Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too [View all]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/nov/15/dictionary-wrong-religionContrary to the popular definition, too many modes of belief and behaviour can function as 'religious' for it to be a simple category
Andrew Brown
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 November 2012 07.30 EST

Would a hypothetical future alien race view the Great Pyramids of Giza in the same way as the Large Hadron Collider? Photograph: Paul Brown/Rex Features
John Sulston is one of the smartest men I know well, he ought to be, as a Nobel prize winner and last week I got him talking about religion in front of an audience for the Westminster faith interviews.
One of the things that came up in this, as so often before, was the definition of "religion". Sulston was brought up as a low church Anglican, and still feels that religion must involve God and a belief in the supernatural, and that ritual is secondary to theology.
I came up with my usual counter to this that there are atheistic religions; that there was ritual long before there could be theology and that we ought to take scientists even social scientists more seriously than dictionaries. This last point because Sulston had gone to the trouble of looking up and printing out one of the OED definitions of religion, which he felt proved his point.
"Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement."
I can see that it must be frustrating, if you have such a definition in front of you to get some slippery Durkheimian answer about religion being actually the way that society understands and defines itself. You might, if pressed, agree that Americans treat their constitution as a sacred scripture, of universal application to the world. But it doesn't seem properly supernatural.
more at link
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretty standard human behavior; change the definition to fit the times so as to stay relevant.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#1
That's what human brains do, put a different set of how-tos on it & you have science. The point of
patrice
Nov 2012
#30
All is in process/negotiation and I seem to be a verb > how is at least as important as what.
patrice
Nov 2012
#14
It is the essence of science that it is not-religion/ous, so to that extent, through negation of
patrice
Nov 2012
#22
OTOH, sometimes the rigidity of certain scientific beliefs can impede scientific progress.
cbayer
Nov 2012
#5
Thank you for confirming there's nothing "particularly slow" about scientific progress.
trotsky
Nov 2012
#133
Thomas R. Kuhn says that rigidity is actually part of the dynamic of scientific revolutions.
patrice
Nov 2012
#18
"Somehow"? How the hell can you say "somehow they are not guilty of faulty thinking..."?
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2012
#136
Yes! If we don't understand the HOW of something, how can we know its significance?
patrice
Nov 2012
#17
IOW, as polling just so clearly illustrated, significance is way more than a statistical formula(e).
patrice
Nov 2012
#19
String-theory.->"Strings" that "vibrate".->Sound is a vibration.->You can heal a person....
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#77
and also: "how" is not just what steps, but the order of those steps themselves is a manifestation
patrice
Nov 2012
#32
He would agree that using the OED definition of religion, science could not be classified as
cbayer
Nov 2012
#16
That's stupid, aliens would most likely instantly recognize the LHC for what it is...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#52
Just a note to myself here to follow up on demarcation problems, later, I am doing laundry & stuff
patrice
Nov 2012
#39
Thank you for this. Time to go find Eric Hoffer in a stack of crates of books around here somewhere.
patrice
Nov 2012
#25
I would support that by getting one of my own suggestion + someone else's suggested book on my
patrice
Nov 2012
#35
He makes the point that there was likely ritual and dogma before there was religion.
cbayer
Nov 2012
#26
Which god? What's a god? IF there were such a thing that could be called a "G/god" would we
patrice
Nov 2012
#33
There are none who live off of the lives of others? Would NOT exist were it not for that?
patrice
Nov 2012
#42
Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. The word is widely used and has an defined meaning.
humblebum
Nov 2012
#70
Well I guess such a list would be ridiculously long and go back quite a ways in time, but
humblebum
Nov 2012
#84
It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to ...
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#78
Those so-called "lame folk" are those who don't share your very narrow point of view. You
humblebum
Nov 2012
#83
The subject of Other Ways of Knowing has been hashed and rehashed countless times here
humblebum
Nov 2012
#98
So no one has ever made an attempt to establish a unified theory of science? Interesting.
humblebum
Nov 2012
#121
Not too sure exactly what you are waiting for, but happy waiting. All anyone needs do
humblebum
Nov 2012
#137
Like I said, look it up for yourself. Subject's been discussed ad nauseum in the group. nt
humblebum
Nov 2012
#113
So who decides what is real and what is not? If the limits of your reality are
humblebum
Nov 2012
#123
If the limits of your reality are that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched/felt
AlbertCat
Nov 2012
#124
I think the problem is this, "Scientism" as it were, seems to be a term that was...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#72
Actually, the"soft" sciences use the same methodology, the Scientific Method, and
humblebum
Nov 2012
#130
But not the same rigor, because its not possible, either due to practical or ethical concerns...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#134
You sound like there is some organized conspiracy to appear as something that they are not and
humblebum
Nov 2012
#135