Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

The absolute best way to define religion, in my experience, is to contrast it with science.

A scientific belief is an idea or thought that deals with the tangible: Anything that can be investigated, proven or refuted.

A religious belief, on the other hand, is something that can't be investigated, proven or refuted. Something that cannot be argued because the scientific method can't be applied. There is no known method to investigate, prove or refute religious ideas — that's what makes them 'religion' and not science.

To give an example. If I were to claim that I was a god, and the rest of you are only my imagination (including all physical reality), that would be a religious belief because there is no way to investigate or prove that I am right/wrong.

If I were to claim, on the other hand, that I am just a biological machine produced by interactions with the environment through a process we term as evolution, then that's something we can explore scientifically.

Spiritual = religion, because "a spirit" implies a disassociation from the physical. If it isn't physical, we can't investigate it, prove or disprove it (by physical, scientific means).

I find it interesting that many Christians even contrast spirituality with religiosity, yet it would seem that biblically, religion is the physical outworking of our spirituality. If you are spiritual without having what the Bible calls "pure religion," your spirituality would seem to be quite empty.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - James 1:27

To contrast that kind of pure religion with science wouldn't make sense, then, for the two are not opposites, unless science can be shown to not care about the fatherless or widows, etc.

To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction

That's not religion. That's caring for others.

If you define religion as caring for others, why use the word 'religion' at all? Without intent to insult, I find your argument meaningless. The fact that I care about other people has got nothing to do with whether I'm religious or not.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm pointing out the minimum of what seperates religion from the rest of the world. You're pointing out where religion interesects with the rest of the world.

It's not really my argument... It was written over 1900 years before I was born... ;)

The first poster was inquiring about eschewing "religion" in favor of "spirituality." I was pointing out that, within biblical Christianity, religion is the physical outworking of our spirituality. Our love for God & others (things which cannot be scientifically proven) are shown via our actions toward others or our religion (things which can be observed).

In other words, religion is a physical response to a spiritual reality.

If all you're saying is that the Bible states how spirituality and religion are interrelated, I don't disagree. But it doesn't effect my previous definition of religion, and my claim that religion and science are opposite ways of thinking.

If you're going to continue arguing that this effects my definition, you need to answer my previous point, which still stands: I care for people, but I don't explain it by referring to a god and scriptures, but by reference to physical reality (electrical, chemical).

Religion: Claims caring/spirituality has no physical roots (and can therefore not be examined scientifically).

religion is the physical outworking of our spirituality [...]

Science: Claims that caring has physical roots (can be examined scientifically).

I care for people, but I don't explain it by referring to a god and scriptures, but by reference to physical reality (electrical, chemical)

The overall result is that caring can exist without religion. Unless you define religion as caring for someone, in which case I suggest you just use the word 'care' and drop 'religion'.

If you read any hostility here, I apologize. I respect your input even though I disagree.

EDIT: This really didn't have to be so long. Stated simply: Your comment is on how spirituality is related to religion, my comment is a definition of religion; what essentially distinguishes the phenomena 'religion' from the rest of the world. Two seperate things we're talking about.

I agree that you don't disagree!

hthth gives a good definition of religion in his original post when he contrasts science and religion as two complementary manners of acquiring knowledge. The relationship between science and religion is a fascinating subject ripe and ready for exploration, so much so that we may want to spawn a new thread to discuss it.

RickBeckman introduces the concept of "religion" as an outward (physical) manifestation of an inward experience, which is spirituality. That would seem to correspond with the definition of religion as "A way of living that corresponds to [a certain set of] beliefs". I'd note that the entire quote continues "...and to keep himself unspotted from the world", implying that the apostle Paul is advocating a broader way of life that includes compassion and detachment as its guiding principles. Thoughts?

Rick's quotation from James (one of my favorites by the way) doesn't so much define religion as it describes good religion. I define religion by saying that it is an institutional and systematic expression of faith and/or spiritualiy.

I would say that making religion the opposite of science is like saying that salt and pepper are opposties. They can exist separately or together, and they're both good. Most people prefer one over the other, and we each like to mix them differently but even though they're different in color and in taste, they are not opposites. They don't cancel each other or change each other.

If you define religion as being a systematic expression of faith, then faith must be a necessary condition for religion to exists — and consequently begs the question: What is faith?

That's where my definition and discrimination of science/religion comes in.

