tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post8236864067014900213..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Is science a religion?Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-66117804402335505532007-04-08T21:36:00.000-06:002007-04-08T21:36:00.000-06:00I agree there are substantive differences between ...I agree there are substantive differences between science and religion. But I think they are commensurable, in much the same sense that one can compare Wilt Chamberlain's height to Mickey Rooney's, that one can compare bullshit with caviar.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36128844285104473962007-04-08T16:28:00.000-06:002007-04-08T16:28:00.000-06:00I think the question "is science a religion" makes...I think the question "is science a religion" makes about as much sense as asking "is the color pink a football team?" <BR/><BR/>Science and religion are two completely different things. Science is a way to examine the world in search of objective truth, religion claims it has all the answers from the start and then ignores examination of the world because to do so would be to eventually show religion is false.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87711383283530530352007-04-07T12:54:00.000-06:002007-04-07T12:54:00.000-06:00Phil: If science isn't supplying us with truth, I ...<B>Phil</B>: If science isn't supplying us with truth, I don't know what is.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54091806906184700402007-04-07T07:39:00.000-06:002007-04-07T07:39:00.000-06:00I would think scientists would avoid 'truths' and ...I would think scientists would avoid 'truths' and embrace 'theories' instead.Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-66454113928367948432007-04-06T16:44:00.000-06:002007-04-06T16:44:00.000-06:00Depends on what you mean by "God" and "pantheism"....Depends on what you mean by "God" and "pantheism".<BR/><BR/>One can use "God" in an entirely metaphorical sense to simply mean the laws of physics; such usage has been labeled as pantheistic in some sense. In this sense one is using the word (given the First Amendment context of the essay) in a "nonreligious" sense.<BR/><BR/>There's also Spinoza's pantheistic conception of God. I'm even less a scholar of Spinoza than I am a scholar at all, so I don't want to go too far out on a limb, but I've heard Spinoza labeled an atheist and a precursor to scientific materialism.<BR/><BR/>Finally, there are religious (in the nonscientific sense) conceptions of pantheism, where attributes (notably consciousness) are attributed to the universe as a whole, without reference to perceptual evidence.<BR/><BR/>All natural languages are wildly equivocal (i.e. words have a range of meaning); the choice of "science" and "religion" to label the dichotomy is somewhat arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>The point of the essay is to explore the meaning of "religion" specifically in the context of the First Amendment. Few would, I imagine, wish to construe the word "religion" in the First Amendment in the sense of conscientiousness.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com