Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Wendy wrote: "Yes, Gary, I used "theory" outside of it's scientific confines. ... .The Anomaly is meant to entertain. That simple."That's fair enough, but my main concern was with the statement you made earlier ... "That logical deduction, however, is a theory. No matter how compelling the data or how thorough the research, it's still just a theory. We can't prove it as a fact because we can't drain the ocean."
The fact is if you could drain the ocean and find the fish then that "fact" is no less a theory than any other scientific one.
It may have not been the idea in the book - but you appeared to use the idea in your comments which was why I questioned it.
Wendy wrote: "That statement assumes infinity applied universally, like "If everything is beautiful, then nothing is beautiful."
Not really. There are indeed many kinds of infinity known to mathematicians. For example the number of positive integers is a bounded infinity, because there are potentially infinite numbers of integers above 0, however the integer -1 is outside the boundary of that infinite.
It does not make any difference to the point that infinities are inherently unreliable and paradoxical. For example Zeno's paradox is not universally applied and leads to problems, as do many other infinities. In general any infinity causes logical problems unless the "infinity" is not real but only potential. (E.g. there are infinite possible books you could write, but that doesn't mean you could write infinite books as you are bounded by finite limitations. Therefore that infinity only exists in potentia and never in "reality".
Wendy wrote: "Yep, we are in a world of axioms. But exploring our relationship to axioms--am I real, or a figment in someone's dream?-- that's Philosophy. "
Practically everything can be considered Philosophy. For example science is the philosophy that reality has some measure of being comprehensible, and given certain axioms (reality exists etc.) then reason and observation can tell us how reality works.
Wendy wrote: "My definition was flawed; I agree. But it wasn't too narrow, it was too vague. So let me try again. Religion is a definitive set of tenets premised in spirituality and a group of people who ascribe to those tenets. (You can't take the people nor the tenets out of the definition.) I can't comment on your definition of Religion because you didn't offer one."
Under your definition would a cult of the "Matrix" be defined as a religion if it specifically eschews concepts of spirituality? Does Scientology count as a religion thanks to its beliefs in a non-mystical variant of spirituality? Do the various cults (Erisian, Chaos Magicians, Thelema) which specifically reject all rules and tenets count as religion?
You are right, I did not offer one - because I was addressing what you wrote rather than what I thought. To my mind a religion is a conceptual framework for how existence functions that has been delivered via faith and belief. (Faith being further defined as a trust that supersedes other considerations, rather than a conditional trust based on reason and observation).
Wendy wrote: "Uhm, that statement exalts those in science and insults those lacking science, and it does so with an elitist's concern...Oh, the ignorant fools lacking a science education, and therefore, easily misled when terms possessed by science are misappropriated and bandied about, willy nilly, without a shred of decorum to their technical meaning."
Yes I have heard the same response more time than I can count.
However, if an English speaking person spends their lives studying the Japanese language and culture, and another English speaking person has watched a few Anime videos and read a little Manga. Which one would you say would be best to advise you on talking to a Japanese diplomat? Would it be elitist to ignore the claim of a single manga fan who had never left his village in England in favour of the combined opinions of people who have studied Japanese?
Is it elitist to keep piloting an airliner in the hands of qualified pilots? Is it elitist for them to suggest that perhaps a boy who'd played a few flight sims on his phone may not be the best person to land the plane?
So why is it that non-scientists claiming that scientists are wrong about science is fine, but if scientists dare admit that perhaps their years of training, experience and knowledge may qualify them better to know a scientific answer it's called elitism?
It's because in fact it is the pseudo-scientists who are practising elitism, by pouring scorn on those who would dare disagree with their beliefs and then defining them as "outsiders" by use of the 'elitism' label.
Wendy wrote: "That pretty much defines condescension."
No, condescension is not telling people when they are wrong because you have long studied that area of knowledge. Condescension is telling people they are wrong because you believe differently and your belief is superior to their knowledge.
