6 ms·

What is religion anyway? Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so. If so, aren't man

What is religion anyway? Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so. If so, aren't many systems arguably capable of being called religious? What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I think that science can be considered as a religion to most, as, in general, people don't verify information or what they are told. Instead they just believe it is true and trust that it has been verified. I really don't see much difference.

freeflight 4y ago
> Could you say that any system of thought, where believe rather than know, is a religion? I think so. This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
zen_1 4y ago
> What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so. Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?
jesuscript 4y ago
Religion is the only thing devoid of objective evidence. While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society. That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks. The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection. We are better than you is a potent drug.
- verisimi 4y ago
  > We are better than you is a potent drug. You don't think this applies to science? Do you see that even your (carefully worded) comment, would be seen as an example of ego, from the other side of the pew?
  - jesuscript 4y ago
    Of course I do, it takes one to know one. Humanity is often a desperation. Couldn’t the fog just be lifted? Anyways, I know what everyone else, and I, are up to, and I’m sick of it.
    - verisimi 4y ago
      Right, ok. I'm not sure I know what we are all up to. Feel free to tell me. I am most interested in how to discern knowledge (truth) from belief (lies) - how to stand on solid ground for myself. Being clear on what is presented has been of benefit to me. Try to lift one's own fog, as it were.
      - jesuscript 4y ago
        You seek answers in semantics. A human operates on emotion. The drug, ‘we are better than you’, there’s no knowledge in that. It’s a despair. We are unable to think through it. I don’t want to drive this home too far, but I hope you can feel it.
        verisimi 4y ago
        Yes, 'we are better than you' is despair. The call of the unformed. Whenever I hear use of the pronoun 'we' it puts me on edge. "It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say “we” with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him invoke “others” and regard himself as their interpreter—-for me to consider him my enemy." Emil Cioran There is no 'we', there is only I. But, no, being clear on that point, I'm not in despair.
nordsieck 4y ago
> What is religion anyway? I have my own take on this. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. A religion is: an organization with a set of ethics, and with practices that help to encourage those ethics as well as inculcate those ethics into new adherents. It also has a positive evolutionary affect on its members[1]. > What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I think that, if you're going to talk about science, you need to be very specific. People use the word "science" to mean a great many things. You risk combatting a motte-and-bailey[2]. --- 1. IMO, this bit is what distinguishes religions from cults. It's very possibly for sub-groups of religions to be cults (as well as the reverse). It's not important what the documents say - what is important is how it's practiced: the "lived experience". 2. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile...
- verisimi 4y ago
  Right, I think I agree with you. Re science - I am using it in a generic sense. In the sense that I think most people use it, where they will often contrast it to religion. But!!! Do you not think this applies to people who hold that science is not like religion. Another comment mentions 'falsifiability and testability' which I think this is key. The key point I would add is that no one (NO ONE) is testing or falsifying the 'science' information they receive! When they look at science papers online, they may as well be sitting on a pew! Especially when you consider the Replication crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) Knowledge and knowing is NOT a group activity. It occurs in an individual's brain. You can know if you have personally verified, or you can assume/believe/hypothesise. Most people who would argue for the primacy of science over religion, are actually in a state of belief - their knowledge is theoretical, hypothetical. The scientific method only has any meaning when it is applied personally, rather than assumed.
lapsis_beeftech 4y ago
Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive belief systems: religion requires belief in the absence of evidence while science requires the opposite of this.

freeflight 4y ago

> Could you say that any system of thought, where believe rather than know, is a religion? I think so. This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

zen_1 4y ago

> What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so. Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?

jesuscript 4y ago

Religion is the only thing devoid of objective evidence. While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society. That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks. The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection. We are better than you is a potent drug.

verisimi 4y ago
> We are better than you is a potent drug. You don't think this applies to science? Do you see that even your (carefully worded) comment, would be seen as an example of ego, from the other side of the pew?
- jesuscript 4y ago
  Of course I do, it takes one to know one. Humanity is often a desperation. Couldn’t the fog just be lifted? Anyways, I know what everyone else, and I, are up to, and I’m sick of it.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Right, ok. I'm not sure I know what we are all up to. Feel free to tell me. I am most interested in how to discern knowledge (truth) from belief (lies) - how to stand on solid ground for myself. Being clear on what is presented has been of benefit to me. Try to lift one's own fog, as it were.
    - jesuscript 4y ago
      You seek answers in semantics. A human operates on emotion. The drug, ‘we are better than you’, there’s no knowledge in that. It’s a despair. We are unable to think through it. I don’t want to drive this home too far, but I hope you can feel it.
      - verisimi 4y ago
        Yes, 'we are better than you' is despair. The call of the unformed. Whenever I hear use of the pronoun 'we' it puts me on edge. "It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say “we” with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him invoke “others” and regard himself as their interpreter—-for me to consider him my enemy." Emil Cioran There is no 'we', there is only I. But, no, being clear on that point, I'm not in despair.

nordsieck 4y ago

> What is religion anyway? I have my own take on this. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. A religion is: an organization with a set of ethics, and with practices that help to encourage those ethics as well as inculcate those ethics into new adherents. It also has a positive evolutionary affect on its members[1]. > What exactly is the difference between religion and science? I think that, if you're going to talk about science, you need to be very specific. People use the word "science" to mean a great many things. You risk combatting a motte-and-bailey[2]. --- 1. IMO, this bit is what distinguishes religions from cults. It's very possibly for sub-groups of religions to be cults (as well as the reverse). It's not important what the documents say - what is important is how it's practiced: the "lived experience". 2. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile...

verisimi 4y ago
Right, I think I agree with you. Re science - I am using it in a generic sense. In the sense that I think most people use it, where they will often contrast it to religion. But!!! Do you not think this applies to people who hold that science is not like religion. Another comment mentions 'falsifiability and testability' which I think this is key. The key point I would add is that no one (NO ONE) is testing or falsifying the 'science' information they receive! When they look at science papers online, they may as well be sitting on a pew! Especially when you consider the Replication crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) Knowledge and knowing is NOT a group activity. It occurs in an individual's brain. You can know if you have personally verified, or you can assume/believe/hypothesise. Most people who would argue for the primacy of science over religion, are actually in a state of belief - their knowledge is theoretical, hypothetical. The scientific method only has any meaning when it is applied personally, rather than assumed.

lapsis_beeftech 4y ago

Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive belief systems: religion requires belief in the absence of evidence while science requires the opposite of this.