Defining Religion

[RandomCoolzip]

The title of this forum, "Religions vs. Science", assumes that all religions are creedal, i.e. that every religion consists of a set of doctrines about matters natural and supernatural, and that "faith" is dogmatic acceptance of those doctrines. But this is really only true of the Middle Eastern monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I suggest that religion only comes into conflict with science when religion is defined dogmatic terms, and the dogmas extend to include claims about the natural world and its history.

A good example of a major world religion that does not fit into the creedal model is Buddhism. Buddhism grew out of Hinduism and inherited Hinduism's pantheon and its ideas about the endless cycle of birth, death, and reincarnation: but those ideas are not central to Buddhist teaching. You can be a good Buddhist and not "believe in" the Hindu model of the universe, or at least understand it as metaphorical only. The core of Buddhism is Gautama Buddha's diagnosis of the problem of human suffering, and his prescriptions for living in such a way that we move beyond it.

In the same way, my own faith, Unitarian Universalism, is not about a particular understanding of God, the origin of the universe, or the afterlife. It is about choosing to uphold a set of core principles and values in our living. We are sometimes accused of being a philosophy rather than a religion. That may be, but in that case we are a philosophy whose adherents meet every Sunday morning in buildings that look suspiciously like churches, where we practice rituals that look for all the world like religious worship.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The title of this forum, "Religions vs. Science", assumes that all religions are creedal,

I don't really think that's true. The 'vs.' means this forum is to concentrate on those times that religion is opposed to science. That would apply to any religion that makes verifiable claims about reality. If the religion doesn't, then it won't come in conflict, and there's no conflict to list in this forum.

Science, as a whole, has no stance on the existence of gods, so the forum would not automatically assume that science is in conflict with all religions.

 

[abaddon]

I think a fuller understanding of this forum's intent would be "Religion-Inspired Anti-Science versus Science".

Still, many atheists see science and religion as inherently antagonistic and want the one to be entirely victorious over the other. They're very like believers who want all "the idols" of other ("false") religions smashed so that The One Truth will prevail. But one trouble in arguing this is it's general enough that you'll get individuals saying "Nuh uh! Not true cuz I don't think that way!" when that objection is entirely irrelevant to the general point. Also some atheists will re-define religion into whatever works to make it seem entirely insane or "bad", since atheism as a movement is no stranger to propaganda.

----

ETA: Or maybe I'm wrong and the forum was named by befuddled atheists… But seems like the forum was basically modeled on Creationism vs. Evolution but expanded to encompass more topics than just that one.

 

[RandomCoolzip]

The title of this forum, "Religions vs. Science", assumes that all religions are creedal,

I don't really think that's true. The 'vs.' means this forum is to concentrate on those times that religion is opposed to science. That would apply to any religion that makes verifiable claims about reality. If the religion doesn't, then it won't come in conflict, and there's no conflict to list in this forum.

Science, as a whole, has no stance on the existence of gods, so the forum would not automatically assume that science is in conflict with all religions.

Perhaps you're right, because it says "Religions vs. Science" instead of "Religion vs. Science". "Religions" means some religions, but not necessarily all religions.

In any case, as you say, any religion that makes verifiable or falsifiable claims about the natural world had better do its scientific homework. At which point one has to ask whether that part of the belief system is really religious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't really think that's true. The 'vs.' means this forum is to concentrate on those times that religion is opposed to science. That would apply to any religion that makes verifiable claims about reality. If the religion doesn't, then it won't come in conflict, and there's no conflict to list in this forum.

Science, as a whole, has no stance on the existence of gods, so the forum would not automatically assume that science is in conflict with all religions.

Perhaps you're right, because it says "Religions vs. Science" instead of "Religion vs. Science". "Religions" means some religions, but not necessarily all religions.

In any case, as you say, any religion that makes verifiable or falsifiable claims about the natural world had better do its scientific homework. At which point one has to ask whether that part of the belief system is really religious.

It wouldn't be religious in the faith/dogma sense but it might still be religious if it attempts to understand using methods that are not scientific.

Religions in any form are still only paint. They don't change anything and they don't gain scientific knowledge except as an aside.

How long will it be until someone finds something in one of those holy books that is like 126 GeV, telling us the mass of the Higgs? Give them time.

 

[Kharakov]

How long will it be until someone finds something in one of those holy books that is like 126 GeV, telling us the mass of the Higgs? Give them time.

Yeah, that's in the unholy books of science. The unholy fills the holy. It's pretty much a completely natural arrangement. Unless you postulate that there is not symmetry in nature?