Wendy wrote: "Science, for all the puzzles she has answered and for all the equations she has solved and for all the benefits she has given us, she is still, and has always been, and forever will be, the vainest bitch on this planet, her knowledge eternally limited to what reflects from her own mirror. "
That statement really reveals the jealousy at the core of the attacks of "condescension" and "elitist". The fear of any attack on the authority of a believer.
Meanwhile the basis of science is to always be prepared to question the fundamental things you took for granted, and for every belief, concept and ideal you have to be rendered open for analysis and even refutation.
Eternally limited? So can never offer knowledge that we didn't already have. Whoops, it must be an illusion you are typing on.
The real vanity is religion, which is hubris and arrogance hidden behind a veil of humility.
Gary, I've enjoyed our banter, but I think we've monopolized this discussion board, or perhaps we've discouraged others from weighing in. Either way, I'll cut to the quick. You win!Wendy JoyceThe Anomaly
You CANNOT have one without the other. There is evil in the world because Satan is real and attacks those in the church and outside of the church equally. But God wins in the end! As I read this discussion I see that some of you do not understand religion and others of you do not understand science. Science has proved unequivocally many things that are in the Bible and the Bible is God's truth. So you cannot separate them.
I would rather live in a world without religion. Religion as in the belief that a supreme being that created everything. I see religion as an evolutionary as humans evolved on this planet. First, gods were fixed to local areas: god of the river, land, the sky and so on. Then gods of the emotional world came along: love - venus, war - mars and so on. Today hardly anyone believes in idols or the Greek, Roman or Viking Gods. People have moved on.
Then somewhere during time, the mono theistic God came along around the Egyptian empire era that hangs on today. Charles Darwin and with the evolutionary concept started a new thought that is gaining ground that we evolved and an all powerful God had nothing to do with humans on the planet earth.
It took almost 300 years for the general population to accept the Copernican System (Sun is the center) over the Plotomic System (Earth is center of the solar system). It will probably take as much time for people to accept Darwin Evolutionary concepts as it took to change people's view of the solar system.
I believe the reason religion hangs on is because people want to feel secure. They feel secure that a kind loving God looks over them. They do not have to fear death as much. Those same people feel secure in that they want their guns for protection. They feel more secure in have more money and wanting lower taxes. They feel secure in having a strong family. Do you not see a patern here that religion is the backbone of feeling secure. Take away religion and their world will be shaken badly.
It all depends on your personalty makeup that I belive many people are born with. No matter what one says against the existence of a God, many will refuse to accept it because of fear that their world will fall apart.
They feel secure that a kind loving God looks over them. At the risk of restarting a Holy War [pun intended], the Old Testament is all about God, but a kind and loving God? Hmm, not too much. I mean, fires, floods, plagues, crumbling towers, man-eating whales, and sodium-chlorided flesh. It's the stuff of nightmares. I think "fear" drives religion.
Wendy Joyce
The Anomaly
Wendy wrote: "They feel secure that a kind loving God looks over them. At the risk of restarting a Holy War [pun intended], the Old Testament is all about God, but a kind and loving God? Hmm, not too much. I me..."
For some reason I did not think it would take long for someone to respond.
John 4:16 states that "God is Love".
Other phrases "God so loves the world..."
The contradiction list of the Bible is long and far. I became an atheist after reading this book. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."Personalities are the result of chemical reactions that take place in our brains. A portion of personality is the result of our life experiences, and a portion is the result of our genetics. Babies don't have much life experience, but they do have genes.
Wendy wrote: "They feel secure that a kind loving God looks over them. At the risk of restarting a Holy War [pun intended], the Old Testament is all about God, but a kind and loving God? Hmm, not too much. I me..."
I will also add:
"Hmm, floods, plagues, crumbling towers, man-eating whales, and sodium-chlorided flesh. It's the stuff of nightmares. I think "fear" drives religion."
