Is Science A Religion?

[akiva]

Tejwant Ji
GurFateh

Thanks for the URLs. In fact anyone can post a list of them along with some books for others to read. If I remember correctly, you wanted to have conversation in this forum.

Correct -- but conversation has to start from a position of common knowledge and understanding. Just like a teacher (and I'm not taking on the role of teacher here) assumes that the students have the prerequisite knowledge for the course -- and will not take class time teaching the students who aren't prepared (instead telling them to read the books)

So too -- to discuss this subject requires that the people involved share a common vocabulary, have the same basic understanding.

Would you be happier if I just parroted the wiki article? What would that accomplish (besides waste my time)?

So I don't see why you keep objection to links and recommended books.

So, please start one by sharing your thoughts rather than copying and pasting some URLs. That is the only right thing to do as you initially desired.

Don't you think so?

Hope to read your insights for the sake of the conversation that all of us can have and learn through it.

I have posted my thoughts. I've also posted links to material I consider fundamental or useful to understand the subject.

And will continue to do both.

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

At their root both are attempts by man to understand and explain the world around us.

But, yes, they are different in many ways -- specifically the scientific method.

A few examples of theories which were rejected at first: Plate tectonics is the classic example. The idea that bacteria cause ulcers. Cold Fusion is another. The use of psychoactive/hallucinogenic drugs in psychotherapy. Sheldrakes work. For that matter, ANY attempt to scientifically explore what's called "fringe science" is almost guaranteed to be professional suicide these days.

Why the shift? IMO it's because the "Age of Reason" led "Modern Man" to reject the old religions -- but since Man is, at the core of his psyche, a "believing" animal -- we have a genetic need to believe in/be part of something more than ourselves. WIth the rejection of "Religion" that need was filled by the various "isms" of the 20th century (communism, capitalism,environmentalism, etc) and by science.

Once science is replaced by Scientism it starts becoming a religion -- along with all the personality cults and other "baggage" that religions can have.

Akiva

But that's like saying alchemy is chemistry or that astrology is astronomy. Because at their root they are similar. The difference between science and religion is that science's explanations are convincing and religions', for the most part, aren't. The postulation by some Christians that the earth is 6000 years old, is failed science. The belief by quite a lot Sikhs that reincarnation occurs after death, is failed science. (Before anyone says that they don't believe in reincarnation, many Sikhs actually do).

You said that science had become very much an ideology. I don't see how from what you have said. Fringe science doesn't tend to be accepted because it tends to lean into the realm of pseudoscience. However, if a scientist can prove whatever they postulate, then science accepts it. Science is based on consensus, yes, but there have been many discoveries that have gone against consensus that have forced the consensus to change their views. Take Louis de Broglie's PhD thesis that if 'wave-like' light showed particle properties (photons), 'particles' like electrons should be expected to show wave-like properties. Most physicists were unimpressed with that claim but he proved it with electron diffraction patterns. Religion doesn't work like that. It doesn't get peer reviewed, nor is it based on evidence nor does it accept fringe opinion. Religion is based more around hierarchy. Name me a religion that bases its scientific claims (origin of the universe and what happens after death) on evidence and that is based on consensus and not just a few at the top of the hierarchy.

Homo sapiens are xenophobic, and tribalistic. Just because we are certain things deep down, doesn't make the things it leads to, right. We don't need to think that there is something more than ourselves because the knowledge we have gained has been so huge. I refuse to accept the notion that somehow science will eventually become a religion and the reason for my conclusion is that they are two entirely separate ways of thinking. One is faith based (without evidence), and the other is evidence based.

 

[akiva]

Alchemy became chemistry as it became formalised and repeatable.

Reincarnation is not "failed science" -- science can't have a position on it because the basis of reincarnation -- the soul -- is outside the domain of science (which is why I linked to the piece by Gould on NOMA). Full disclosure -- I fall on the pro-reincarnation side of the argument personally.

