Most religious people are never even acquainted with the hard and pretty obvious questions their beliefs raise. I'm not sure how the numbers of believers has much to do with anything. Our history is characterized by mass delusion - even if you take the Bible at its word! Religions are far, far more complicated than a 'network of rules' - they're about as complicated as an institution can get. And science, most definitely is not a 'religion,' technically or otherwise. If it is a 'religion,' then you have stretched the concept 'religion' so much that it scarce distinguishes anything at all. They are some striking differences between the institutions, not the least of which is the comparative reliability, practical efficacy, consilience, and comprehensiveness of the truth claims generated by science - let alone the fact that it is essentially skeptical as opposed to authoritarian. The bottomline is that nobody knows whether there's a 'supreme being,' life after death, sin or salvation. Nobody. This is why faith is so essential to religion. Like you Gary, I have no problem with religion per se, though I would be happier if people learned to appreciate, even prize, doubt. What concerns me are religious people who mistake their faith for knowledge. When that happens, imposing one's traditional beliefs on others starts to seem legitimate. I've lost count, for instance, of how many times I've heard people on popular media suggest that the separation of church and state in the US needs to be 'rethought.' I find this terrifying. As do I the fact that the most powerful political constituency in the world, the Christian right, is looking forward to the end of the world. Doubt begets learning. Learning begets compassion. Conviction, quite frankly, is what kills - which is one reason competitive cultures place such a high premium on it. We humans are simply too stupid to be certain of anything, least of all things as dangerous as 'moral superiority.'
I find it very interesting how Kuhn so often finds his ways into the debate, and how he's almost always misconstrued. Kuhn never questioned the fact that science is the most powerful instrument of discovery in human history, only the idealizations of science as a clock-work, self-correcting institution that arose from this. Science is flawed and messy, like any other human institution. I'm just not sure what this has to do with religion, other than the fact that it too is flawed and messy. You keep trying to make the same levelling move, HE - it's an old strategy, trying to raise religious belief up by knocking scientific belief down. But the fact remains, there's huge differences between the claims made by these two very different institutions. How do you explain away these? As far as I'm concerned the difference simply couldn't be more stark. On the one hand you have an institution, religion, that still can't command consensus on its founding claims after thousands of years, and on the other, you have an institution that has been able, despite its foibles, to build on consensus after consensus, so that a few centuries after Gallileo, we can eradicate small-pox, generate thermonuclear explosions, and create the very computers you use to make your argument. Noting superficial similarities between the two does not make them 'essentially the same.' You need to tackle some very real distinctions before you can convincingly make that claim.
Love is a very powerful emotion. It's not supposed to make sense. In all honesty a lot of emotions don't make sense, but there are a part of what makes us flawed and "human". So am I, but only if it's a zombie apocalypse and I can go around shooting everyone and live in a bloody big fortress.
Play some more video games instead, Kahn! Hereford, have you seen the movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy? I don't remember it all that well but it does relate to what you just said. Lack of knowledge about something that there is knowledge available to be found can lead to false assumptions. Science tries to find by questioning. Religion does just the opposite. It discourages questioning and even goes so far in its manipulations as to call those who do question it blasphemers, while elevating the state of ignorance to the heights of holiness. The entire modus operandi is to discourage the process of understanding, because that process infers that there is doubt at the onset. The concept of sacrilege was established in part to admonish those who question the assumptions.
