proven to be false, inconclusive, or unsupported by evidence. Therefore, good scientists, welcome the attempts of others to falsify their claims. Bad scientists do not. The methodology of science promotes and encourages alterations or rejections of its own conclusions. Hence, “bad science” will find acceptance by the scientific community difficult although, it is often championed by those with agendas outside that of scientific investigation.

May I ask at this time that if, you refer to a text as an authoritative argument please include a synopsis of the text which illustrates the point you wish to make?

That won’t be necessary as, the “experience” that I speak of is that of the individual. Experiences related thru the telling or writing of, which are not accompanied by supporting evidence, are myths. Myths do not qualify as experience and can be categorized as superstition.

Problematic for who? Perhaps you should look at Adam’s reference to “the meaning of life, the universe and everything” to get a better understanding as to the nature of the separation of the scientific method from the delusional manifestations of our intuitive nature.

Just as you are making the mistake of assuming the nature of my assumptions. My contention was not based on the premise of Bede’s response being “anti-scientific”. It is predicated on my interpreting Bede’s response as: providing religious dogma the same credibility that is given scientific theorem, on the premise that the former explains an area of existence of which the latter is incapable.

I’ll concede this point. My statement was poorly phrased. I should have limited the statement to the scientist in the example I had given in my original response to this thread.

I fail to see where I have done this.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what foundations of science to which you are referring? To my knowledge the age of any scientific conclusion is irrelevant in light of the practice of scientists to reexamine any previously established conclusion as new evidence is discovered. Your statement does not answer my question: Does the adherence to the precepts contained in 2000 year old manuscripts, establish evidence of a willingness to change? Considering this question was presented in response to: “Religion is no more resistant to change than anything else” then, how do you support your assertion that I argued against a non-existent claim?

I reject the premise of your question. The presence of individuals, is inferred, in my statement, as the act of accepting demands that there be an acceptor. Therefore, I have not assigned the property of autonomy to Religion.

You also seem to be ignoring my previous statements where I have acknowledged that religious dogmas have “evolved”. However the resulting doctrine is considered as separate from the previous. The slight differences created by the practitioners of the new sect causing them to be ostracized, or worse, by the practitioners of the old.

Now we can argue as to what precipitated the desire for these changes but the doctrines themselves do not contain the mechanisms that facilitate change. Hence we still see Judaism practiced after Christianity and Islam were derived from it.

To sum it all up: My understanding of the methodology of science requires that I be prepared to dismiss all of my preconceptions as to the nature of existence when, approaching new evidence. Which, to me, means that I do not know anything. Which also seems to be diametrically opposed to the methodology of religion, which, begins with the premise that what is known, is known absolutely.

Hugo Holbling

My apologies - i thought you might be versed in these things, given your earlier reply to Bede. I have explained some of the difficulties in demarcation before so if you are interested you could look. Otherwise, the best thing is to check the references Joel and i provided for yourself, along, perhaps, with Lakatos' Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. I offer these only as suggestions and withdraw my argument until a more suitable time.