In response to a thread about science horning in on religion
In response to a thread about science horning in on religion
As someone who finds a sense of religious awe in *the discoveries made possible in the course of scientific research* (rather than in the scientific method itself - see my recent posts), and who has a relationship with gods of learning and discovery, I'm a bit perplexed as to what the problem is here.
In part, I don't think we have a good working definition of "religion." I don't think that "a relationship with the intangibile" is a good definition as (1) cosmology tends to indicate that dark matter exists, which is tangible, and (2) religious experiences are often both empirically measureable (PET scans, heart rates, double-blind testing) and repeatably induceable (chanting, psychotropics, meditation, magnetic induction).
The best I can come up with for "religion" is an "institution that propigates a meaning-based social structure through collective ritual;" spirituality being "individual practices that propigate a meaning-based personal life-structure." Science is "the use of empiricism to develop and test models of external reality which typically do not refer to meaning" - as some forms meaning can not be empirically tested at this time.
The reason we see science and religion as opposed is that the word "religion" tends to be associated with universal models that defy (or contradict) empirical testing, and, unlike individualist spirituality, religious human collectives have a tendency to fight back when questioned - hard, often using considerable political power.
In actuality, the definition of religion I'm using also applies to team sports, politics and LAN parties.
Science and atheism are not synonymous. But they tend to go together as they are compatible - as you can't empirically prove that God(s) exist(s). Likewise with agnosticism. Unitarianism, some forms of Buddhism and Humanism are also compatable. As, for that matter, are ritual-based structures of meaning-creation (religions) that rely on empiricism such as team sports, math class, taxation, and the legal system.
Religions that rely heavily on metaphor, such as Daoism, the United Church, Progressive Judaism and Islam, poetry clubs, and meditation classes, also get along well with the scientific method, as metaphor doesn't.
By contrast, when science is presented with, some *literal and untempered* traditional beliefs (usually propigated by religious structures), it can usually test them and demonstrate that they do not conform to empirical models. It doesn't say that one shouldn't believe in a given teaching (as moral imperatives cannot be empirically measured), only that there are logical contradictions in believing in some teachings while also relying on science and its products in day-to-day life. By extension, it also invalidates theologies that are internally logically consistent, but which have claims that are demonstrably false.