Religion: a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.]" b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion]" Science: any specific branch of scientific knowledge, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiments and hypotheses [the science of mathematics]" Webster’s New World Dictionary "The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) develops ethics policy for the AMA. Composed of seven practicing physicians, a resident or fellow, and a medical student, the Council prepares reports that analyze and address timely ethical issues that confront physicians and the medical profession. Upon deliberation and approval by the AMA’s House of Delegates, the recommendations put forth in CEJA Reports become official policy of the Association. These recommendations ultimately serve as the basis for updating the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics, widely recognized as the most comprehensive guide for physicians who strive to practice ethically. In addition, the Council has judicial responsibilities, which includes appellate jurisdiction over physician members’ appeals of ethics-related decisions made by state and specialty medical societies." AMA Web Site "Acceptance of Conditions of the European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry Register Acceptance of the conditions of the EC4 Register is essential for all who seek to join it. You should read the following statement and then sign to indicate that you understand it and will abide by it: "I hereby apply to be registered as a European Clinical Scientist. In making this application I affirm that: - I have read and understood the 'Guide to the EC4 Register' and the accompanying syllabus - I consider my training to meet the minimum standards in the 'Guide to the EC4 Register' - I consider that I am competent to practice as specified in the 'Guide to the EC4 Register' - I shall abide by the EC4 Code of Conduct contained in the 'Guide to the EC4 Register'." Application for Admission to European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry Register “The key philosophical issues of physics are how do we know and how do we verify that knowledge--the matter-mind problem of what is knowledge in our mind and what is objectively outside knowledge. In biology, the key issues are the nature of life, and the body-mind problem of consciousness, which parallels the matter-mind problem of physics. In medicine, the key philosophical issue is the nature of disease, whereas in engineering, the issues are what is the machine? why do we have machines? and how far can we go with machines?--all issues very seldom discussed by engineers. The associated key ethical issues are shaped primarily, as is, in general, the case for all of ethics, by conflicts among contrasting views, needs, or actions. In physics and biology, these key issues are the purpose of research, and the impacts and limits of research as exemplified by the controversies about cloning and nuclear energy. In engineering, the key ethical issues have to do with the benefits--cui bonum?--of the machine, the biosocial and environmental impacts of the machines and with safety and permissible risk. In medicine, the issues concern the limits of therapy, again safety and risk, the Hippocratic imperatives, informed consent, and the role of the patient, as well as the dilemma of individual versus societal benefit.” Bioengineering Ethics: The Ethics of the Linkage Between Engineering and Biology George Bugliarello I guess it's just my mindset that sees the links.
I already have four completed and one about halfway done in this series. How many of them have you read, Kahn??????
Whales and fish share superficial similarities as well, HE, but that doesn't make them the same species. Science and religion are both human claim-making institutions, and as such they share all the things human claim-making institutions share. You're not so much making an argument as you're pointing to the obvious and drawing an entirely unwarranted conclusion: that they are essentially the same. But you have to explain away the obvious differences to do that, which you've yet to do - for what I think is an obvious reason: they are about as different as any two human claim-making institutions can be. Science is the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of mankind, period. On the other hand, we humans have cooked up thousands of distinct religions over thousands of years. Nothing more than socialization and authority seems to fix the claims of any of them, which is why the Pope, had he been born in Mecca, would almost certainly have been a Muslim. Science, on the other hand...
Science on the other hand blatantly ignores what it cannot fathom. If I was born in the US I would believe that medicines - sic chemicals - are the solution to all medical problems. If I was born in China I might understand that something good medically speaking is happening with acupuncture and chiropracty but in the US, science, i.e., the AMA will label me as a quack. Most life processes are non-linear but non-linear equations are more trouble then they are worth so we will all walk down Einstein's path absolutely certain that the linear equations we propound actually describe what is happening in the world. We will listen to the essence of Complementarity and then dismiss its implications as we derive more and more linear equations about events that are fundamentally changed by the attempt to observe them. We will read Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and then presume itis implications do not apply to science itself. And then we will rage at the nerve of those who might question the foundations of our knowledge. Success-to-date is an argument that works for all the bases of belief. We have a constitution that came from a non-scientific base and it works pretty good. We have a form of entertainment that works on a non-scientific basis and we enjoy the books. movies, and TV shows that spring from that suspension-of-belief system. Every belief system has a base, including science. I find some bases useful on a day-to-day basis; I find technology useful on a day-to-day basis, too; but I find no belief system able to cover all the bases, and so I am unwilling to take sides in a competitive comparison. I recognize that many - maybe even most - folk will not agree with me. I also recognize that I will not agree with many - maybe even most - folk. I just go my merry way attempting to follow the maxim: question authority. Always, everywhere, question authority.
I was born in the USA and I don't believe that medecine cures everything. In fact, experience has taught me that it doesn't. In fact, bad medecine killed my father. I go for acupuncture and do yoga. But then again, I tend to question things when the results of my endeavours are not what I hope for. Fortunately, I read and I reason. Specific scientific beliefs that we hold today may very well be modern man's faith, and we may learn this as time goes by. But it is the process of science that will teach us this. Religious faith does not question itself. There is no process by which it examines itself. It is faith.
Whoa! Deja-Vu! I remember the last time I answered a question like that, the answer didn't go down too well. So let's just let it lie this time.
Refresh my memory? That's the funny problem with internet talk. You can't tell what anyone's true sentiments are from the posts alone. I used to always type in caps until someone asked me to please stop yelling at them. I hope you didn't take my last comment to you as if I was pissed in any way. It wasn't meant that way at all. I should use emotocons more often.
