Is science a religion?

[rusmeister]

Ah, a dare. I like it. If I accept your dare, will you try to read some Dawkins, Hitchens, or Hume? How much time do you spend reading the works of atheists?

Actually, if something is available free and online, yes I will.
I offer specific authors and ideas, AND in relatively bite-sized pieces - I have posted 2-3 paragraph excerpts here and linked to essays mostly not above a few pages, and free, and online. Do you have anything similar?
(I'll add, in all fairness, that Ali sent me an e-book on paganism, but books get put on a priority list - I only have one day a week with any opportunity at all to really read (on the bus) and in the long dark winter months way up north, that, too is curtailed.)

The Revival of Philosophy - Why?
By G.K. Chesterton
From The Common Man

The best reason for a revival of philosophy is that unless a man has a philosophy certain horrible things will happen to him. He will be practical; he will be progressive; he will cultivate efficiency; he will trust in evolution; he will do the work that lies nearest; he will devote himself to deeds, not words.

I do have a philosophy (a mix of existentialism, phenomenology, neutral monism), and yet I still consider myself practical and efficient. I trust the veracity of evolution. I do not necessarily devote myself to deeds, unless you call trying to publish six interconnected novels a “deed” (though I admit that this deed has a lot to do with words). I do not see anything “horrible” about efficiency or practicality, nor do I see anything about philosophy that either precludes or facilitates this list of “horrible” things. There are plenty of practical, progressive, efficient people with or without philosophy.

Frankly, Chesterton is speaking nonsense right out of the gate. If this is the “best reason” for a revival of philosophy—to get people to be impractical, inefficient, eschew deeds and nearby work, then Chesterton really needs to rethink his position. There are much better reasons for studying philosophy that don’t disconnect you from your life. In fact, I believe that philosophy is best used by enabling the opposite: to awaken you to your own life, your being-in-the-world, as opposed to using it as a means to escape your daily reality in metaphysical speculation. Chesterton’s position is a life-denying, inauthentic view of both philosophy and existence.

You don't appear to have understood the point at all, and the fact that you say that he is speaking nonsense only really means that you don't understand what he is saying.
First of all, the mix of philosophy you describe is exactly what Chesterton is talking about.
Secondly, he is not speaking of the catchwords as terrible things. He is saying that people with such broken and mixed-up philosophies use catchwords because they really don't have anything else, because their philosophy is really not thought-out, that it does have fatal contradictions that actually make it false.
Thirdly,

to get people to be impractical, inefficient, eschew deeds and nearby work

is not at all what Chesterton is standing for here (although this echoes the second point). Your following conclusions are completely wrong, and although you have "read" the essay, you have completely failed to understand it. It is nonsense to accuse Chesterton of having or expressing a life-denying philosophy. It shows zero knowledge or understanding of the man.

There are plenty of practical, progressive, efficient people with or without philosophy.

I do understand your thought, and it happens to be quite untrue. Practical, et al, people may not be aware of their philosophy, but they are certainly operating on the basis of one. There is no such thing as any action guided by any human thought that is not philosophical. In that sense, all of us are practical because we do practice something or other on the basis of some philosophy or other.

Thus struck down by blow after blow of blind stupidity and random fate, he will stagger on to a miserable death with no comfort but a series of catchwords; such as those which I have catalogued above. Those things are simply substitutes for thoughts. In some cases they are the tags and tail-ends of somebody else's thinking. That means that a man who refuses to have his own philosophy will not even have the advantages of a brute beast, and be left to his own instincts. He will only have the used-up scraps of somebody else's philosophy; which the beasts do not have to inherit; hence their happiness.

That’s pretty ironic, considering that most of your own thoughts appear to be “scraps” of Chesterton. In this thread, you argue against having a debate of our own opinions, and yet Chesterton himself says, “. . . a man who refuses to have his own philosophy will not even have the advantages of a brute beast . . .” So I’m confused by this conflict between the two of you: are we supposed to have our own philosophy, or are we supposed to just agree with Chesterton? If I agree with Chesterton here, am I guilty of his charge of adopting the “tail-ends of somebody else’s thinking”? Or is it only when I disagree with Chesterton that I’m guilty of this?

My thoughts only appear (to you) to be scraps of Chesterton's thoughts. My own philosophy is that of the Orthodox Church. To learn of it, you can read here: www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2

If you want extremely short expressions of it see the Nicene Creed (Symbol of Faith) and the Lord's Prayer.
Whenever I encounter something in myself that contradicts that philosophy, I work to change myself, not the philosophy. It is I who am wrong in such cases. If and where Chesterton (or whoever, including you) disagrees with it, then he is wrong. Thus I have a complete philosophy, because I accept it from Authority - although I have thought a great deal of it out, and consistently find it to be right, and right not only where I am, but also where I am wrong.

You are mixing and matching two concepts here:
1) the existent philosophies or mish-mashes of them that people have, and
2) the need for a complete and conscious philosophy, and that a person who doesn't have that really is worse off than an animal.

What you should agree with is Chesterton's thesis here, which is number two. If you don't agree with that, then it is irrational to have a discussion with you. We can go no further in any kind of thought whatsoever. Again, since you misunderstood the initial thought of the essay, it makes further discussion problematic.

Some people fear that philosophy will bore or bewilder them; because they think it is not only a string of long words, but a tangle of complicated notions. These people miss the whole point of the modern situation. These are exactly the evils that exist already; mostly for want of a philosophy.

Okay, fair point. But what does this have to do with science vs religion debate?

Everything. Because a philosophy is the starting point for any human activity. Religion is something that provides a philosophy (and some religions can have incomplete and poorly thought-out philosophies, too), and no science can be achieved or conducted without starting from some philosophical perspective or another.

When a man has all these things in his head, and does not even attempt to sort them out, he is called by common consent and acclamation a practical man. But the practical man cannot be expected to improve the impracticable muddle; for he cannot clear up the muddle in his own mind, let alone in his own highly complex community and civilisation.

