Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, (don't fall into the equivocation fallacy ) philosophy (in the broadest sense pursuit of knowledge) can cover the sciences, the philosophies and religions (and indeed cults) too, though that doesn't make science and philosophy the same - let alone either being religions.
In the days before Darwin... 'God (or the Gods) dunnit' was the only explanation for the way things were. Pythagoras saw mathematics as a wondrous mechanism designed by the gods or at least the philosophers' god that made everything. Galilaeo and lNewton both believed that they were using science to show how God has designed and made everything work.
I (and I have lots of company) regard math and logic as branches of philosophy rather than science. That doesn't mean that science doesn't rely on both, or that both do not have great explanatory power. But math and logic are based on first principles or givens / presuppositions that are not falsifiable. Math and logic are self-consistent and comport themselves perfectly with observable reality, so we can have a high degree of confidence in their underlying assumptions -- but they are more properly regarded as philosophical constructs than as scientific ones.
Science itself, of necessity, must use a few basic assumptions, as everything needs a starting point. A basic assumption of science is that a hypothesis, to be valid, must be falsifiable, otherwise it is at best interesting speculation. As such it has to be subject to direct or indirect observation and manipulation using our five senses (amplified by technology). However science is pretty parsimonious with its underlying assumptions; in general, everything is fair game so long as it can be expressed as a scientifically valid hypothesis.
When we start talking about first principles we are looking at the outer edges of our intellectual and perceptual capabilities. That there are limits implies that there are unknowns. The debate between science and religion, and between the overlapping categories of belief and unbelief, is at its core a difference of opinion about how to respond when we reach the limits of our knowledge. The believer says, here's an unknown; it is intolerable; god must be in charge of it. The unbeliever says, here's an unknown; I'm willing to admit I don't know; I will not make stuff up or so much as maintain a placeholder assumption, unless and until my state of ignorance is remedied. And an unbeliever is unmoved if the question under consideration is one that is unlikely to be answered -- in his lifetime, certainly, perhaps ever.
In essence, "I don't know" are the Three Naughty Words to a theist, because any self-respecting holy book claims to give you hidden knowledge, and to claim not to know is to deny the holy book.
I think you would explain better than I the distinction between or indeed the overlap between the philosophies and science. I would just observe that archeology uses science to obtain hard data, but the way that data goes from being some item left by ancient peoples and displayed on a museum shelf to actually telling us something about the people who made it is rather a philosophy. That's to say, once the philosophy becomes better supported, and falsifiability - making predictions - comes in here, never mind getting actual hard data from new techniques (e.g DNA and identifying royal mummies and bloodlines) then the stuff that wasn't tactile data becomes as reliable as stuff dug out of the ground.
But of course as you say, knowing what we don't know and understanding that there could be several possible answers is as essential to valid science as is having those answers. It is religion (and cults) with their insistence of the factual reliability of this or that belief where more than one hypothesis can be proposed that fits the data that is of dubious credibility, though of course the back to front reasoning of the cult -think says that the guesswork is better because science admits that it doesn't know for sure.
Then we get the inverted reasoning where, not only are all other theories (including other religious ones) discounted in favour of the preference for just one, and not only is the evidence selectively evaluated by picking what fits (or - with some fiddling -seems to fit) the theory, but the correct method of evaluating the data is rejected if it doesn't seem to support the Faith.
Thus we end up with 'how do we know what we know', and the appeal to revelation being somehow more reliable than science. The argument that science doesn't know a lot of things is produced, but that is not the point. It is that revelation is more reliable than science even where science says something different.
It always comes down to this: faith trumps science every time. If science contradicts faith, faith is right (coming from God) and science is wrong, being merely a human method.
And 'Faith' is, in the end, I am sure, when it comes down to it, the ultimate act of sell -justification: - 'I still think I'm right. I don't care what you say'. The utter lack of the humility that is part of the philosophy of science - knowing that one could be wrong.
I agree. The idea of a god or something that is a divine entity that can do something for us if we deal with it in the right way (this means that Karma and thetans are included too) makes something a religion.
I'm not sure where that leaves the Jains. That may be a real atheistic religion without anything like a god. However, atheism and indeed agnosticism are not in any valid definition religions.
The attempt to make it look like one by equating Dawkins with a High priest, Darwinism with Dogma and Origin of species as scripture is a rhetorical swindle. One could do the same thing with any organization with a committee, mission statement and publications. Indeed on a forum in a galaxy far away one poster tried to argue that 'organizations' were religions. Such a definition makes the term meaningless, and it is meaningless when applied to atheism.
P.s Shinina I think asked 'so what?' It does occur to me that even if one could make atheism a religion - so what? I think the idea would be to equivocate.
Using definition (a) any organisation with rules, leaders, written exhortations, is a religion.
(b) therefore under that definition, atheism is a religion.
(c) therefore, using a different definition - beliefs based on unproven faiths - atheism has no sound basis for what it believes. It is merely a faith -claim and religious faith is just as valid.
axiom - when a trick has been explained to you, you will not be fooled by it.
There are many points of comparison and contrast between any form of apologetics which I won't go into here. Readers here might like to check out Wikipedia for a birds-eye-view of the subject. Christians and Muslims will have the opportunity to defend their respective religions by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can also argue their cases if they so desire here. I in turn will defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics. In the process each of us will, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest. .
