[Potemkin]

You seem to be expressing a belief in science to continue to exist with or without scientists. You believe the system can exist on it's foundation principles. This pretty well defines religion. Can we agree that it is likely both science and God were created by man in an attempt to satisfy his needs?

You seem to be denying the idea that we can think abstractly about anything. All Mike is doing is drawing out the abstract foundational and philosophical principles of the scientific method. This is not the same thing as asserting that science can function or even continue to exist without scientists. Mike has claimed no such thing. When we think abstractly, we are not denying the existence of concrete reality, nor are we trying to substitute our abstractions in place of that concrete reality. Rather, we are abstracting the essential or core principles of a thing, to better understand it. You seem to be asserting that abstractions are unreal (which is true) and therefore meaningless (which is untrue).

[One Degree]

You seem to be denying the idea that we can think abstractly about anything. All Mike is doing is drawing out the abstract foundational and philosophical principles of the scientific method. This is not the same thing as asserting that science can function or even continue to exist without scientists. Mike has claimed no such thing. When we think abstractly, we are not denying the existence of concrete reality, nor are we trying to substitute our abstractions in place of that concrete reality. Rather, we are abstracting the essential or core principles of a thing, to better understand it. You seem to be asserting that abstractions are unreal (which is true) and therefore meaningless (which is untrue).

I am not following you. We are simply arguing if science can be considered a religion. I am actually saying the abstraction is very meaningful as that is what gives it a religious aspect. Science is a belief system. You must 'believe ' in the scientific method. Many scientists believe this method is superior to other methods of viewing the human experience. I don't see the difference between this and viewing it through other 'religious ' methods. Deciding science is right, does not change this. It is simply a choice of belief systems.

[Potemkin]

I am not following you. We are simply arguing if science can be considered a religion. I am actually saying the abstraction is very meaningful as that is what gives it a religious aspect. Science is a belief system. You must 'believe ' in the scientific method. Many scientists believe this method is superior to other methods of viewing the human experience. I don't see the difference between this and viewing it through other 'religious ' methods. Deciding science is right, does not change this. It is simply a choice of belief systems.

A choice of gods? Sorry, I don't really buy it. As Mike pointed out, you could say that we choose to believe that our sense-impressions relate to a real world out there which causes those sense-impressions, despite not being able to actually prove any such thing, and that therefore the belief that the physical world is real is a 'religious' belief. If that is the case, then what belief isn't a 'religious' belief? The concept of 'religion' would become so universal, and also so vague and nebulous, that it would cease to have any meaning and would probably cease to be used.

Can we prove that the scientific method is valid? No, we can't. But that doesn't make it a religious belief, merely a heuristic tactic to make sense of things, rather like our 'faith' that our sense-impressions are caused (in some mysterious way) by an external real world.

[Wellsy]

I am not following you. We are simply arguing if science can be considered a religion. I am actually saying the abstraction is very meaningful as that is what gives it a religious aspect. Science is a belief system. You must 'believe ' in the scientific method. Many scientists believe this method is superior to other methods of viewing the human experience. I don't see the difference between this and viewing it through other 'religious ' methods. Deciding science is right, does not change this. It is simply a choice of belief systems.

There is such a thing as scientism which may be treated as something associated but distinct from the scientific method and 'natural' philosophy

Spoiler: show

Might enjoy this in considering scientism

And practicing science doesn't even entail any rejection of religion as a metaphysical God is simply outside the realm of the methodology required for scientific investigation.
So for example someone might adopt a materialist methodology whilst holding a metaphysical position that isn't reducible to that methodology.
Those that shift it from being merely a methodological position into a metaphysical one often reductionistic in thinking that everything about the world is susceptible to investigation via scientific methods.
So I think it's scientism that folks are might be likening to a religion and not necessarily science.

And as a more complciated matter, we might consider the gap between science and ethics/morality (is/ought, means/ends) that has often treated as difficult to reconcile in one another without one side being dominant.
For further food for thought see 'Humanism and Science - Evald Ilyenkov'

[One Degree]

A choice of gods? Sorry, I don't really buy it. As Mike pointed out, you could say that we choose to believe that our sense-impressions relate to a real world out there which causes those sense-impressions, despite not being able to actually prove any such thing, and that therefore the belief that the physical world is real is a 'religious' belief. If that is the case, then what belief isn't a 'religious' belief? The concept of 'religion' would become so universal, and also so vague and nebulous, that it would cease to have any meaning and would probably cease to be used.