I agree that being confused and indifferent about clearing up one’s own confusion can be a motivation to resorting to more practical matters. But I disagree that there is anything wrong with this. Not everyone is cut out for philosophy. Most people don’t have the capacity to understand it, nor do they have the time to devote decades to studying it. This is a very elitist view that these people are “horrible” for recognizing their limitations and focusing upon things which Chesterton believes to be unimportant. Not everyone is cut out to be a philosopher, and there is nothing wrong with that. We also need people to be janitors and trash collectors. And doctors and lawyers. I have no interest in standing above society, looking down my nose at people who are bored by philosophy, and criticizing them from an self-constructed pillar of superiority. In fact, I find Chesterton’s tendency to do this quite distasteful.

I certainly agree that not everyone thinks about philosophy, and that people who do not think about it may still have, and have had, a complete philosophy by accepting an authority that does, whether they be children who accept parental authority, peasants who accept the authority of, say, the Catholic Church or your blue-collar worker who goes to Johnston Baptist Church and hangs on the pastor's every word. If you ever try to read Chesterton in a receptive spirit, you will quickly discover his enormous admiration for the common man, and that you have completely misread him in seeing him looking down his nose at anyone.

For some strange reason, it is the custom to say of this sort of practical man that "he knows his own mind". Of course this is exactly what he does not know. He may in a few fortunate cases know what he wants, as does a dog or a baby of two years old; but even then he does not know why he wants it.

See, right there. I find it quite arrogant to compare people to dogs or babies simply because they don’t study philosophy. It’s none of Chesterton’s business how people choose to conduct their lives. This judgementalism strikes me as a self-serving philosophy designed to make himself feel superior.

See, right there. The assumption of arrogance (and I have to say that Ali is not correct if she thinks that Chesterton is trying to be humorous here (although sometimes he is). He is quite serious, and his point is that people who do not have a thought-out philosophy (I should probably add "and do not accept a clear authority that does") this lack of awareness of philosophy really does mean that a person does not know why he wants things. Only that he wants. In this sense, the janitor at the Baptist church is far more educated than the pseudo-philosopher with his literally half-baked philosophies, if for no other reason than that the janitor accepts a solid tradition and philosophy a few hundred years old, based in part on a much older and even better thought-out one. So the modern thinker, for example, simply seeks to justify gratification of nearly any sexual desire while the "uneducated" Baptist has a strong foundation for understanding why sexual sin is destructive despite its surface gratification.

I will take one example out of a thousand that might be taken. What is the attitude of an ordinary man on being told of an extraordinary event: a miracle? I mean the sort of thing that is loosely called supernatural, but should more properly be called preternatural. For the word supernatural applies only to what is higher than man; and a good many modern miracles look as if they came from what is considerably lower. Anyhow, what do modern men say when apparently confronted -with something that cannot, in the cant phrase, be naturally explained ? Well, most modern men immediately talk nonsense. When such a thing is currently mentioned, in novels or newspapers or magazine stories, the first comment is always something like, "But my dear fellow, this is the twentieth century!" It is worth having a little training in philosophy if only to avoid looking so ghastly a fool as that. It has on the whole rather less sense or meaning than saying, "But my dear fellow, this is Tuesday afternoon." If miracles cannot happen, they cannot happen in the twentieth century or in the twelfth.

While this is blatantly obvious, it is a strawman attack. I have never once heard or read that supernatural things don’t happen merely because of the century we are currently counting as the present. I do not know a single atheist that believes that the divide between the supernatural and the natural is one that is delineated by the calandar. If this is his example of how people don’t think things out, then he would benefit from taking his own advice. This is a poorly thought out example of how people do not think things out. But I imagine it is easier to call people “babies” and “dogs” if you make up your own strawman version of their thoughts.

Hmmm. I remember Disney's "Sleeping Beauty", where Prince Philip says "But father, this is the 14th century!" precisely because of the universality of saying "This is the 20th (or 21st) century!"
In any event, the claim was not that "supernatural things can't happen because of the given century" but that people believe that it was possible to BELIEVE in miracles then (due to ignorance, superstition, or whatever), but not now. And that view is nearly universal among unbelievers. It is not how poorly Chesterton thinks things out, but how poorly you understand anything that he says. And indeed, he finished that section you quoted by asserting that if miracles cannot happen, they cannot happen in the twentieth century or in the twelfth, something that it would appear you actually agree with.

Let us not be too severe on the worthy gentleman who informs his dear fellow that it is the twentieth century. In the mysterious depths of his being even that enormous ass does actually mean something.

Add “enormous ass” to the list of insults in this essay aimed at critiquing unnamed people who are never quoted in their own words in order to prove they are actually babies, dogs, and asses. Chesterton is just making up imaginary opponents to look down upon, to make fun of, and to enjoy pretend mental victories.

Here Ali is right, and you do misinterpret post-Victorian expression. And again, you mistake an assertion of being right with pride and arrogance. If I imagine how many times scientific atheists call, say, creationists asses (here:"donkeys") or some other foolish epithet, I don't think you would see that as pride or arrogance, but as a statement of fact. You simply don't know just how humble Chesterton was regarding his own ego.

What he really means is something like this, "There is a theory of this mysterious universe to which more and more people were in fact inclined during the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries; and up to that point at least, this theory did grow with the growing inventions and discoveries of science to which we owe our present social organisation - or disorganisation. That theory maintains that cause and effect have from the first operated in an uninterrupted sequence like a fixed fate; and that there is no will behind or within that fate; so that it must work itself out in the absence of such a will, as a machine must run down in the absence of a man. There were more people in the nineteenth century than in the ninth who happened to hold this particular theory of the universe. I myself happened to hold it; and therefore I obviously cannot believe in miracles." That is perfectly good sense; but so is the counter-statement; "I do not happen to hold it; and therefore I obviously can believe in miracles."

