definitions of religion and science

[ponderingturtle]

I was thinking about the definition of religion the other day and decided I liked this definition "a social organization, organized around central philosophical principles"

This seems to get to the core of all religions, but also seems to include science as a religion(admittedly not in the unthinking dogmatic sense that people usually mean when they call science a religion, which is odd as they never seem to want to apply that to their religious beliefs)

Do the philosophical principles have to be theistic?

[Lonewulf]

I don't like that definition. Most times "religion" is used (okay, all times), it denotes a supernatural event. Science is an attempt to discover the natural, and does not accept supernatural explanations.

[Level]

Why does that definition include science again? Science requires natural explanations (methodological naturalism). If you have to invoke the supernatural in what you're doing, whatever it is, it's not science.

Metaphysical naturalism would be its philosophical twin, but it lies outside the domain of scientific methodology.

[drkitten]

Why does that definition include science again?

Because it's not a very good definition.

Science requires natural explanations (methodological naturalism).

Yup. And "methodological naturalism" is a central philosophical principle of science, hence science is a "religion" under that definition.

Of course, so are the Olympic games.. (If you don't believe me, look up the "philosophical principles" that are expressly listed as the Olympian ideas.)

So is the law.

So, for that matter, is music.

Which suggests that the definition is overbroad and that it misses a huge section of what religion involves that separates it from other human endeavours like music, law, and athleticism. I'd be perfectly happy mentioning "theism" as a key component of religion, although some Buddhists would disagree.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I was thinking about the definition of religion the other day and decided I liked this definition "a social organization, organized around central philosophical principles"
Which social organisations does this definition exclude, then?

[drkitten]

Which social organisations does this definition exclude, then?

I'm not sure what "central philosophical principles" a Tuesday stitch-and-bitch sewing circle is organized around.

[ponderingturtle]

Why does that definition include science again?
Because the scientific method is a philosophical principle.

Science requires natural explanations (methodological naturalism). If you have to invoke the supernatural in what you're doing, whatever it is, it's not science.

So religions that do not make testable supernatural claims are not religions? A theistic belief is not a testable claim, and if it is recognised as such it is simply a philosophical principle.

Metaphysical naturalism would be its philosophical twin, but it lies outside the domain of scientific methodology.

I will have to look into that. Could it be the working principle for a religion?

[ponderingturtle]

Which social organisations does this definition exclude, then?

Not all social organisations have central philosophical prinicples. What is the philosophical principle of my gaming groups? Playing games is fun does not seem to be a philosophical principle.

[ponderingturtle]

Because it's not a very good definition.

And that was something I suspected when I realized science would fit into the religion category with that definition.



Yup. And "methodological naturalism" is a central philosophical principle of science, hence science is a "religion" under that definition.

Of course, so are the Olympic games.. (If you don't believe me, look up the "philosophical principles" that are expressly listed as the Olympian ideas.)

But what is the percentage of athletes actually hold such principles?

So is the law.

So, for that matter, is music.

I can see how the law might count, but what are the philosophical principles of music?

Which suggests that the definition is overbroad and that it misses a huge section of what religion involves that separates it from other human endeavours like music, law, and athleticism. I'd be perfectly happy mentioning "theism" as a key component of religion, although some Buddhists would disagree.

And it might well be. I was looking for a definition that was not basically a set of superstitions, but something more intrinsic.

[drkitten]

But what is the percentage of athletes actually hold such principles?

What percentage of church-goers actually believe the fluff spouted from the pulpit?


I can see how the law might count, but what are the philosophical principles of music?

Oh, Pythagoras goes --went -- into this at length. It's truly a phenomenal example of how twisted a mind can get.


And it might well be. I was looking for a definition that was not basically a set of superstitions, but something more intrinsic.

I'm not sure why, though. As far as I can tell, religion is basically (and intrinsically) a set of superstitions, so looking for something "more intrinsic" is basically doomed to failure. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that "if and only if it makes claims about a god or gods, it's a religion."

In particular, religions do not need to make testable theistic predictions; it's perfectly possible to have a scientifically-based religion. Remember that for years, priests were the ones who kept the calendars and told people when to plant based on testable religious principles. The idea that science and religion must deal with distinct questions is a relatively new development, and it's highly contingent on the fact that there appears to be no materialistic question that religion is equipped to answer.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not all social organisations have central philosophical prinicples. What is the philosophical principle of my gaming groups? Playing games is fun does not seem to be a philosophical principle.
Hedonism.