Can we prove that the scientific method is valid? No, we can't. But that doesn't make it a religious belief, merely a heuristic tactic to make sense of things, rather like our 'faith' that our sense-impressions are caused (in some mysterious way) by an external real world.

I see. Yes, my view is that religion is such an essential part of humanity that it permeates everything. I would define religion as a human need to believe in something larger than themselves. Those who reject 'traditional ' religion replace it with science. I believe you and Mike wish to give religion a more specific definition, so science can be excluded. I don't understand the reasoning to do so, other than excluding 'God' from science, which is unnecessary with my definition of religion.

Edit: On this forum, I have repeatedly ran up against the 'end all' argument, "science will provide a solution in the future." I fall to see how this is different from, "God will provide the answers." It is a belief that something larger than ourselves can be counted on to solve our problems.

[Potemkin]

Edit: On this forum, I have repeatedly ran up against the 'end all' argument, "science will provide a solution in the future." I fall to see how this is different from, "God will provide the answers." It is a belief that something larger than ourselves can be counted on to solve our problems.

I agree with you, but this is 'scientism', not science. Interestingly enough, it tends to be right-wingers who wheel out this scientistic fantasy. I've often heard them assert that we shouldn't worry about global warming because Science will discover some new technological marvel which will solve the problem in some unexplained way. For lo, Science will return in the End of Days, trailing clouds of glory, to save us all! This is no different from Christian millennarianism, just dressed up in pseudo-positivist garb.

[colliric]

Umm guys I think this thread has veered way off topic now. It's clear no one's going to change their mind on Religion and Science....

Should return to topic or be shifted to the religion or philosophy section.

[One Degree]

I agree with you, but this is 'scientism', not science. Interestingly enough, it tends to be right-wingers who wheel out this scientistic fantasy. I've often heard them assert that we shouldn't worry about global warming because Science will discover some new technological marvel which will solve the problem in some unexplained way. For lo, Science will return in the End of Days, trailing clouds of glory, to save us all! This is no different from Christian millennarianism, just dressed up in pseudo-positivist garb.

Okay, but I must add those more on the left use the same argument for population, feeding the poor, employing the less educated, loss of farmland etc. etc. The tendency is separate from left/right, but those on the left seem more prone in my opinion.

[Hindsite]

I see. Yes, my view is that religion is such an essential part of humanity that it permeates everything. I would define religion as a human need to believe in something larger than themselves. Those who reject 'traditional ' religion replace it with science. I believe you and Mike wish to give religion a more specific definition, so science can be excluded. I don't understand the reasoning to do so, other than excluding 'God' from science, which is unnecessary with my definition of religion.

I believe the reason is to eliminate the ultimate moral authority of God as presented in the Holy Bible.

Now, back to the subject of the appendix being a vital organ. I believe that the appendix is a useful organ, but just like the tonsils, it is not vital, because you can live many years without it.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

But the OP asserted that it is a 'vital' organ. So far we've had one study showing a "very small risk increase" in heart attacks, and that's it. The OP claimed people who'd had theirs removed have been "dying younger from diseases and cancer, particularly those of the gut". There has been no evidence given for this. Colliric re-asserted "you will significantly increase your risk of dying younger, much younger if your are particularly unlucky". And then, in a stunning display of lack of expertise, suggested 'appendix transplants' instead, which would have a real bad effect on the immune system, thanks to the immuno-suppressive drugs that transplant patients have to take. That's been the real bit of quack medicine in this thread.

It's true that corillic overstates his case. Yet, if we have to make a decision, his assumption that the appendix is "vital" should be preferred to the decade old assertion that it is "useless". Of course, we never actually had to make a decision about the importance and function of the appendix in the first place. Our experts could have just applied basic logic and admitted that they did not know whether it has a function and if so what that function is, or in other words they should know - and if they don't, be educated/trained - that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Further, the real quackery has happened in real life where appendices have been routinely removed, even if there was nothing wrong with them, as part of other abdominal surgery.