While religion and science have some common grounds in practice (both scientists and priests brush their teeth), the fundamental difference is that religious beliefs (faith) are based on ideas that are intangible. Ideas that we are unable to explore scientifically, with reference to the physical reality.

Science and religion are fundamental opposites because you can either believe something by having a scientific, logical, physical reason for believing it; e.g. because physical evidence supports your belief. Or you can believe it on a religious basis: A belief which can not be explored or has not been reached using the scientific method (there is an invisible god controlling the universe).

Every religion has one thing in common: The belief in something that hasn't been proven (or is uninvestigable) by scientific means. That's why it's considered religion and not science.

So while science and religion have common grounds on higher levels, their roots are complete opposites in that scientific beliefs are supported by physical evidence and religious beliefs are not.

EDIT: Again, because of what my experience tells me, I'd like to explicitly state that I'm not trying to offend you, even though I disagree.

No offense taken. I like this kind of exchange.

Would you consider romantic love the opposite of science? Or how about the statement "that flower is beautiful?" Is such an aesthetic statement antethetical to science or is it just different?

Ben

No offense taken. I like this kind of exchange.

Good to know. Likewise.

Would you consider romantic love the opposite of science? Or how about the statement "that flower is beautiful?" Is such an aesthetic statement antithetical to science or is it just different?

No. I appreciate flowers, you appreciate flowers. I brush my teeth, you brush your teeth.

Feelings and science are completely different things. Science is a method, a way of systematically exploring the world to answer questions. Feelings are physical processes.

You seem to miss my point. A religious belief would be deciding that these feelings derive from something divine, a gift from god. Such a belief is uninvestigable by scientific means (because it implies something non-physical).

A scientific belief is based on applying the scientific method to understand the phenomena: feelings like love and aesthetic appreciation are physical processes (chemical and electrical interactions in the brain).

You can either believe something on a scientific basis, with physical evidence, or you can believe something on a religious basis, without scientific evidence (and that's an exclusive 'or'). This is the fundamental difference between science and religion, as I stated before:

[...] scientific beliefs are supported by physical evidence and religious beliefs are not.

Every religion has one thing in common: The belief in something that hasn't been proven (or is uninvestigable) by scientific means. That's why it's considered religion and not science.

Science is not a belief. It works on ideas not belief. A belief works on standing by a conviction regardless of other outside sources. An idea grows on a more information and can change completely from the original idea.

For a scientist, knowing that something you hypothesised can be proved wrong is just as good as it being proved right.

People die for their beliefs. People grow from their ideas.

Of course, sometimes we really want people who are willing to die for their beliefs--Martin Luther King and all of the other folks who died in the struggle for civil rights, did so based on a belief, often grounded in faith, that humans are equal and to be treated with dignity. Science won't give you that.

This isn't to say that the world of science hasn't produced great humanitarians. It has. But the alturism and generosity of scientific people comes from beleifs and committments that cannot be proved scientifically , even if they're not strictly religious(such as the basic goodness of humanity or the value of preserving the environment for future generations).

The human community needs both beleif and emperical knowledge. And they can exist side by side. I believe they do in my life and in the lives of a great number of people I know and respect.

Martin Luther King and all of the other folks who died in the struggle for civil rights, did so based on a belief, often grounded in faith, that humans are equal and to be treated with dignity. Science won't give you that.

That's entirely untrue. In fact, it's thanks to science and logic that a foundation for civil rights and equality was established.

While religion governed the world, we had the witchburnings stemming from religious believes of demons. The insane were treated as posessed and the clergy took advantage of people's gullability. When science, logic and reason took rise, we finally began to shy away from these illogical beliefs.

Of course a man of science can die for his beliefs! You mean to say a scientific belief is not to die for, while an ungrounded religious belief is? I'm sorry, but that's absurd.

I think it's logical to make no distinction between people that are sick, or people of different races. Like Martin Luther said, people should be judged by the content of their character. Not the color of their skin.

There's nothing religious about that. It's quite logical. And yes, I would be willing to die for that belief.

But the alturism and generosity of scientific people comes from beleifs and committments that cannot be proved scientifically.

What exactly do you mean? I don't have to be religious to acknowledge that I feel love for my family and friends. Nor to be able to put myself in the shoes of future generations and decide that I want to make the Earth's environment last for them to see.

Like I said before:

feelings like love and aesthetic appreciation are physical processes (chemical and electrical interactions in the brain).

