/lit/ - Literature

>>14586139
Francis Bacon

>>14586143
youtube recommendation core painter

>>14586139
Define religion first. Science is an epistemic framework. Religion usually refers to a much broader cultural phenomenon. I guess you could say science is a religion for some people, "scientism" and all that.

scientific ontologism taken to an obsessive degree can begin to resemble religious devotion
but no, most scientists don't "worship" the scientific method in the way that pop. sci fanboys and STEM undergraduates pretend to

New Atheism is

>>14586139
Not in itself, but scientism is a cult.

>>14586139
It depends. In Europe, no. In bugman countries, yes.

a subset of posties and autistic people ascribe a divine consciousness to certain laws and processes but generally speaking no it isn't

>>14586139
no, there's nothing pseudo about it

>>14586217
A full-on religion, then.

Not really

>>14586139

Is using science as a tool a religious view? Of course not.

Is considering science to be the only way to understand the world as it really is and human values, feelings etc, in a Harris-tier pseudo-philosophical way? Yes, and it is terrible.

>>14586401
No worse of a crime than any religion which asserts it has the one true understanding of the world. Part and parcel of true belief is buying into a monopoly. It's a rigged game which begs the question, why play?

>>14586459
stop comparing religion to science
they are completely different

>>14586158
>Science is an epistemic framework.
It's also a series of practices. So is religion. I don't know that I'd call science a religion or religion a science; instead, I tend to borrow from Stephen Jay Gould and refer to both as magisteria.

>>14586139
What do you mean by science OP?

>>14586716
Is it a series of practices? I think religions implies ritual not practice. Practice could refeer to literally any vocation, couldnt it? Religion is obviously very hard to define, but something like "a worldview describing humans purpose in the world, embedded in a culture, and practiced throught rituals" is the closest i can come up with on the spot. I think science only becomes religion, when people start thinking science can be used to solve normative questions.

>>14586752
Codified practices feel a bit like ritual, even if a scientist wouldn't call their lab procedures rituals. That said, I feel that science and religion are of the same class, not that one is the other.

>>14586752
Religion implies faith in something you can't fully prove. Science is this.

>>14586824
Science also theorizes about what it can't currently prove. This is the overlap.

>>14586847
Sure, but that doesn't stop people from believing the unprovable to be true. Scientism is a thing.

>>14586824
Thats not what religion is at all
>>14586856
Thats not what scientism is i think.

>>14586153
My father used to be obsessed with him
One time in the late seventies he went to a gallery and Bacon was there, they were to only two in the room
My mother jokes that it's a shame Bacon never made any advances on him. It could've been my father's ticket to fame as an artist

>>14586181
Thisz

>>14586139
science exists on the basis of falsification, religion never has and cannot

>>14586139
No but it can be used as one

>>14586139
Depends on how loosely you define religion and how poorly you define science.

>>14586716
>It's also a series of practices
So is cooking. So is painting. If that is what you would like to quantify religion as, then yes.

I do not believe so since science is a process, not a worldview. It cannot, and does not incorporate “augts”. I think you could say it’s a philosophical method at most. A modus operendi of empiricism.

You do since you don’t have science. You have religion, you don’t do religion. You can HAVE scientific beliefs, and you can DO religious ceremonies, but the former is action oriented beliefs and the latter is belief oriented action.


Two separate categories. You may be misunderstanding science with scientism.

>>14587043
*you do science, you don’t have science

I fucked it up.

no. religion is a pseudo science.

and scientism is religion's revenge.

This conversation is going nowhere, let's spice it up. Using the definition of "scientism" as extrapolating on action oriented beliefs to arrive at belief oriented actions, why is scientism contemptible and religion virtuous? Both deal with belief oriented actions. Neither have claim to objective truth. I see no good reason to value one over the other or insult one and praise the other. If there is a criticism it should be raised on the level of the claim, not against the entire construct.