Yes, non-consensual theories CAN be accepted -- but it takes a long time and overwhelming evidence to cause the paradigm sift necessary. But look into the problems Sheldrake, for example, is having getting his evidence even looked at. Or any of the research into reincarnation, Near-Death experiences, or vast areas of Transpersonal Psychology - especially Grof's work. Since they all assume a non-localized/non-mechanical consciousness they automatically are outside the realm of science (or more correctly, scientific consensus). The standard line by the scientific community is "we know it can't be true -- so we won't waste out time looking at it. it can't be true." "Know", of course, indicates a belief. "Can't" indicates a pre-judgement. Neither is scientific.

In order to be "scientific" it has to be quantifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable (according to most schools of Scientific Philosophy). Anything outside of that is, by definition, non-scientific.

The Roman Catholic church, for one, has no problem with science regarding the origin of the universe (again, see the Gould piece).

I agree that science isn't a religion -- it's scientism that has become a religion. There has been a lot written, by scientists, sociologists, and theologians on the subject. (I highly recommend Nasr's writings on Sacred Science for a discussion of the societal shift from religion to scientism)

Religion can be evidence-based -- but that evidence is personal, experiential, and non-quantifiable. Those who have had the experience know it to be true.

Akiva

 

[akiva]

(Before anyone says that they don't believe in reincarnation, many Sikhs actually do).

I suspect the vast majority of Sikhs, until recently, believed in reincarnation.

The growing rejection of the belief stems from a (misguided, IMO) desire to be "rational" and "scientific" and "modern".

Taking it to the logical conclusion -- no religion -- including Sikhi -- is needed or will survive if that's the goal. They have nothing to offer. Hence the growth of secular humanism.

So the end result of the desire to be rational/scientific is the abandonment of all religion. (Which we are seeing today).

Because people think it's an either/or situation, when it's not (again, see Gould)

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

Reincarnation is a failed science because it isn't testable. Science can't have a word on it due to that fact. But for a religion to assert that there is an after-life, that's a claim about the real world which has to either be right or wrong.

Yeah, I read about NOMA in the God Delusion. I don't think I agree that you can have science in one compartment and religion in the other. As long as religions make the claim that there is some sort of creative intelligence in the world, that's a scientific claim. Richard Dawkins sums it up well: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

Can I just ask whether you think it's possible to find out whether or not reincarnation is true? And to your point on near-death experiences, do you think they provide a basis for perhaps what the after-life could be like? Because I don't. They're NEAR-death experiences, so they don't count.

The Roman Catholic church's previous pope said that condoms actually increase the incidence of aids if people use them. Thousands of Africans will have underwent misery due to this preachment. The assertion that condoms increase the incidence of aids is a scientific claim, that is false, that has had terrible repercussions.

The problem with religious experiences is that one religious person will hallucinate seeing a 1st century Jew in Jesus, one will hallucinate seeing a 7th century illiterate businessman in Muhammad and the other will hallucinate a 15th century Hindu in Nanak Dev. They can't be all true. The revelation that one receives may be deeply important, perhaps even life changing for them, it just doesn't make religious claims true.

To assert that scientism is a religion would be false by definition. This is one of the definitions of scientism as written on wiki: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." Definition of religion is (according to wiki): "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values." The key is that religion takes into account the supernatural, in that there's something immaterial. That isn't what science nor scientism is. I agree that perhaps scientism is an ideology, but it would be false to call it a religion.

You can practice religion and believe in science. That is totally fine to do. Take people like Francis Collins. Deeply religious people that are also scientists who manage to separate faith from the lab. It's doable. It's just not scientific to hold those sorts of beliefs.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

Correct -- but conversation has to start from a position of common knowledge and understanding. Just like a teacher (and I'm not taking on the role of teacher here) assumes that the students have the prerequisite knowledge for the course -- and will not take class time teaching the students who aren't prepared (instead telling them to read the books)

Nice cop out and that was not my request to you. I want you to give your own opinion rather than copying and pasting some URL's. I am sure you are intelligent enough to do that. You seem to assume too much.We are all students here. So let's hear from yourself.

So too -- to discuss this subject requires that the people involved share a common vocabulary, have the same basic understanding.