Ah, we finally get to something vaguely resembling a relevance to the present discussion in this thread. But this seems to contradict your view that science is religion, since Chesterton describes these two attitudes in terms of “counter-statements.” The two attitudes are at odds, and depend upon two very different views of reality. Even Chesterton recognizes this.

I should make it clear that I do not hold that science is a religion as such; only that many people do treat it, in fact, as a religion, even if they deny that they do. It's a matter of understanding what my view is. I do not believe that I stated that science is a religion, and it is probable that any context you saw that in was misinterpreted.

If a man sees a river run downhill day after day and year after year, he is justified in reckoning, we might say in betting, that it will do so till he dies. But he is not justified in saying that it cannot run uphill, until he really knows why it runs downhill. To say it does so by gravitation answers the physical but not the philosophical question. It only repeats that there is a repetition; it does not touch the deeper question of whether that repetition could be altered by anything outside it. And that depends on whether there <is> anything outside it. For instance, suppose that a man had only seen the river in a dream. He might have seen it in a hundred dreams, always repeating itself and always running downhill. But that would not prevent the hundredth dream being different and the river climbing the mountain; because the dream is a dream, and there <is> something outside it. Mere repetition does not prove reality or inevitability. We must know the nature of the thing and the cause of the repetition. If the nature of the thing is a Creation, and the cause of the thing a Creator, in other words if the repetition itself is only the repetition of something willed by a person, then it is <not> impossible for the same person to will a different thing. If a man is a fool for believing in a Creator, then he
is a fool for believing in a miracle; but not otherwise. Otherwise, he is simply a philosopher who is consistent in his philosophy.

Wow, what a tangled mess. Let’s try to sort it out. First of all, C is describing the problem of induction, which I also pointed out in my “sun rising” example. He’s quite right to say that we cannot be justified in precluding the possibility of a river running uphill merely on the basis of repeated experiences. To say that the future will be like the past merely because that’s the way it has always happened in the past is a circular argument. A logical fallacy. And he’s also right to say that the theory of gravitation doesn’t add any logical validity to this expectation. It only adds a mathematical description of it—but that’s still not a proof that it will continue to operate in the future exactly the same way.

However, he jumps feet-first into nonsense when he considers the “deeper question” to be “whether there is anything outside it.” This is not deeper, no more than wondering if there are trans-dimensional river Elves who make the river go downhill. The question of whether there can be anything outside of this system is an infinite question, with infinite possible answers, each of which are equally unprovable, untestable, non-falsifiable. It’s a child’s question, not a deeper question.

One could substitute “trans-dimensional river Elves” for “Creator” in his last sentence, and it would contain exactly the same amount of logic: “If the nature of the thing is an Elven creation, and the cause of the thing a trans-dimensional river Elf, in other words if the repetition itself is only the repetition of something willed by a trans-dimensional river Elf, then it is <not> impossible for the same Elf to will a different thing. If a man is a fool for believing in trans-dimensional river Elves, then he is a fool for believing in a miracle; but not otherwise. Otherwise, he is simply a philosopher who is consistent in his philosophy.”

To call a man a “philosopher” simply because he is consistent in his nonsense is a gross abuse of the word “philosopher.”

The belief in a Creator or other magical being does not in any way elucidate the nature of the river, but rather it magnifies the mystery by an infinite amount because it sustitutes the mystery of the river’s nature for the infinitely greater mystery of the magical being’s nature. What stops us from wondering if there is anything outside of this Creator? If it is a deeper philosophical question to ask this for the river, then it must be an even deeper philosophical question to ask this of a Creator. And then we could do the same for that meta-Creator, and so on in an unending chain of “deeper” questions about things “outside” what we previously considered. This does not lead to any clarity on the nature of the first object in the infinite chain of supposition. Just the opposite: it removes us further and further from reality of the object to abstract, fantastic, hypothetical, ad hoc objects.

Wow. What a tangled mess you make out of something that is simple, direct and logical!
First of all, he says:

And that depends on whether there <is> anything outside it.

You call this "a child's question". But so what? Not all questions that children ask are nonsense, merely because children ask them. You do not say that, but you certainly imply it. "Why do we die?" and "Where did the world come from?" are also children's questions - and they are quite deep. "Is there a God?" is also one of them, and that is the question at hand. It is NOT on the same level as "trans-dimensional river elves" because there is no serious large-scale claim that trans-dimensional river elves created the Universe and humanity, or incarnated themselves into one of their own creations for the explicit purpose of suffering and dying to save their creation.

The belief in a Creator or other magical being does not in any way elucidate the nature of the river, but rather it magnifies the mystery by an infinite amount because it substitutes the mystery of the river’s nature for the infinitely greater mystery of the magical being’s nature.

This is almost true. It may not elucidate the physical nature of the river, and it does add a level of mysticism to the river's existence, but it certainly reveals that the river is not meaningless, that it is the result of purpose and will. It is an alternative, whether you will it or not, between mysticism and madness.

On the imagined chain of 'meta-Creators', that is something that has never been claimed on any serious scale by anyone at all as far as I know. There is no claim, there has been no revelation (taken seriously by a serious number of people over a serious amount of time), and so, it is useless speculation. mere play of the mind, and a quite impractical use of the mind. So as far as that goes, it does move to the truly fantastic, in the sense of pure fantasy. But there HAS been a claim, supported by a great deal of humans throughout much of recorded history, for the existence of a Creator. It is illogical to dismiss such claims out-of-hand, or even to compare it to your river elves.

Also, you seem to have an elitist concept in mind when you use the word "philosophy" - something that is only the business of specially trained specialists. Chesterton's (and mine) is quite different - that it is the business of discussing existence and any meaning or purpose in it, which is the business of every man.

