3 ms·

> 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 wi

> 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.

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.