This statement is based entirely on scientific evidence. I can imagine what it feels like to be treated badly, hence I find it both logical and it makes me feel good to treat people well. I don't need a grander purpose than that to do it — I think these reasons alone are enough justification.

Science is not a belief

Yes it is Kamigoroshi, if we're going to be very technical. We'd have to be infallible — perfect and all-knowing — for that statement to be 100% true. Every good scientist must acknowledge that he might be wrong.

But the difference between science and religion is that science bases that belief on scientific evidence, logical foundations. Science is always as right as it can be at each point in time.

I don't think you should be so quick to exonorate science or to suggest that an absence of religion makes people behave better. Some of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century were propogated by secular powers: the holocaust, the purges of Stalin, the cultural revoloution in China, the killing fields of pol pot. These were all expressly non-religious. The problem is that people are mean and cruel to one another, especially when there is power involved. Religion is very susceptable to this evil, but religion is not the problem. People are the problem.

As far as the civil rigthts movemet goes, I would suggest that it is revisionist to divorce what happened from religious belief. If you read the writings of MLK or Malcom X you will see that they were motivated by faith, and not science. The idea that people should be judged by the content of their charachter and not by the color of their skin is entirely grounded in the Bible.

There may be scientific reasons to claim that all people are equal, but the civlil rights movement wasn't looking to science.

When I say that scientific people do good work based on unprovable assumptions, I mean this: If scientists work, for example, to preserve the earth's envronments, they are saying that the earth is worth saving. That's a value statement, and value statements are by their very nature subjective and unprovable.

Finally, I cannot continue in a conversation with someone who calls my ideas "absurd." Life is too full on unkindness and the web especially is too lacking in basic respect and decorum as it is. I like talking about this stuff, but I need to ask for your respect and politness.

Regards,

Ben

I don't think you should be so quick to exonorate science or to suggest that an absence of religion makes people behave better. Some of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century were propogated by secular powers: the holocaust, the purges of Stalin, the cultural revoloution in China, the killing fields of pol pot. These were all expressly non-religious. The problem is that people are mean and cruel to one another, especially when there is power involved. Religion is very susceptable to this evil, but religion is not the problem. People are the problem.

Indeed, I absolutely agree. And if you look again I never said people of science were perfect. In fact, I said the opposite. At this point in time, science and religion have pros and cons. It's just that different religions have been fighting for thousands of years, I don't see religion changing — and I've never seen a scientist start a war in the name of science.

If you read the writings of MLK or Malcom X you will see that they were motivated by faith, and not science.

I know that. However, you claimed that science couldn't give us motivated people like Martin Luther, so I took Luther's main argument and stripped it of it's religion. Showing that motivation can indeed be as strong from a logical point of view.

The idea that people should be judged by the content of their charachter and not by the color of their skin is entirely grounded in the Bible.

You mean to say that without the Bible these things couldn't exist? Slavery and opression have been with us since long before the Bible, and I can assure you that slaves longed for equality long before the Bible was written. That has nothing to do with religion, it's logical.

civlil rights movement wasn't looking to science.

It was looking to reason. They weren't fighting for civil rights just because it was written in the Bible. The people were suffering. They had physical reason to seek equality. Science is but a tool to understand physical reasons.

If scientists work, for example, to preserve the earth's envronments, they are saying that the earth is worth saving. That's a value statement, and value statements are by their very nature subjective and unprovable.

I answered this before. Just because I don't understand the processes yet that cause me to love my mother, I still feel the feelings. I don't want the people of the future to suffer, or not be born. I appreciate life. I just don't make unscientific decisions on why I feel that way, or where those feelings come from. I stick to what science tells us: these feelings are produced by our brain and bodies.

I live, knowing that one day we might know more and that eradicating the human race will do us no good. That's reason enough to preserve the environment. I also acknowledge that I wouldn't want to live on a destroyed Earth, and I rationalize that our descendants wouldn't either. That's reason enough to preserve the environment. That's my higher purpose.

Science acknowledges that we feel these "unprovable" things: we can investigate and prove on many levels that humans value things. And while we can't explain why, or explain consciousness or "prove" our experiences, as you say; we can still investigate it — knowing that one day we might understand it.

Finally, I cannot continue in a conversation with someone who calls my ideas "absurd." Life is too full on unkindness and the web especially is too lacking in basic respect and decorum as it is. I like talking about this stuff, but I need to ask for your respect and politness.