Thus, when so brilliant a man as Mr. H. G. Wells says that such supernatural ideas have become impossible "for intelligent people ", he is (for that instant) not talking like an intelligent person. In other words, he is not talking like a philosopher; because he is not even saying what he means. What he means is, not "impossible for intelligent men", but, "impossible for intelligent monists", or, "impossible for intelligent determinists". But it is not a negation of <intelligence> to hold any coherent and logical conception of so mysterious a world.

But it is a negation of intelligence to think that the above reasoning by Chesterton is coherent and logical . . . which, of course, is why I don't read Chesterton. It has nothing to do with protecting my atheism. It's just that every time I've bothered to read him, I realize how inauthentic, illogical, amateurish a philosopher he actually is. It's an utter waste of time to read his work--except as an exercise in confronting poor reasoning.

Well, no, you haven't realized much at all about Chesterton. I do agree with the use of the word "amateurish" - in the sense of one who loves it. But it IS a waste of time to read it when you are hostilely prejudiced against anything he might say from the outset. I would set him aside until such time as you are able to fairly consider what he says (if ever).

For the same reason, I have generally considered it futile to even try communicating with you, so this is, in part, for the audience. But if there is anything that you do see to be true, perhaps it wasn't a complete waste of time.

BTW (just curious), why did you change your user name? (That's something that always irritates the heck out of me - imagine if we changed our UN every week. Soon we wouldn't even know who we're talking to anymore. Yes, I know, I am making an assumption - I could be wrong; I could be speaking to a completely different person, and if so, I apologize for all of my (not unreasonable) assumptions.)

[Seven Words]

Rus--

You didn't actually address any of Z's points. You simply said he misunderstood Chesterton. One specific example was concerning what a man lacking philosophy will do, namely horrible things which Chesterton then enumerates. Why are these characteristics undesirable? and why are their antitheses desirable? impracticality and inefficiency seem to be NEGATIVE traits, practicality and efficiency seem like POSITIVE traits. Where does Chesterton (or could you) explain this apparent Looking Glass view?

[rusmeister]

Rus--

You didn't actually address any of Z's points. You simply said he misunderstood Chesterton. One specific example was concerning what a man lacking philosophy will do, namely horrible things which Chesterton then enumerates. Why are these characteristics undesirable? and why are their antitheses desirable? impracticality and inefficiency seem to be NEGATIVE traits, practicality and efficiency seem like POSITIVE traits. Where does Chesterton (or could you) explain this apparent Looking Glass view?

That to me seems rather over the top, since I did specifically address them.
It shows the same assumption that one can be "practical" without any philosophy whatsoever behind the "practical" action, which is simply false. The misunderstanding is in thinking that he is saying that the characteristics are undesirable as such, which is simply not the case.. It might help if you imagine quotation marks around each of the characteristics, to understand that those words were (and in some cases still are) used as catchwords to avoid dealing with philosophy; specifically, to NOT think about it.

Honestly, I'm a little amazed that this is not obvious to you. That may be my fault - assuming that some things in a text are obvious - and more exposition might be needed.

What else do you think I didn't address? (Given that I sank over two hours into that post and tried to address all of the objections, I'm a little miffed that it seems I didn't address anything.)

I do recognize that some communication failures may be on my part, and I ask your patience and forgiveness where that is so. I'll try to beware of them.

[Seven Words]

If they should be considered to be in quotation marks, then surely Chesterton would have done so in his writing? This strikes me as highly revisionist.

Why is an eclectic philosophy automatically self-contradictory? There's nothing to support that assertion, and Z himself is an example refuting it.

What evidence do you have that a person lacking a complete, conscious philosophy is worse off than an animal?

And you are stating that if someone does not agree with you, there's no point in discussing anything.

Philosophy is NOT the starting point for any human activity. Eating dinner is not a function of philosophy, it's a function of biology. the MANNER in which it is eaten may or may not have a philosophical basis (kosher, vegan, etc.)

I think part of the issue here is everyone is assuming "philosophy" means the same thing to everyone...let's nail THAT down.

I say "Philosophy" to mean a set of moral/ethical values used as guidance in one's behavior.

[aTOMiC]

First of all I’m a believer. I’ll be happy to take it further and explain that I’m a Christian believer however that doesn’t have to have any bearing on my point of view.
I like the idea of breaking a thing down to its fundamental core so I’ll approach this commentary accordingly.
Why can’t I be an atheist?
First things first, there is no evidence available to me to prove that God doesn’t exist.
This understanding has its basis on one undeniable truth.
I’m just me. I possess no special mental or physical ability to understand absolutely everything about the universe and what might lay beyond. I’m just a man so I can’t possibly have certain, unshakable knowledge about things I have no capacity or opportunity to know. Even if I lived long enough to study, in detail, the whole sum of human knowledge I still would not understand a fraction of all there is to know in the entirety of existence so the best my conscience would allow me to be is an agnostic. For me to pretend to believe otherwise would be disingenuous like playing golf by myself and then cheating on the scorecard. Just who am I fooling if no one else knows about it? This is simply the platform that underscores the basis of my belief system. Obviously my belief extends far beyond this starting point but at least my basic reasoning can be understood even if some of you do not share it, which is cool with me.

Having said all that I am, like so many of you, interested in what is casually labeled as Science or to put it another way, interested in learning about how the world around me functions and what it is composed of. For me science has never even remotely threatened my spiritual beliefs or my faith. To me science is the process that allows us to try to understand the details of how the universe was constructed. I find nothing about that to be contradictory. There are religious beliefs, that I do not share, that may be in conflict with some established scientific facts. That only presents a problem for those that have chosen to believe as they do. Opinions are like personal waste ejection orifices, everyone has one.

And of course the central question of this thread is whether science is a religion or not and the fact of the matter is that for some people it is and for some people it is not.
That ought to clear things up for everyone.

[rusmeister]

If they should be considered to be in quotation marks, then surely Chesterton would have done so in his writing? This strikes me as highly revisionist.