Start Rant:
My father is a Baha’i and I grew up in the Baha’i faith when I was very young. On the surface the main message they teach is unity of all races and equality of the sexes. This is admittedly pretty progressive for a religion that began in the late 19th century. However, there is one glaring flaw in their teachings and that is that they believe gay people are spiritually sick and they are not allowed equal standing within the Baha’i community. As it stands now, someone in a same-sex marriage is prohibited from joining the Baha’i community. Openly gay people are often not allowed to vote in the spiritual assembly elections, contribute to the fund, hold office, or attend the 19-day feast.
I know Baha’is believe they don’t actively persecute gay people. However, I would argue that telling someone that “homosexuality is an abnormality, is a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and... he or she should strive to overcome it” as stated by the Universal House of Justice, is an archaic attitude that the Baha’i Faith has neglected to address.
In a nutshell, I feel they cause harm because some old dead dudes decided homosexuality didn’t appeal to THEM and was therefore wrong. How can they have a religion based on teachings that “God is one, Man is one, and all the religions agree” with the hope of bringing about world unity if they are prejudiced against a group of innocent people? I find that to be deeply ironic and hypocritical.
I’m not gay but my aunt was a gay Baha’i. She felt she had to choose between God and the woman she loved. She chose God and she chose to be with Him right away. She had many issues but I believe she killed herself because she thought that her genuine feelings for another woman were wrong.
The question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant in the face of blatant discrimination.
Stay out of my bedroom, Shoghi Effendi!
…End Rant
V. good post. The Gay thing is always going to be contentious, religious or not, but very often for the wrong reasons. The 'natural or not' argument is really academic. The real question is, we do a lot of things that are not natural in our society. Do we really need the permission of either God or evolution to be Gay?
I think that most arguing from the 'it ain't natural' angle might admit that what natural selection handed us is not some divine commandment, but religion is a different matter. There all the naturalism and social ills arguments are based on Faith -based dogma, not reason, let alone compassion.
It is perhaps a shame (and something they may come to regret, if not get around) that Ba'hai felt the need to make a stand on the issue (while the few gays on the committee dared say nothing) . That, added to a very minor stance in world religions and a lot of pressure from the beards with black flags, is just what it didn't need.
I disagree. One's a lack of belief in a single thing, the other is a single belief about either the current state of or possbility of knowledge about that same one thing. I doubt you'd call lack of stamp collecting or believing that Bigfoot can't be proven philosophies, so I'm not sure why atheism or agnosticism would fit.
Certainly both atheism or agnosticism are part of various world views and philosophies, but they seem kinda insignificant to each be one one their own.
is there a base faith statement that is a flat out assertion?
do they have leaders (pastors) that will preach to this faith statement?
do the claim to have the "real truth" where others don't?
do they meet with like minded people to talk about how "we have the real truth" and "they have lies"
any symbols or flag to wave?
dehumanize other religions using negative and condescending remarks?
Go and try to get people to convert to their way of thinking?
Whenever someone has appeared here to argue that atheism/agnosticism is also a religion, it has always been a religious believer.
It does seem important to some of the religious persuasion that they must place rational and irrational systems of thought on equal footing. It is almost as though via commonality of label, science and myth would become indistinguishable.
is there a base faith statement that is a flat out assertion?
do they have leaders (pastors) that will preach to this faith statement?
do the claim to have the "real truth" where others don't?
do they meet with like minded people to talk about how "we have the real truth" and "they have lies"
any symbols or flag to wave?
dehumanize other religions using negative and condescending remarks?
Go and try to get people to convert to their way of thinking?
No I don't think atheist do these.
No...not really, but atheist -bashers can certainly make it look as though we do. If we publish, we have scripture. If one of us gives a lecture, we have preachers. if we have a conference a Church has been established.
It is Balls because you could say the same about football, stamp - collecting and chopper- bike enthusiasts...well, Bad example That's kissin' cuzzin to a cult if Ever I saw one...And if you say 'Yes, those are religions too, thaen, pretty much everything is and the term 'religion' becomes meaningless.
Of course the problem is using too broad a term and that is the favourite theist fallacy of equivocation. Thus we need a more particular and specific definition of religion.
The Dictionaries are helpful, but I think we can do even better than that...
Whenever someone has appeared here to argue that atheism/agnosticism is also a religion, it has always been a religious believer.
It does seem important to some of the religious persuasion that they must place rational and irrational systems of thought on equal footing. It is almost as though via commonality of label, science and myth would become indistinguishable.
Yes, I have a gut -feeling that proving that atheism is a religion would be a point scored by theism, but I'm blowed if I can think why. I mean, if it is based on rationality and evidence, does it matter that it has religious trappings? Is there somehow the idea that, to be a religion means that you are admitting that you believe something (as the saying goes) that nobody in their right mind would believe, and believing that as an act of Faith?
Is it all part of this underlying resentment that, for all the claims that revelation and faith -based speculation trumps mere human wisdom, science in fact has loads more cred. than faith -claims and THAT is why we constantly get attempts to prove that religion is logical and backed up by science and atheism is not?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) philosophy (in the broadest sense pursuit of knowledge) can cover the sciences, the philosophies and religions (and indeed cults) too, though that doesn't make science and philosophy the same - let alone either being religions.
'God (or the Gods) dunnit' was the only explanation for the way things were. Pythagoras saw mathematics as a wondrous mechanism designed by the gods or at least the philosophers' god that made everything. Galilaeo and lNewton both believed that they were using science to show how God has designed and made everything work.
That's kissin' cuzzin to a cult if Ever I saw one...And if you say 'Yes, those are religions too, thaen, pretty much everything is and the term 'religion' becomes meaningless.