Akiva ji, sorry to say but that is utter nonsense. One requires the understanding of the subject which the participants do including yourself but sadly, what is missing is your point of view to continue this conversation which does not take place when you post some URLs.

Would you be happier if I just parroted the wiki article? What would that accomplish (besides waste my time)?

Thanks for being honest about your source Wiki which is the worst kind because anyone can add and edit there. I do not want you to parrot anything unless that is all you are capable of, but give me your understanding from your sources in your own words related to the thread.

So I don't see why you keep objection to links and recommended books.

Conversation which you so deeply desire can only take place if you share your thoughts which you have not. I can write a list of whole lots of books and URL'd but that is what Google is for. This forum is for interaction. So, please start with that.

I have posted my thoughts. I've also posted links to material I consider fundamental or useful to understand the subject.

What thoughts have you posted and based on what? In many of your posts in this thread, you are doing nothing but distorting Sikhi without having any knowledge for it which is a shame and uncalled for. Reincarnation is one of them. Please post the whole Shabads with your own understanding which would be a starter in an honest manner and you are deviating from the actual title of the thread.

Hope you start an honest conversation so all can learn from it.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[akiva]

Where have I distorted Sikhi? I don't think I made one claim as to what Sikhi holds in this thread.

And if you had read my posts above you would have seen that they are mostly my opinion - and replies to questions raised.

Also -- for most subjects Wiki rates more accurate (in objective studies) than Encyclopaedia britannica

Akiva

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

My understanding is that Science and Priniples of any religion come from the same source
and it is the principles of any religion that are that are being tested and verified thru the lense of Science.
Any great scientist would be able to see how closely are the findings of science to the basic principles of any religion.

Well I am sharing my own thoughts in my own ways if you feel this incorrect i stop here.

 

[Harvir007]

My understanding is that Science and Priniples of any religion come from the same source

Could you elaborate more on what you mean by science and principles of religion coming from the same source? Is it not true that religion comes from revelation and 'the truth' being revealed to an individual (dependent on the religion)? Science isn't revealed wisdom. You hypothesise, you experiment and then you have theory if the experiment works accordingly to your hypothesis.

Also, science doesn't take its cues from just one book. It isn't parochial like quite a lot of religions that say 'we only need one book'.

and it is the principles of any religion that are that are being tested and verified thru the lense of Science.

I'm sorry, which principles are being tested and verified? To be perfectly honest, I think it has been the opposite. Science has essentially shown many of the fallacies within religion. The main fallacy being belief in god.

 

[akiva]

Reincarnation is a failed science because it isn't testable. Science can't have a word on it due to that fact. But for a religion to assert that there is an after-life, that's a claim about the real world which has to either be right or wrong.

It's not a "failed" science -- it's not science. (until/if it's measurable)

Yeah, I read about NOMA in the God Delusion. I don't think I agree that you can have science in one compartment and religion in the other. As long as religions make the claim that there is some sort of creative intelligence in the world, that's a scientific claim.

I wouldn't rely on Dawkin's summary of NOMA -- that's like (humor alert) trusting a Hindu's version of what Sikhi is...

Richard Dawkins sums it up well: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

First off -- that's an opinion Dawkins has -- which he's asking the reader to accept of faith. It's obviously not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable -- so it's not a scientific statement.

Secondly -- it's not difficult to come up with several possible versions of universes with a supernatural presence that would be indistinguishable from ours. Theologians have been doing that for over 2000 years -- but Dawkins is ignorant of Classic Theology (of all religious branches). That's been pointed out by many people -- both supporters and detractors.

Yet he feels qualified to talk on the subject...not a "scientific" position to take.

Can I just ask whether you think it's possible to find out whether or not reincarnation is true?

Probably only via collected anecdotal evidence -- until such time (if ever) that non-localized consciousness is shown to be true (i.e. measurable and predictable)

And to your point on near-death experiences, do you think they provide a basis for perhaps what the after-life could be like? Because I don't. They're NEAR-death experiences, so they don't count.