Why is an eclectic philosophy automatically self-contradictory? There's nothing to support that assertion, and Z himself is an example refuting it.

What evidence do you have that a person lacking a complete, conscious philosophy is worse off than an animal?

And you are stating that if someone does not agree with you, there's no point in discussing anything.

Philosophy is NOT the starting point for any human activity. Eating dinner is not a function of philosophy, it's a function of biology. the MANNER in which it is eaten may or may not have a philosophical basis (kosher, vegan, etc.)

I think part of the issue here is everyone is assuming "philosophy" means the same thing to everyone...let's nail THAT down.

I say "Philosophy" to mean a set of moral/ethical values used as guidance in one's behavior.

The last point is good. However, I define a philosophy as the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group; and to philosophize as a search for a general understanding of values and reality. Agreed that this is guidance for behavior.

I can see how an extremely superficial reading might lead a person to think in the first few lines that Chesterton is attacking practicality and efficiency as such. However, even the slightest attention a couple of lines down reveals that he is talking about the words as catchwords.
I had said:

It might help if you imagine quotation marks

In an attempt to interpret it for those who could not understand it. There's nothing revisionist at all about it. You just have to note the explanatory word "catchwords".

There was no reference to an "eclectic philosophy"; the question would be whether the philosophy was consciously thought out and complete. It would be more precise to use his exact words. What he is speaking about (in my own words as some constantly ask for) is the effects of the lack of said complete and conscious philosophy, and the first part is a reference to how the catchwords actually allow people to not think about the philosophy behind their ideas, and that this, in general, represents incomplete and poorly thought-out (and therefore basically wrong) philosophies.

I have to disagree with you regarding any reasoned activity (excluding breathing, waste elimination and automatic functions). Reasoned action is impossible without some kind of philosophy, be it only crass materialism - which is often the default (and completely failed) philosophy, say, of the person who goes to work to "get ahead in life".

What evidence do you have that a person lacking a complete, conscious philosophy is worse off than an animal?

Evidence? Of a value judgement? (Hope you're not appealing to science here - if so, we are speaking completely different languages to each other.)

He will only have the used-up scraps of somebody else's philosophy; which the beasts do not have to inherit; hence their happiness.

Also, I did not say that "if someone does not agree with you, there's no point in discussing anything". I did say to Malik that if he was hostilely prejudiced - as solidly appears to be the case - then there is no point in discussing anything. If you are referring to anything else i said, it would help if you quoted my exact words. that would give me a chance to defend, explain or correct them.

I fail to see how it is possible to misunderstand so much except by purely superficial reading - maybe that is my failing; but I don't see how. If this is all the response I get, then I really do have nothing to do here.

[Seven Words]

Eclectic is, by definition, inclusive of parts or whole of several separate. An Eclectic martial artist knows and practices several different arts and combines aspects of all of them in his fighting. An eclectic philosophy is one which therefore combines pieces of several different approaches/constructs.

I honestly don't see anything in what you have said (nor, in doing some online reading of my own) to indicate that Chesterton is referring to catchwords rather than the actual attributes.
--edit in---Sorry, left some things out....He may well be referring to catchwords...bu that's an interpretation without any objective support. Z and I are assuming what he wrote is exactly what he means. As this is the same standard that I (and I believe Z) apply to our won words, and the words of those we refer to, there's nothing inappropriate for us to maintains the same standard.

OK, the animal issue. Let's establish a framework here. What criteria are we using to determine better or worse off?

goes to work to "get ahead in life" is crass materialism? only depending on how they define getting ahead. Is their definition size of bank account and the "toys" acquired? then yes. But what if someone sees getting ahead in life as helping others...they're a psychotherapist. Further, even if the bank account is their definition, how can you cal it a failed one? They have achieved what they want out of life if they retire at 48 with a net worth of $25 million. Or is it that your assertion that your definition of a successful philosophy is the only acceptable one? You need to be willing to allow for the theoretical validity of differing opinions. Also...why is materialism "crass"? If the person in question believes there is NOTHING more than the physical world, then materialism is a very logical, proper view.

[Cagliostro]

And of course the central question of this thread is whether science is a religion or not and the fact of the matter is that for some people it is and for some people it is not.
That ought to clear things up for everyone.

Thanks! Mods, close the thread.

Ok, kidding....
Like most threads, it has shifted from the original purpose, but as long as it is getting mileage to interesting discussions, not a big deal. The Close is definitely a place to discuss what cannot be proven (which I'd argue the Tank pretty much is too). It's pretty much mental masturbation for the unbelievers and the reluctant/skeptical believers (like myself), while it can be a Belief Firming Ground for those that do believe. At least that's how I see it.
But I thought this might make an interesting topic to discussing some of the things that were going on in the Tank in a couple threads, and since this was more speculation based, and me playing with semantics, I figured this was a good place for it. I rarely create threads, and am glad to see this topic bearing fruit.

[Fist and Faith]

First of all I’m a believer. I’ll be happy to take it further and explain that I’m a Christian believer however that doesn’t have to have any bearing on my point of view.
I like the idea of breaking a thing down to its fundamental core so I’ll approach this commentary accordingly.
Why can’t I be an atheist?
First things first, there is no evidence available to me to prove that God doesn’t exist.
This understanding has its basis on one undeniable truth.
I’m just me. I possess no special mental or physical ability to understand absolutely everything about the universe and what might lay beyond. I’m just a man so I can’t possibly have certain, unshakable knowledge about things I have no capacity or opportunity to know. Even if I lived long enough to study, in detail, the whole sum of human knowledge I still would not understand a fraction of all there is to know in the entirety of existence so the best my conscience would allow me to be is an agnostic. For me to pretend to believe otherwise would be disingenuous like playing golf by myself and then cheating on the scorecard. Just who am I fooling if no one else knows about it? This is simply the platform that underscores the basis of my belief system. Obviously my belief extends far beyond this starting point but at least my basic reasoning can be understood even if some of you do not share it, which is cool with me.