[Blutarsky]

Do the philosophical principles have to be theistic?Possibly I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think theism is, by its nature, only understandable or testable by philosophical principles, as the veracity of a religion cannot be measured with rulers or weights like you would routinely assess physical phenomena by scientific methods. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Level:

My apologies, I didn't see your post until I already submitted mine. I think you are correct.

[Blutarsky]

Repost

[drkitten]

Possibly I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think theism is, by its nature, only understandable or testable by philosophical principles, as the veracity of a religion cannot be measured with rulers or weights like you would routinely assess physical phenomena by scientific methods. Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

I think you're incorrect. Theism is easily testable through any of the standard methods; the problem is that historically, it has failed every test to which it was put, which has forced modern theists to retreat to silly and unfalsifiable claims when they're faced with a determined and critical inquiry.

But almost every generation insists, in private, that the effects of religion are very obvious -- and even in public will usually insist that the effects of non-religion are equally obvious and testable. Hurricane Katrina, for example, is a direct result of America's sin, just like the destruction of Sodom, although there is some disagreement about exactly which sin it punished....

[Blutarsky]

Theism is easily testable through any of the standard methodsCould you expand upon this?


Hurricane Katrina, for example, is a direct result of America's sin, just like the destruction of Sodom, although there is some disagreement about exactly which sin it punished....

I don't personally know a single theist who either privately or publicly acknowledges this? And no, Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me, or anyone I know.

[ponderingturtle]

What percentage of church-goers actually believe the fluff spouted from the pulpit?

All of them, likely not, but the core principles? I would think it is pretty common.

How many athletes are there not for personal advancement and financial gain, but for the philosophical principles of the Olympics?


Oh, Pythagoras goes --went -- into this at length. It's truly a phenomenal example of how twisted a mind can get.

How much of that is philosophical in nature and how much is based on the mathematical physical properties? Do you have a link for that?


I'm not sure why, though. As far as I can tell, religion is basically (and intrinsically) a set of superstitions, so looking for something "more intrinsic" is basically doomed to failure. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that "if and only if it makes claims about a god or gods, it's a religion."

So a religion that does not have an intrinsic set of superstitions but only a philosophical foundation is not a religion, even if it has some of the trappings of religion and identifies itself as such?

In particular, religions do not need to make testable theistic predictions; it's perfectly possible to have a scientifically-based religion. Remember that for years, priests were the ones who kept the calendars and told people when to plant based on testable religious principles. The idea that science and religion must deal with distinct questions is a relatively new development, and it's highly contingent on the fact that there appears to be no materialistic question that religion is equipped to answer.

If it does not have a testable theistic prediction is it really a superstition?

[drkitten]

Could you expand upon this?

Certainly. Using Christianity as a fairly standard example, the Bible is fairly explicit about the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. For example (all quotes are from the Authorized (King James) Version):

Matthew 18:18-20

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in
heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Luke 11:9-13

9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a
stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how
much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

John 14:10-14

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words
that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 ¦ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto
my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may
be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

These passages are believed to be the literal truth by a number of believers, including some rather sophisticated theologians who aren't themselves fundamentalists. Furthermore, they have been believed to be the literal truth for centuries, to the point where many "medical" institutions of the Middle Ages and Rennaissance were more concerned with praying for the patient's recovery -- "if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" -- than with actually trying to provide medical treatment.

So it's fairly easy to set up an empirical test of the theological accuracy of John 14:14. Simply say to yourself "In the name of Jesus, please give me [whatever]" (of course, you can ask for whatever you like, depending upon your tastes. Would you prefer Angelina Jolie naked in a hot tub, or Brad Pitt and a two-kilogram box of Belgian chocolates (I recommend Neuhaus, as they travel reasonably well)?

Did you get it? Looks like John may have been wrong, then.

Perhaps you and several friends need to get together and test Matthew.

But this kind of test is part of the reason why modern theologians have been forced to back off from the medieval claims about the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. Because it's an "article of faith" that it works, and unfortunately an article of empirical data that it doesn't.

[drkitten]

All of them, likely not, but the core principles? I would think it is pretty common.

So? We're not discussing issues of commonality, but of philosophical definition here.



How much of that is philosophical in nature and how much is based on the mathematical physical properties?

<tweet!> False dichotomy. Five yards, remains second down. Mathematics is philosophy, especially the more abstract kinds that have little or nothing to do with physicality.



