- May 2, 2007
- 157
- 6
- 56
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Taoist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Science:
Science is an activity designed to justify truth claims about the behaviour, past and probable future of the observed material world. The nature of these truth claims is such that one has a right to expect others to accept them, because they are based on observable evidence and solid procedure. Science tries to answer empirical questions and that is all it does.
Philosophy:
Philosophy is an activity designed to assist critical thinking by exposing inconsistencies within belief systems and between truth claims. It attempts to support its claims with some sort of argument. The nature of these truth claims are such that if one accepts the premises of the argument then one is also obliged to accept the conclusion (assuming the argument is valid). Philosophy does not make empirical claims.
Religion:
Religion makes truth claims based on revelation, personal experience, faith or religious scripture. As such, it has no right at all to expect non-believers to accept the truth claim. But it is also the case that if no attempt is made to impose those beliefs on other people and there is no contradiction between the religious claim and any relevant philosophical or scientific truth claim, that there is no reason to ask or expect the believer to renounce his belief. It is his human right to be allowed to believe whatever he wants in those circumstances.
-------------------------------------------
The above are three descriptions of human activities in terms of human language. In other words, science, religion and philosophy are all trying to make some sort of claim (which one assumes isn't an intentional lie, so it's a truth claim of sorts) but that they can be distinguished by examining the type of justification being given. What I want to know is whether these definitions, and the fact that they don't allow any overlap, is acceptable or non-acceptable to people on this board.
I should add that something like young-earth creationism doesn't fall under any of the above categories because it's claims are actually motivated by religious scripture but present themselves as being motivated by science (i.e. it's pseudoscience). The whole of religion ends up being an attempt to describe what is in fact beyond description, although since it is arguable that science can't even attempt to do this and philosophy can only do it in such a way that it is incomprehensible to the man-on-the-street, there is still a legitimate role for religion - as philosophy for the masses.
My motivation for the above argument is a defence of the claim that science and religion have no legitimate dispute because they are (or should be) trying to do different things in different ways. It's an attempt to play be the UN in the ideological war between hardline scientistic people who want to see religion completely eradicated and fundamentalist religious people who fail to show the proper respect for scientifically-established empirical facts.
All comments/discussion welcome.
Geoff
Science is an activity designed to justify truth claims about the behaviour, past and probable future of the observed material world. The nature of these truth claims is such that one has a right to expect others to accept them, because they are based on observable evidence and solid procedure. Science tries to answer empirical questions and that is all it does.
Philosophy:
Philosophy is an activity designed to assist critical thinking by exposing inconsistencies within belief systems and between truth claims. It attempts to support its claims with some sort of argument. The nature of these truth claims are such that if one accepts the premises of the argument then one is also obliged to accept the conclusion (assuming the argument is valid). Philosophy does not make empirical claims.
Religion:
Religion makes truth claims based on revelation, personal experience, faith or religious scripture. As such, it has no right at all to expect non-believers to accept the truth claim. But it is also the case that if no attempt is made to impose those beliefs on other people and there is no contradiction between the religious claim and any relevant philosophical or scientific truth claim, that there is no reason to ask or expect the believer to renounce his belief. It is his human right to be allowed to believe whatever he wants in those circumstances.
-------------------------------------------
The above are three descriptions of human activities in terms of human language. In other words, science, religion and philosophy are all trying to make some sort of claim (which one assumes isn't an intentional lie, so it's a truth claim of sorts) but that they can be distinguished by examining the type of justification being given. What I want to know is whether these definitions, and the fact that they don't allow any overlap, is acceptable or non-acceptable to people on this board.
I should add that something like young-earth creationism doesn't fall under any of the above categories because it's claims are actually motivated by religious scripture but present themselves as being motivated by science (i.e. it's pseudoscience). The whole of religion ends up being an attempt to describe what is in fact beyond description, although since it is arguable that science can't even attempt to do this and philosophy can only do it in such a way that it is incomprehensible to the man-on-the-street, there is still a legitimate role for religion - as philosophy for the masses.
My motivation for the above argument is a defence of the claim that science and religion have no legitimate dispute because they are (or should be) trying to do different things in different ways. It's an attempt to play be the UN in the ideological war between hardline scientistic people who want to see religion completely eradicated and fundamentalist religious people who fail to show the proper respect for scientifically-established empirical facts.
All comments/discussion welcome.
Geoff