Again, I apologize for having offended you, that was not my intention. I do think that your idea is absurd (dictionary: illogical, unresonable) and that's the best word I have to describe it. It's my honest opinion, and it's not intended to offend — only to portray my dismay.

I still respect your input and opinion.

Hey—since our discussion is mainly concerned with the relationship between science and religion, here's one of my favourite quotes on the topic for your perusal:

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science. —'Abdu'l-Bahá

Amen.

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

Belief in an intelligent designer can't (by definition) be a scientific belief, because we can't investigate it, prove it or refute it. Abdu'l makes the mistake to assume that a belief in a god is rational. The rational and scientific belief would be, however, to acknowledge that we have no scientific evidence of that. The scientific method does not include jumping to conclusions.

You can bring up arguments of feelings such as has been done here, but that doesn't support there being a superbeing any more than it supports that aliens made us, or that I'm a superbeing and we're all just part of my imagination. We can't investigate it, prove it or refute it.

The gods of religions are always superstitious beliefs, unless we find a way to scientifically investigate them. At that point they become science, at that point they become rational. Until then, they're different and opposing manners of thinking.

I do agree however, as I've said before in this note, that some of the principles are not contradictory to science and logic — such as caring for each other.

My understanding is that science and religion are complementary. I know that at the top of this thread, I posted a possible definition of religion as being "any system of beliefs", but let's switch it up just a little. Let's assume (as I do) that hthth's assertion—that science and religion are both systems based upon belief, that both impart a certain understanding of the world. Science brings us an understanding of tangible things—things that can be quantified, enumerated, observed and described. Religion brings us an understanding of less tangible things—things that we have trouble describing or measuring, and that we are often told must be experienced to be understood. We need both perspectives to have a clearer picture of life in its entirety, including both the provable and unprovable, the objective and the subjective, the rational and the mystical, the effable and ineffable. They are complementary in the sense that they complete each other; they fill each other's holes. (The perceived size of those holes, of course, varies from one individual to the next.)

So, that's my understanding. For argument's sake, let's take that understanding, as explained above, and use it as a sort of axiom—let's say, "Science and religion are complementary; neither one alone can give us true knowledge". Let's call it Axiom I (oooh, roman numerals). Remember, I've defined science and religion above as those systems which impart understanding of tangible and less tangible things, respectively. The quote I posted above states that when religion opposes science, it becomes superstition—an irrational or unreasonable belief. A few examples of this have been given further up in the thread; any one of them should suffice. By the simple equation represented by 'Abdu'l-Bahá's statement above,

Religion - Science = Superstition

it becomes possible for us to draw a distinction between religion (of which the "true principles are in conformity with the teachings of science") and superstition.

Oddly enough, it would seem to follow from our Axiom I that were science to oppose religion, it would become erroneous as well (I'll leave that one alone for now—we're talking about religion, not science).

For a simple way to investigate the existence of God, one could use logic. Check out Dr. William Hatcher's Logical Proof of the Existence of God.

And I'm glad we agree, at least in part :)

In the wordly context of things, of humanities knowledge of the known world, people have to make a decision: Are they going to accept that they don't know everything and continue to strive for understanding through science, and until then remain indecisive on the unknown — or are they going to fill in the blanks with unscientific pseudo-truth?

Regardless of how my comments may have come across, I don't condemn anyone that wants to follow what you've written here. I just want the people who do so to realize that you can either believe something because scientific evidence suggests it, or believe something despite the lack of evidence. There's a difference, and this is what separates science from religion, and inherently defines a religious belief.

Oddly enough, it would seem to follow from our Axiom I that were science to oppose religion, it would become erroneous as well

Science remains indecisive on the things we haven't yet been able to sufficiently support with evidence. You can't be wrong or right if you haven't made a statement in the first place. Science doesn't jump to conclusions.

For a simple way to investigate the existence of God, one could use logic. Check out Dr. William Hatcher's Logical Proof of the Existence of God.

"from these valid principles of causality and composition, we can logically deduce the existence of a unique, noncomposite, self-caused, universal cause G. This entity, whose existence we prove, is God (by logical definition)." -Dr. Hatcher

What Dr. Hatcher is describing is a conceptual entity that has no causation. Being unable to find any other name for it, he calls that entity god. He's using logic to support the concept of an uncaused phenomena. In fact, we couldn't know if such a thing exists because we don't understand the Universe, and we certainly can't assume (without blind, religious faith) that if this entity exists, it has will, or consciously created humans (we lack physical evidence).