Having said all that I am, like so many of you, interested in what is casually labeled as Science or to put it another way, interested in learning about how the world around me functions and what it is composed of. For me science has never even remotely threatened my spiritual beliefs or my faith. To me science is the process that allows us to try to understand the details of how the universe was constructed. I find nothing about that to be contradictory. There are religious beliefs, that I do not share, that may be in conflict with some established scientific facts. That only presents a problem for those that have chosen to believe as they do. Opinions are like personal waste ejection orifices, everyone has one.

And of course the central question of this thread is whether science is a religion or not and the fact of the matter is that for some people it is and for some people it is not.
That ought to clear things up for everyone.

Absolutely outstanding post. I am not a believer, but I absolutely agree with not being able to rule out God's (or a god's) existence.

No, there should be no contradiction between faith and understanding the way the universe works.

Yes, some feel about science the way others feel about religion. And some try to use science to prove religion wrong. Crazy thinking, imho.

And look at that! rus and I both Thanked this post!

[aliantha]

And look at that! rus and I both Thanked this post!

That's it, then. The world really *is* about to end.



Good post, TOM.

[Worm of Despite]

Usually the people who call science a religion want to weaken it. And usually they're religious, which is insanely ironic. Those dogmatic scientists are unhinging our dogma! Christianity was so great because it provided some kind of sustenance and answers the old, indifferent Gods didn't (Jupiter didn't give a fig how your day was; he just wanted to turn into a bull and rape some maiden).

Now more answers are pouring in, and not one line of the Bible mentions the radiation map of the Big Bang, which, I spose was just a cliffhanger God wanted to leave to us.

Why ruin all our fun eh?

Science just is, irregardless of your qualms about it.

[rusmeister]

Eclectic is, by definition, inclusive of parts or whole of several separate. An Eclectic martial artist knows and practices several different arts and combines aspects of all of them in his fighting. An eclectic philosophy is one which therefore combines pieces of several different approaches/constructs.

I honestly don't see anything in what you have said (nor, in doing some online reading of my own) to indicate that Chesterton is referring to catchwords rather than the actual attributes.
--edit in---Sorry, left some things out....He may well be referring to catchwords...bu that's an interpretation without any objective support. Z and I are assuming what he wrote is exactly what he means. As this is the same standard that I (and I believe Z) apply to our won words, and the words of those we refer to, there's nothing inappropriate for us to maintains the same standard.

OK, the animal issue. Let's establish a framework here. What criteria are we using to determine better or worse off?

goes to work to "get ahead in life" is crass materialism? only depending on how they define getting ahead. Is their definition size of bank account and the "toys" acquired? then yes. But what if someone sees getting ahead in life as helping others...they're a psychotherapist. Further, even if the bank account is their definition, how can you cal it a failed one? They have achieved what they want out of life if they retire at 48 with a net worth of $25 million. Or is it that your assertion that your definition of a successful philosophy is the only acceptable one? You need to be willing to allow for the theoretical validity of differing opinions. Also...why is materialism "crass"? If the person in question believes there is NOTHING more than the physical world, then materialism is a very logical, proper view.

Hi 7W,
If a philosophy is complete and thought-out, it doesn't matter whether it shares ideas with other philosophies. If that is what you mean by eclectic, then GKC is not talking about that so you don't need to defend it.

As to not seeing that he is talking about catchwords, I give up. It is like trying to describe color to a blind man. It sounds like I'm in court with a Philadelphia lawyer bent on proving that he is not talking about catchwords. It is something painfully obvious.

The best reason for a revival of philosophy is that unless a man has a philosophy certain horrible things will happen to him. He will be practical; he will be progressive; he will cultivate efficiency; he will trust in evolution; he will do the work that lies nearest; he will devote himself to deeds, not words. Thus struck down by blow after blow of blind stupidity and random fate, he will stagger on to a miserable death with no comfort but a series of catchwords; such as those which I have catalogued above.

What other "evidence" do you need? He specifically says that he was cataloging catchwords. He DOES mean exactly what he says. You just have to read far enough to see that.

There are some things that are so big and so obvious they seem impossible to explain. It is much easier to explain something that is obscure than to explain why we should value life, for example. It ought to be obvious that a person whose thought is pseudo-intellectual, that quotes all of the catchwords from the media (as I did as an adult until my late 30-s) but never really thinks the ideas through - always assumes certain things that go forever unexamined, speaks about racism, diversity, intolerance, and everything else that goes for today's catchwords: "We are tolerant, we are diverse, we are not xenophobic, homophobic, etc" for example of things that sound good - and maybe they are good, but they generally start from assumptions that go unexamined. The problem is that they are generally used in contexts of unthought-out philosophies. (Note - I don't want to go off on a tangent on that - only to try to help clarify Chesterton's meaning here.)

I kind of need to go through your last paragraph backwards.
If a person believes that there is nothing more, then he IS materialist - and this is not necessarily logical or proper - it is only what he believes (speaking about actions motivated by genuine belief, regardless of intellectual or professed belief).
If an idea or theory is definitely wrong, then I don't need to "allow for it". I need to discard and exclude it. The question about such opinions regarding the nature of human existence in the universe is whether they are true or not. Of course, most views that have any duration at all must contain some truth, or they would not continue to exist. The question is then to what extent they are true; that is, correctly describe what really IS. The "successful" philosophy will be the one that most accurately does this, and since philosophy means literally "love of wisdom", this is the one that we should all want to find.

I called materialism a failed philosophy, and it is. Speaking about it on a purely practical level, it works... until it doesn't work. When that bank account is wiped out in a banking crisis, when your house and lifelong accumulated possessions burns down, when your children die in a car crash, when you are diagnosed with cancer, then the race for possessions becomes meaningless. What was I doing all this for? What's the point? becomes the anguished cry. For the individual, materialism at that point really doesn't work, and it is point that a great many of us are likely to face, however far off we may imagine that moment to be. Materialism, at this point, says that life is meaningless, that everything we have worked towards is dust and ashes.