I would guess that Matt's and my response to things would be quite different. Did you insult him? As we all know, he has such a fragile ego and it's often hard for him to express himself when he's upset over something. He just tends to suffer silently.
I find that not entirely accurate. I remember Vatican II; I know the churches in the US meet regularly to discuss who they are and why. Seems like it was only a few ago they decided in favor of women priests and bishops. As for Roman Catholicism, besides the Vatican II, there have been as a partial list: 1. The First General Council of Nicaea, 325 2. The First General Council of Constantinople, 381 3. The General Council of Ephesus, 431 4. The General Council of Chalcedon, 451 5. The Second General Council of Constantinople, 553 6. The Third General Council of Constantinople, 680-81 7. The Second General Council of Nicaea, 787 8. The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, 869-70 9. The First General Council of the Lateran, 1123 10. The Second General Council of the Lateran, 1139 11. The Third General Council of the Lateran, 1179 12. The Fourth General Council of the Lateran, 1215 13. The First General Council of Lyons, 1245 14. The Second General Council of Lyons, 1274 15. The General Council of Vienne, 1311-12 16. The General Council of Constance, 1414-18 17. The General Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-45 18. The Fifth General Council of the Lateran, 1512-17 19. The General Council of Trent, 1545-63 20. The First General Council of the Vatican, 1869-70 So, I spose I'd have to say the mechanism exists and is used.
You still haven't actually addressed the question, HE. How do you explain the profound differences between science and religion as claim-making institutions? I didn't know the constitution was a theory. Either way, the types and the extent of the success involved are quite different. But it's so much more than 'success,' or practical efficacy. The list of theoretical virtues enjoyed by science is very long. Are you suggesting it's not the most powerful instrument of discovery in human history? If so, please give me an example of a human claim-making institution that has accomplished any remotely approaching science's rewriting of the world. The ironic thing about all this, as Gary knows, is that I hate science. But at the same time, I don't think we do ourselves any favours by arguing against strawman appraisals of its power, or dismissals on philosophical grounds. I'm a skeptic through and through, but at the same time I think it's obvious that not all claims are equal. What that means is that I look at the mountain of all the claims we humans have ever made and I ask myself, out of all of these, which ones seem to have some legs. When it comes to theoretical truth-claims, philosophy is an obvious disaster, and religion is even a more obvious disaster. When it comes to reliability, efficacy, comprehensiveness, consilience, progressiveness, there's absolutely nothing that comes close. When it comes to knowledge (as opposed to rank opinion - because there is a difference) science really is the only game in town, flaws and all. I don't want it to be this way, but it is. The fact that it doesn't answer all our questions is neither here nor there, since it's not clear that anything answers those questions. That's the dilemma of modernity. Scientific controversies are the only controversies that can be definitively resolved without recourse to socialization or brute force. The science done in Mecca is pretty much the same as the science done in Rome or in Las Vegas. So to recap, HE, there's three questions I think you need to answer in order to convincingly press your point: 1) Are all claims equal, and if not, what distinguishes better claims from worse claims? 2) If science isn't the most powerful instrument of discovery in human history, what claim-making institution beats it? 3) How do you explain the profound differences between science and religion as claim-making institutions?
Um, some twenty times in one thousand and six hundred years. This is one of those counter-examples than inadvertantly proves the point!
Just a pipe up from the working scientist community: I wish we could ignore non-linear equations! If we could then a trained monkey could do my job. But since we can't, I have to go through lots & lots of school to figure out how to do things in the real world. You should see the rather large stack of textbooks I have dealing with all things non-linear. Thrill a minute, I'll tell ya.
Dang, this is fun! 1) Are all claims equal, and if not, what distinguishes better claims from worse claims? Given that the question begs the "1 + 1 = ?" case mentioned previously, my answer is that, yes, all claims are equal if they satisfy the need the claimant had when making the claim. Can't compare apples and oranges, can you? Must take apples in the context of the tree they grew on and oranges the same. It's not a competition as to who has the "correct" answer; it's a question if the answer serves its purpose. 2) If science isn't the most powerful instrument of discovery in human history, what claim-making institution beats it? Do we get use the entire world or we confined to Eurocentric science? If we get to include China, the rest of the Far, Southeast and the Middle East as part of the history of science, then I'll accept science as the most powerful instrument of discovery. If we are limited to Eurocentric science, then, no, I'd rank the accomplishments of the rest of the world right up there with modern science because without the rest of the world, it couldn't have happened. 3) How do you explain the profound differences between science and religion as claim-making institutions? Profound differences in agenda or mythos or faith, whichever term suits you best.