So a religion that does not have an intrinsic set of superstitions but only a philosophical foundation is not a religion, even if it has some of the trappings of religion and identifies itself as such?

I'm not even sure what this statement means; my inclination is simply to scribble "return to sender" on the package.

The real problem, though, is that you keep throwing new buzzwords into the mix without any rhyme or reason. I'd like to point out that you are the one who introduced the word "superstition" into the discussion, without making it part of your definitions --- and you're the one who's trying to distinguish between supersitions and "religion."


If it does not have a testable theistic prediction is it really a superstition?

Yes. There are lots of superstitions that are not theist. For example, "breaking a mirror brings you bad luck." That's not theistic, as it doesn't relate to the concept of god or gods; if you trace it back, it's more related to the idea of sympathetic magic and the idea that damaging an image is linked to damage to the thing that the image is of.

Similarly, the idea that "troubles come in threes" is not only not thestic, but also not testable (since you can always shoehorn divinations retrospectively), but again it's a rather common and well-attested superstition.

On the other hand, various forms of divination --- for example, pendulum dowsing to determine the sex of an unborn child -- are directly testable. But not theistic.

Religion is a form of superstition; there are lots of other forms of superstition that are not religious. Many religious claims are testable, many are not. Petitionary prayer is testable, while the ultimate destination of the "soul" (or even its existence) are not.

[Blutarsky]

Certainly. Using Christianity as a fairly standard example, the Bible is fairly explicit about the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. For example (all quotes are from the Authorized (King James) Version):

Matthew 18:18-20


Luke 11:9-13


John 14:10-14


These passages are believed to be the literal truth by a number of believers, including some rather sophisticated theologians who aren't themselves fundamentalists. Furthermore, they have been believed to be the literal truth for centuries, to the point where many "medical" institutions of the Middle Ages and Rennaissance were more concerned with praying for the patient's recovery -- "if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" -- than with actually trying to provide medical treatment.

So it's fairly easy to set up an empirical test of the theological accuracy of John 14:14. Simply say to yourself "In the name of Jesus, please give me [whatever]" (of course, you can ask for whatever you like, depending upon your tastes. Would you prefer Angelina Jolie naked in a hot tub, or Brad Pitt and a two-kilogram box of Belgian chocolates (I recommend Neuhaus, as they travel reasonably well)?

Did you get it? Looks like John may have been wrong, then.

Perhaps you and several friends need to get together and test Matthew.

But this kind of test is part of the reason why modern theologians have been forced to back off from the medieval claims about the effectiveness of petitionary prayer. Because it's an "article of faith" that it works, and unfortunately an article of empirical data that it doesn't.Thanks! That's all I needed to know...

[ponderingturtle]

These passages are believed to be the literal truth by a number of believers, including some rather sophisticated theologians who aren't themselves fundamentalists. Furthermore, they have been believed to be the literal truth for centuries, to the point where many "medical" institutions of the Middle Ages and Rennaissance were more concerned with praying for the patient's recovery -- "if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it" -- than with actually trying to provide medical treatment.


But given the effectiveness of traditional medicine isn't that often a good thing and improving patient outcomes?

[ponderingturtle]

So? We're not discussing issues of commonality, but of philosophical definition here.

I guess


<tweet!> False dichotomy. Five yards, remains second down. Mathematics is philosophy, especially the more abstract kinds that have little or nothing to do with physicality.

So is physics the same then? As this is all about harmonics and resonance and those are strongly things I learned in physics. And what people find attractive is a case for neuro biology as well. This is all about physical phenomena.




I'm not even sure what this statement means; my inclination is simply to scribble "return to sender" on the package.

The real problem, though, is that you keep throwing new buzzwords into the mix without any rhyme or reason. I'd like to point out that you are the one who introduced the word "superstition" into the discussion, without making it part of your definitions --- and you're the one who's trying to distinguish between supersitions and "religion."

Because it is at the core of the issue, can something be a religion with out superstitions, having only philosophical points that are accepted to be untestable?

And I bring it up because one of the common alternate definitions is based around unthinking acceptance of superstition. See criticisms of evolution.

I was thinking certain groups of quaker meetings and unitarians might have difficulty finding core superstitions for the religion.


Yes. There are lots of superstitions that are not theist. For example, "breaking a mirror brings you bad luck." That's not theistic, as it doesn't relate to the concept of god or gods; if you trace it back, it's more related to the idea of sympathetic magic and the idea that damaging an image is linked to damage to the thing that the image is of.