[Cagliostro]

I called materialism a failed philosophy, and it is. Speaking about it on a purely practical level, it works... until it doesn't work. When that bank account is wiped out in a banking crisis, when your house and lifelong accumulated possessions burns down, when your children die in a car crash, when you are diagnosed with cancer, then the race for possessions becomes meaningless. What was I doing all this for? What's the point? becomes the anguished cry. For the individual, materialism at that point really doesn't work, and it is point that a great many of us are likely to face, however far off we may imagine that moment to be. Materialism, at this point, says that life is meaningless, that everything we have worked towards is dust and ashes.

So which definition of materialism are you going by? The one whose credo is "the one who dies with the most toys wins," or those that believe the material world is all there is, and the spiritual doesn't exist? These are two different groups, and I'm getting a bit confused by this part of the discussion. I've met several materialists who did not believing having the most stuff would make them happy, and I know some Christians that must have the latest and greatest stuff.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm a Robert Anton Wilson acolyte, as I'm quoting him too much these days. I remembered a concept he brought up called Fundamentalist Materialism, and found this in his Wikipedia page:

Wilson also criticized scientific types with overly rigid belief systems, equating them with religious fundamentalists in their fanaticism. In a 1988 interview, when asked about his newly-published book The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science, Wilson commented: "I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical... The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college..."

I haven't read The New Inquision since I first started getting interested in his non-fiction well over 10 years ago, but I'm starting to find thoughts that I thought were my own reflected in his books. DAMMIT!

[Zarathustra]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm a Robert Anton Wilson acolyte, as I'm quoting him too much these days.

I love RAW! That's one of the sources of my previous name (Malik23).

But he certainly wasn't the first thinker I admire who criticized materialism. Nietzsche did a pretty good job, too. Materialism (or reductionism of any kind) does a disservice to the paradox of existence.

[Orlion]

love RAW!

I think I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't warn you about the risk of salmonella and other horrible diseases you may get if you ingest undercooked philosophy

[rusmeister]

I called materialism a failed philosophy, and it is. Speaking about it on a purely practical level, it works... until it doesn't work. When that bank account is wiped out in a banking crisis, when your house and lifelong accumulated possessions burns down, when your children die in a car crash, when you are diagnosed with cancer, then the race for possessions becomes meaningless. What was I doing all this for? What's the point? becomes the anguished cry. For the individual, materialism at that point really doesn't work, and it is point that a great many of us are likely to face, however far off we may imagine that moment to be. Materialism, at this point, says that life is meaningless, that everything we have worked towards is dust and ashes.

So which definition of materialism are you going by? The one whose credo is "the one who dies with the most toys wins," or those that believe the material world is all there is, and the spiritual doesn't exist? These are two different groups, and I'm getting a bit confused by this part of the discussion. I've met several materialists who did not believing having the most stuff would make them happy, and I know some Christians that must have the latest and greatest stuff.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm a Robert Anton Wilson acolyte, as I'm quoting him too much these days. I remembered a concept he brought up called Fundamentalist Materialism, and found this in his Wikipedia page:

Wilson also criticized scientific types with overly rigid belief systems, equating them with religious fundamentalists in their fanaticism. In a 1988 interview, when asked about his newly-published book The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science, Wilson commented: "I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic... I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity... I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical... The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! ...They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college..."

I haven't read The New Inquision since I first started getting interested in his non-fiction well over 10 years ago, but I'm starting to find thoughts that I thought were my own reflected in his books. DAMMIT!

Hi Cagliostro,
I'm really talking about both. The former senses the failure of their philosophy when their house of cards is torn down. The latter simply avoid the implications of meaninglessness by attempting to transfer the meaning to something else (eg, "it means something to me" (or my children or our ancestors 500 years down the road, ignoring that "me" - and everyone else - will also become dust and ashes.) When you get to the logical conclusion of meaninglessness, you're back to despair - the senselessness of going on as if life meant anything. It is a contradiction (not paradox) between their theoretical philosophy and their practice, which always acts as if there is, in fact, meaning, in an actual and permanent sense.

FWIW, I do agree with RAW's quoted comment, as far as it goes. The people he is talking about are the most obvious type for whom science is a religion. Chesterton spoke of this often - "The Persecution of Religion" comes to mind. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_ ... ligion.txt (the link makes it appear to be a book. It is, in fact, a short essay.)

[Fist and Faith]

Damn. I had hoped to ignore you, rus. Your refusal to attempt to understand views other than your own, much less to consider that they may be as able to get someone through life as your own, is extremely arrogant, and often leads you to insult everybody else.

Alas, it's not easy to read anything in the Close without reading you, whether directly, or quoted in other people's posts. So, futile though it is, I'm responding yet again.

So which definition of materialism are you going by? The one whose credo is "the one who dies with the most toys wins," or those that believe the material world is all there is, and the spiritual doesn't exist? These are two different groups, and I'm getting a bit confused by this part of the discussion. I've met several materialists who did not believing having the most stuff would make them happy, and I know some Christians that must have the latest and greatest stuff.

Hi Cagliostro,
I'm really talking about both. The former senses the failure of their philosophy when their house of cards is torn down. The latter simply avoid the implications of meaninglessness by attempting to transfer the meaning to something else (eg, "it means something to me" (or my children or our ancestors 500 years down the road, ignoring that "me" - and everyone else - will also become dust and ashes.) When you get to the logical conclusion of meaninglessness, you're back to despair - the senselessness of going on as if life meant anything. It is a contradiction (not paradox) between their theoretical philosophy and their practice, which always acts as if there is, in fact, meaning, in an actual and permanent sense.

I am in the latter group. You are wrong. You do not understand. What's a good analogy? A deaf person writing about how musicians are fooling themselves? Or a musician who says deaf people cannot live lives as good as his?