Dr. Hatcher is assuming that the mathematics of logic can explain the Universe alone. This is a wrong assumption, as this form of logic is known to have limits. In short, set theory and logic are limited to explaining systems that we know everything about (e.g. computer systems). This is why we can also logically prove that cats have 10 tails (see link below). Obviously, we don't know everything about the Universe and consequently set theory and logic couldn't possibly provide us with a "formula for god". I suggest you take a look at an introduction to logic, and common fallacies.

This is in addition to the important point I cited above, that he's claiming that there is such a thing as an uncaused entity. The minute he did that he ventured outside of science's sphere of knowledge and made his argument unscientific (we don't, and can't know it exists). He then jumps to the conclusion that such a thing has to exist, and then naming it god and claiming it has intelligence and consciousness.

But yes, we agree in part. And regardless of our differences of opinion, the most important agreement is that humans should care for each other ;)

' the most important agreement is that humans should care for each other ;) '

I would add that we, humans, agree of whatever that would contibute to the welfare of our own being on this planet, of our humanity, of our living, of our happiness, peace and harmony.

Everybody agrees that humans develop, follow and seek scientific methodologies to help the human in achieving these ultimate goals(truth, happiness, peace, harmony, and defeating any defeciency in the surrounding system, whether natural like diseases, catastrophes, or human-caused like conflicts).
Everybody agrees that it makes sense to believe in (or feel comfortable with) whatever that can be investigated, proven or refuted.

The questions is: do religion x (any religion) help humans in acheiving those same objectives with no 'harmful side-effects'?

If yes, then great, there is no problem, whatever name you give it, although I share hthth in his wondering: then why call it any other name other than science? (if a = b, then we can substitite b with a, why still calling it b, although there is no harm in naming it b) so let it be, science and religion do not conflict, they both contribute to the welfare of the humanity.

But, wait a second.. I am afraid this is not the case!!
Let's check the consequences of believing in some set of "ideas" that can not be tested/proved/or refuted.
It is those people who thought that they knew what God Wants and that the belief system they have is the sacred ultimate truth, it is those people that costed the humanity much!! It is those people who called themselves the chosen people, or the people who think of themselves as the best nation that only role in this life is to salvage other people, it is those people who make it sacred duty to send armies to conquer every land and eradicate every other culture in salvation!!

Religion, from the Latin re-ligare, meaning to bind back. Hence real religion means that which faciliatates the binding back of the soul and God.

If it doesn't do that, it is lacking.

ReddyKilowatt: So does that mean since Buddhism doesn't concern itself with the idea of a god / gods, it isn't religion?

Though Buddhism doesn't speak of God, it does speak of "the Undying", which, if you examine it carefully, corresponds to the concept of Brahman, or of "the Godhead".

I'm familiar with that argument, but I think Westerners have tried to parallel Buddhism with theistic religions too much based on that argument alone. Despite what new agey folk would have everyone believe, Buddhism is not Christianity in an Eastern wrapper. :) Certainly, they share traits, but they're not the same.

There's a good deal of information on the idea of God in Buddhism here.

Having said all that, I think that your definition of religion is off a bit. I'm Buddhist, I'm not attempting to get closer to God (or God termed as something else), but I don't think Buddhism is lacking.

Edit: Here is a much more detailed article about the Buddhist attitude towards God.

While I agree that Buddhism is not theistic in the Western sense, there is a strong tradition, even in the Theravada school, which is more akin to certain Advaitic ideas than to the certain Nihilistic currents alive in Buddhism today. The very idea of Nirvana (or Nibbana in Pali), which is interpreted as extinction in modern schools, is seen as un-binding (nib-bana) in the Thai forest tradition -- freedom from all limiting conditionings -- or liberation. The goal then – the deathless-though not defined, because it cannot be defined - is still there.

I recommend an excellent book, available online, by thanissaro Bhikkhu, called Mind Like Fire Unbound. It is an authoratative exposition of the concept of Nibbana. We are fortunate to know Than Geoff, and he is one of the most scholarly an well respected writers on Buddhism in both the west and east. I highly recommend his writings.

Buddhism, like Christianity, and other religions, has many interpretations, and few people will agree on all points.

In my opinion, Buddhism is a religion, as it provides a means of freedom from the mundane, and a means of reaching the Goal, however it may be defined (or not defined, in Buddhism's case.)

Nicely said, Reddy. :) I'll check out the book.