I think in some cases they indicate non-localised consciousness is true.

The problem with religious experiences is that one religious person will hallucinate seeing a 1st century Jew in Jesus, one will hallucinate seeing a 7th century illiterate businessman in Muhammad and the other will hallucinate a 15th century Hindu in Nanak Dev. They can't be all true. The revelation that one receives may be deeply important, perhaps even life changing for them, it just doesn't make religious claims true.

The symbols are different from the message. People experience (usually) the symbols that resonate with their psyche -- the archetypal images.

I agree that perhaps scientism is an ideology, but it would be false to call it a religion.

Accepted. Better to say it fills the same role, fullfills the same needs, provides the same guidance, as Religion.

(Which, in my opinion, makes them equivalent insofar as the person is concerned)

You can practice religion and believe in science. That is totally fine to do. Take people like Francis Collins. Deeply religious people that are also scientists who manage to separate faith from the lab. It's doable. It's just not scientific to hold those sorts of beliefs.

Which is why NOMA comes into the discussion.

Akiva

 

[akiva]

I'm sorry, which principles are being tested and verified? To be perfectly honest, I think it has been the opposite. Science has essentially shown many of the fallacies within religion. The main fallacy being belief in god.

Science can't have an opinion on the existence/non-existence of God.

Science is domain-specific -- in this case the material/physical world -- and God by definition is not part of that world.

Agnosticism is the only logically-honest position for a scientist (and I have no problem with that).

Atheism, on the other hand, makes an assertion that in non-proveable scientifically.

Akiva

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

To be more specific for one Science can be a Religion itself if one is devoted to Science.
So Religion is manifestation of devotion to any particular subject under consideration.
Thus science can be a religion but Religion cant be science.
The contents of my earlier message are perhaps off the topic presented for sharing the views.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Harry Haller]

The truth is anything can be a religion, and ironically, I do not consider Sikhism a religion in any case!

Sikhi is a code of conduct, simply living by the truth, and having the faith to follow inside what you feel is the truth

Science is following what others have proven to be the truth

 

[Harvir007]

It's not a "failed" science -- it's not science. (until/if it's measurable)

Reincarnation is a claim about biology. One that claims your 'spirit' or 'soul' travels outside of one's body when you die, and it then travels into another body. Is that correct? If a religion, or somebody claims that this process occurs, then that is a scientific claim. It might not be testable but it's a scientific claim nonetheless as it is a hypothesis.

I wouldn't rely on Dawkin's summary of NOMA -- that's like (humor alert) trusting a Hindu's version of what Sikhi is...

First off -- that's an opinion Dawkins has -- which he's asking the reader to accept of faith. It's obviously not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable -- so it's not a scientific statement.

An opinion which I happen to share upon researching Gould's view. It's plain as day. If a religion makes the claim that there is some sort of cosmic intelligence, this means that the universe we live in is fundamentally different. They can't overlap in that sense.

Secondly -- it's not difficult to come up with several possible versions of universes with a supernatural presence that would be indistinguishable from ours. Theologians have been doing that for over 2000 years -- but Dawkins is ignorant of Classic Theology (of all religious branches). That's been pointed out by many people -- both supporters and detractors.
Yet he feels qualified to talk on the subject...not a "scientific" position to take.

If I was a scientist, and a person came up to me and claimed that a 2000 year old book based around a middle eastern Jew who probably couldn't read had more wisdom and somehow had more knowledge than people nowadays, I'd be just as sceptical.

Probably only via collected anecdotal evidence -- until such time (if ever) that non-localized consciousness is shown to be true (i.e. measurable and predictable)

So then what do you say to those who believe in hell and heaven whom have equally terrible evidence to support their views?

The symbols are different from the message. People experience (usually) the symbols that resonate with their psyche -- the archetypal images.

You cannot possibly utter that first sentence and believe it. For example, a jihadi militant hallucinates seeing Muhammad telling him to kill all the infidels and that he will get his just reward in paradise with 72 virgins. A born-again Christian hallucinates seeing Jesus telling her to spread the word of Christ and that she will have salvation. Do not tell me that the message is the same. One advocates killing and the other advocates knocking on doors. Both equally annoying with the former being despicable.