And a good way to make servants be careful with very delicate very expensive items.

Similarly, the idea that "troubles come in threes" is not only not thestic, but also not testable (since you can always shoehorn divinations retrospectively), but again it's a rather common and well-attested superstition.

On the other hand, various forms of divination --- for example, pendulum dowsing to determine the sex of an unborn child -- are directly testable. But not theistic.

Religion is a form of superstition; there are lots of other forms of superstition that are not religious. Many religious claims are testable, many are not. Petitionary prayer is testable, while the ultimate destination of the "soul" (or even its existence) are not.

Yes I never said that all superstitions where religious, but that the seeming main alternate view was all religions are a set of superstitions.

[drkitten]

Yes I never said that all superstitions where religious, but that the seeming main alternate view was all religions are a set of superstitions.

Well, again, that's largely a contingent finding.

All religions are a set of beliefs about god(s). If gods actually exist, then they're not superstitions at all -- and I'm reasonably certain that you can't prove that no gods exist. If you believe, first, that no gods exist, and second, that beliefs about nonexistent entities are superstitions, then religion is by definition a set of superstitions. But you're palming two cards if you make that argument....

The "common alternate definition" based upon "unthinking acceptance of superstition" is, not to put too fine a point on it, simply wrong. There are many superstitions that people unthinkingly accept that are not religious --breaking mirrors and pendulum dowsing are good examples.

But there are also a huge number of religious that thinkingly accept the tenets of their religions, be they superstitions or not. (And you're not in a position to prove them either to be superstitions, or for that matter, to be wrong.) I remind you, sharply, that there is evidence available to support a belief in God. Any believer can tell of of circumstances where they (or someone else) prayed for something and God heard them and helped them out. Sometimes their wish was granted directly, and other times, God provided aid in an un-looked-for fashion, but the aid nevertheless materialized.

You -- and I, and Randi -- will attribute this to coincidence and selective memory. That does not, however, invalidate the bellievers' experience or make it into "not-evidence." We simply have an alternate explanation that we consider to be both more explanatory and more credible.

Just because someone disagrees with you on the interpretation of evidence does not make them "unthinking."

[ponderingturtle]

Well, again, that's largely a contingent finding.

All religions are a set of beliefs about god(s). If gods actually exist, then they're not superstitions at all -- and I'm reasonably certain that you can't prove that no gods exist. If you believe, first, that no gods exist, and second, that beliefs about nonexistent entities are superstitions, then religion is by definition a set of superstitions. But you're palming two cards if you make that argument....

So if a religion does not contain gods it is not a religion?

The "common alternate definition" based upon "unthinking acceptance of superstition" is, not to put too fine a point on it, simply wrong. There are many superstitions that people unthinkingly accept that are not religious --breaking mirrors and pendulum dowsing are good examples.

Yes it is wrong, but that seems to be the functional definition when individuals are characterizing science as a religion.

The thing is that breaking mirrors is an individual superstition, not part of a set of superstitions, and pendulum dowsing when taken with other beliefs could constitute a newage religious belief, if you had a group of individuals gathered around say their belief in their psi powers.

But there are also a huge number of religious that thinkingly accept the tenets of their religions, be they superstitions or not. (And you're not in a position to prove them either to be superstitions, or for that matter, to be wrong.) I remind you, sharply, that there is evidence available to support a belief in God. Any believer can tell of of circumstances where they (or someone else) prayed for something and God heard them and helped them out. Sometimes their wish was granted directly, and other times, God provided aid in an un-looked-for fashion, but the aid nevertheless materialized.

You -- and I, and Randi -- will attribute this to coincidence and selective memory. That does not, however, invalidate the bellievers' experience or make it into "not-evidence." We simply have an alternate explanation that we consider to be both more explanatory and more credible.

Just because someone disagrees with you on the interpretation of evidence does not make them "unthinking."

This is not relevent as I am not intentionaly advocating the position that the set of superstitions is a good definition.

[drkitten]

So if a religion does not contain gods it is not a religion?

How many times do I need to say that?



The thing is that breaking mirrors is an individual superstition, not part of a set of superstitions,

Er, no. It's part of a whole set of superstitions that come under the heading of "sympathetic magic."

[ponderingturtle]

How many times do I need to say that?

Then you define things that are normaly defined as religion as something other than religion.


Er, no. It's part of a whole set of superstitions that come under the heading of "sympathetic magic."

And why is that not religious? If it is an organized group why isn't it a religion, as it is a collection of superstitions.