-"It means something to me" is as valid as the method you use to find meaning. The fact that it is not as valid in the system that you embrace does not make it invalid in any objective or logical sense.

-Some people don't bother with even that, because meaning is not necessary. Zen - living in the moment - is a good example of a view that works as well as yours, even though you refuse to believe that.

-Meaninglessness (in the sense that you use the word) does not necessarily lead to despair any more than Christianity necessarily leads to beating homosexuals to death.


I'll give you the compliment of saying your beliefs are the musician, and the rest of us are deaf. The musician can spend his entire life repeating the same old insults about how the deaf don't have a valid life without music. About how they are fooling themselves with painting, literature, and, most foolish of all, silence. And that they should choose to hear.

Or, the musician can stop pretending he is remotely qualified to comment on the quality of life of those who do not hear music. He can stop putting earplugs in, and pretending that he now understands deafness. He can accept that he will never feel what is in the hearts and minds of the deaf, and simply try to understand as well as he can. Even if that understanding is never more than the understanding that the deaf will ever have of music. Perhaps he'll even learn unexpected lessons during his honest attempt to understand those not like him.

Or maybe he'll find that there is nothing to be learned from them. But maybe he'll have learned enough to stop telling them that their lives are not as good or valid as his.

[Xar]

Just my two cents of a few topics discussed here...

First of all, I don't think that science and religion are direct competitors. Some may think so, and imagine a group of scientists vs. a group of religious fanatics, but I tend to think this misses the point. The truth is that they are rather complementary, religion filling the gaps which science cannot explain.

Quite some time ago, Fist posted a thread around here asking for reasons why one should believe. There was a lot of discussion going on, mostly between me and Prebe - both of us scientists, however I approached the topic from a believer's point of view and he, from an atheist's. We eventually agreed to disagree simply because there are some limits to what science can explain, and religious dogmas tend to exist outside of those limits. For instance, science can ideally get back to the instant of the Big Bang, and explain everything that happened afterwards. But because the laws of physics, and even time and space themselves did not exist until the Big Bang, science is objectively unable to explain how the Big Bang came to be. At that point, saying "it's meaningless to speculate as there was no Time before that event" or "it was the hand of God" has exactly the same weight: they are both articles of faith, since neither can be unequivocally demonstrated to be the truth.

Therefore I tend to believe that science and religion are not competitors in their natural form, but may certainly be seen as (and twisted into) competitors by the humans who advocate such a "war".

Now, that said, as a scientist I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are "dirty secrets" of the scientific process most people are not aware of. While the scientific process as a concept is certainly excellent, by necessity it is implemented by human beings, and human beings tend to be flawed. A lot of scientists, especially the older ones, tend to cling to the theories that existed when they were young, and resist to the introduction of new theories, especially if they disprove the old ones. In a sense, then, they consider those old theories as "articles of faith", and it may be extremely difficult to persuade them to change their minds.

More importantly, these older scientists tend to be influential in their own fields, and the process of publication of a scientific paper (which is itself the basis for the sharing of knowledge among scientists, and therefore for scientific advancement) is based on the concept of "peer review". This means that if I complete a scientific paper about a revolutionary idea I have come up with, in order for it to be accepted by a scientific journal, my paper will have to be evaluated by at least two experts of the field, who have no conflict of interests on it. Because older scientists tend to be experts in their field by default, it actually happens that they bash a paper which invalidates the previous working theory (especially if the previous working theory was theirs). A paper which was bashed by an expert may eventually be published elsewhere, but it may take a while, if it ever happens. It does not help, of course, that nowadays scientific journals - when faced with a controversial paper - tend to reject it rather than take the risk of publishing it and then finding it discredited: if a paper is shown to be wrong, it's a public humiliation for the journal's editors, but if a controversial paper which was rejected by the journal is later found to be right, nobody will know the journal rejected it.

It may also happen that one scientist is working on a theory, he receives the paper of another scientist who is working on a different theory on the same field, and he decides to bash it so that he himself can publish instead. Because grant applications (i.e. the main way a scientist supports his laboratory) depend in large part on scientific achievements based on the number of publications and the quality of their scientific journals, it is obvious that many scientists will try to downplay any revolutions in the field which invalidate their previous work.

All this to say, basically, that the scientific method is excellent in principle, but scientists can still hold an irrational belief in an old theory and discard newer ones because they don't like them. Also, they may simply demolish a promising theory (or a demonstrated result) simply because if it were published, they'd lose the chance to apply for some money. I'm not saying that all of science is a cutthroat competition, but I am saying that it is not as pure and unadulterated as one may think.

In addition to all this, remember that what you read on a newspaper is almost never the same scientific result which the article is based upon. If a newspaper says "found the gene causing cancer!", the original paper was likely "we found out that gene Y is activated in cells from cancer Z in 40% of cases, plus or minus 5%". If a newspaper says "scientists found water on Mars!", it most probably is based on results such as "we found a 95% chance of the presence of low amounts of H2O molecules in Martian vapors, based on the spectra we recorded."

So in a sense, considering science as a religion may be wrong as a concept, but there are people - even scientists - who do so. Oh, and I should say - I tend to agree with Tom about agnosticism: in my opinion, atheism is as much of a belief as any religion (albeit less formalized), simply because we know so little about the whole universe (in fact, we know so little even about our own physiology!) that, scientifically speaking, we cannot prove OR disprove God's existence with significant accuracy. Thus, to believe in God, or conversely to believe that there is no God, are both actions which require faith in either of two results which, at this time, we do not have enough elements to generate. Again though - this is only my opinion.

[Avatar]

Great post Xar. And yes, atheism is a kind of religion...afterall, we believe that there is no god.

--A

[Tjol]

Science itself isn't a religion. There are beliefs that try to use science as a means of proving that belief's validity... but those beliefs are what is religious moreso than the science that is applied in trying to validate those beliefs.