Accepted. Better to say it fills the same role, fullfills the same needs, provides the same guidance, as Religion.

(Which, in my opinion, makes them equivalent insofar as the person is concerned)

But science isn't going to provide a sense of an immaterial, nor supernatural view of the world. It also won't give comfort to those who are about to die and don't want this life to be 'it'. In that sense, it isn't fulfilling the need of comfort when approaching death.

Science can't have an opinion on the existence/non-existence of God.

Science is domain-specific -- in this case the material/physical world -- and God by definition is not part of that world.

Agnosticism is the only logically-honest position for a scientist (and I have no problem with that).

Atheism, on the other hand, makes an assertion that in non-proveable scientifically.

You are mistaken about the atheist's proposition. I don't say there definitely is no god, I can't prove that. However, I can say that there is no evidence or convincing argument that makes me think that there is a god. The agnostic's (with regards to 'god') position isn't logically honest. I don't say to you, "oh, the tooth-fairy cannot be disproved therefore, I won't commit to saying that the likelihood of such a thing existing is very improbable." Of course I can't say that santa or a tooth-fairy definitely does not exist so I'm agnostic with regards to them. But for all practical cases, I am an atheist in the same sense that I'm an atoothfairyist. I'm sure that most people are atoothfairyists, is that logically dishonest? You can't just say I'm not comparing like with like. Both are fictional entities, both have no evidence to support them. The difference I suppose is, is that most children tend to grow out of believing in the tooth-fairy. And that's what god is to me: a childish belief.

By the way, which god are you referring to? Waheguru, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Ganesh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Don't just say they're all representative of one god. They aren't. Yahweh in the old testament is an evil f*cker (for lack of a better adjective, so heinous was he) whereas Waheguru, the Sikh god/constant/divine law maker seems a lot more peaceful in that this being doesn't kill specific tribes nor carries out genocides whereas the former does.

 

[Harvir007]

Science is following what others have proven to be the truth

Science is facing the facts about the reality of the world. There is no following, only accepting the facts.

 

[Harvir007]

To be more specific for one Science can be a Religion itself if one is devoted to Science.
So Religion is manifestation of devotion to any particular subject under consideration.

Could you please explain to me how one can tell if one is devoted to science and how that devotion makes it a religion? For you, religion may be a manifestation of devotion, I personally do not because that's changing the definition of religion to back up a point that is a play with words.

Thus science can be a religion but Religion cant be science.

That's incorrect. Religions are failed sciences in that their scriptures have made scientific claims. Scientific claims are statements of a 'fact' that's believed to be true, but has not yet been 'proven' to be true. Take the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientific claim that is false.

 

[Harry Haller]

Science is facing the facts about the reality of the world. There is no following, only accepting the facts.

I see, and you have discovered all these facts on your own then?

lol lol lol

 

[Harvir007]

I see, and you have discovered all these facts on your own then?

lol lol lol

I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.

 

[akiva]

Take the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientific claim that is false.

Relying on Dawkins? As usual a misquote (actually not a misquote -- he admits to never having read the Quran.)

and the "I Think" in your statement is problematic -- check your quotes against the originals -- don't rely on Dawkins or others to think for you.

The actual quote: [25.53] And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

There are many places (river deltas, for example, like the amazon delta) where fresh water flows into the ocean and don't mix.

Thermoclines in the ocean have the same effect.

Historically there were many fresh water springs emerging just off the arabian coast -- it could be a reference to those places.

Akiva

 

[Harry Haller]

I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.

ok we are now getting lost in semantics, (not that I am anti semantic, Akiva lol, sorry I think I have cracked that one too many times)

Sorry pal, but that does make you a follower, have you seen the evidence? have you tested the evidence? have you carried out the experiments? no, so you have faith in those who have proven these theories.

In fact, lol, seeing as Sikhism is not a religion, that makes you more religious than me!