tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post4889918329502473388..comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Comments on Skeptic's Play: Science and Religion illustratedmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-19556767957527749472012-06-27T17:30:11.915-07:002012-06-27T17:30:11.915-07:00Note that there are several distinct ways in which...Note that there are several distinct ways in which a definition could be "too narrow". I could be using a definition that is narrower than the way the word is typically understood. I could purport to use a particular definition, but misapply this definition by excluding certain things. Or perhaps it is a moral statement, saying that I should use a broader definition because a broader definition would be more useful. Which of these are you claiming?<br /><br />(BTW, I permit anonymous comments, but I encourage people to use pseudonyms. It's not as if I can't immediately tell who you are based on your voice anyway.)millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-74871448073903881912012-06-27T15:15:18.289-07:002012-06-27T15:15:18.289-07:00Are you offering Thomas Jefferson's opinion as...Are you offering Thomas Jefferson's opinion as an argument, or simply as a description of Jefferson's views?<br /><br />One could also interpret the quote as Jefferson offering a supernatural, but not necessarily religious, justification (endowment by a creator) for a secular belief (unalienable rights).millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-72287089576900246462012-06-27T14:51:08.579-07:002012-06-27T14:51:08.579-07:00You may think that the example that I gave is secu...You may think that the example that I gave is secular, but certainly it was not deemed to be secular when Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I think that your definition of religion is too narrow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-31482237411777245932012-06-27T12:34:51.962-07:002012-06-27T12:34:51.962-07:00For the purposes of illustrating common views on s...For the purposes of illustrating common views on science and religion, I think it is most appropriate to defer to the definitions used by the people holding those views. For example, Creationists might believe that evolutionary biology is a pathological science rather than a real science, and I tried to reflect that in my drawing. Similarly, anti-religious people would typically categorize the belief in equality as secular rather than religious, thus the "other secular stuff" category.<br /><br />People supporting positive interaction between science and religion may hold a broader definition of religion. For instance, in my recent reading of Einstein, he argued that belief in induction was a religious view, and certainly induction is a necessary part of science. I would argue that even if induction could in principle be categorized with such things as Christianity, it is dissimilar enough that it should be categorized separately.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-63538985753760847482012-06-27T11:36:30.730-07:002012-06-27T11:36:30.730-07:00I agree with Larry that you should define what you...I agree with Larry that you should define what you mean by religion. The broadest definition that I can think of is that it is a deeply held belief or set of beliefs that is logically indefensible. For example, I deeply believe that all men (and women) are created equal. This is the most important tenet of my religion, and it is also the basis of my political beliefs. However, I know it is not literally true. Someone who is born with a mental deficiency that makes it virtually impossible to cope with the problems of living independently in this world is hardly my equal. Nevertheless, I feel that I must treat him as an individual who is just as important as I am. I acknowledge that this is a religious belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-87321633605214202812012-06-26T04:40:49.216-07:002012-06-26T04:40:49.216-07:00One issue is that both "science" and &qu...One issue is that both "science" and "religion" are vague, equivocal terms, at least in common usage. "Science" can refer to a broad epistemic method that privileges observation and evidence as a foundation; it can refer only to what serious-looking people in white lab coats do with particle accelerators, tons of glassware, or cages full of mice; it can refer to all of our modern technological culture, the good — antibiotics, painless dentistry — as well as the bad — environmental destruction, napalm.<br /><br />Likewise, "religion", a slightly broader term, can can refer to a broad epistemic method that relies on faith and revelation as foundational; it can refer only to very specific kinds of writing, i.e. scriptures; it can refer to the more-or-less arbitrary cultural practices that provide a sense of unity and community to a society; it can refer to all the things that self-identified religious institutions do, the good — charity, counseling — as well as the bad — inquisitions, the sanction of bigotry.<br /><br />Of course, I see the crucial debate as between the first senses of the term described above, which can be more precisely characterized as naturalism and supernaturalism, respectively.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com