"Fear" does drive religion, I think I stated "Fear of their world falling apart", but adding a "Kind and Loving God" is also necessary in my opinion. The "Carrot and the Stick".
As for "floods, man eating whales" and others?
The great flood and a large ark - Noah
Surviving in the belly of whale for days - Jonah
Hair length controlling ones strength - Sampson
Turning people into stone - Sodom and Gormora
Raising of the dead - Christ
Turning wine to water - Christ
For me to believe in the Bible is for me to give up reason and believe in tales that were written over 2,000 years ago. I think I will hang on to reason.
Mickey wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. Religion as in the belief that a supreme being that created everything. I see religion as an evolutionary as humans evolved on this planet. First,..."
As we've seen on this thread, people have a real problem with the idea that we, the world, the universe just happened.
They want there to be a plan. They need somebody to be driving the bus.
That's where a lot of this religion stuff grabs hold.
I can kind of understand that idea, reality is a big, scary place.
But, like any kid, mankind has to grow up ( at least a little) and leave the imaginary friends behind.
It's not going to be easy, but it'll be for the best in the long run.
Carol wrote: "You CANNOT have one without the other. There is evil in the world because Satan is real and attacks those in the church and outside of the church equally. But God wins in the end! As I read this di..."'but god wins in the end.'
How about a spoiler warning next time?
Some people just gotta ruin the book for the rest of us...!
Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "You CANNOT have one without the other. There is evil in the world because Satan is real and attacks those in the church and outside of the church equally. But God wins in the end! As ..."Tooo funny, Travis! You made my day!
Wendy Joyce
neither one because each world seem narrow minded and unforgiving..I would rather live in the world with science and religion live together in peace and harmony ..
I'm an atheist and a hard-core realist, so of course I pick religion. I have nothing against religion, and i think it is important for many people. I don't see it as essential though. Religion gives people hope about life after death and a greater power to believe in. People could learn to live without a god and without a faith. Science gives us medicine, and technology, and ways of saving our planet and the people on it. Of course you could live without these things, but people would die of almost any sickness even a cold, people would die younger, and our world would be even more devastated by natural disasters. Personally I wouldn't want to live in a world without technology and things like cars. I don't think a world without religion would be a colder or meaner or less moral place. Humans, even atheists, have morals and believe in justice. I think everyone would still agree murder is wrong without religion. Athiests and less-religious people are still generally moral and kind. I think a lack of religion would also stop religious violence such as holy wars and help put an end to sexism, homophobia, and slut shaming.
Travis wrote: "Carol wrote: "You CANNOT have one without the other. There is evil in the world because Satan is real and attacks those in the church and outside of the church equally. But God wins in the end! As ..."Sorry about that Travis, I will remember that next time! lol
This is a really good question, but the answer can't be absolutely right or wrong. Nowadays the religion is being 'weird' and truly hierarchic, dividing the people all over the world, turning them into sheep, totally blind and making money for the 'Head Masters'. In the other hand, the true religion 'predicted' once many events on Earth and Universe and keeps filling the gaps that science leaves. The science helps us understanding everything in essence, but, lately we see and read that science is being suspected in some specific explanations. Lets take evolution theory as an example of that, or the ET, UFO etc. So I can say that the science and the religion, despite their mistakes, they complete and improve each other.
Now, to answer the question, I would like to live in a world where both, religion and science don't pretend like are different or one more perfect then the other. I want to live in a world who is real, opened, and harmonic.
Okay, this whole 'god of the gaps' bit doesn't work.If there is a gap in our scientific knowledge, saying 'god did it' is not an answer.
Since there's no proof of god, you can't use him/her/it as 'proof' that he etc is the cause of something.
How does that expand our knowledge?
It's just a version of telling a kid 'because' when they ask 'why?'
can someone give me an example of religion filling in a gap that provides actual information, and not just 'god did it'?
I'm a Christian. Even (scary drum roll), a fundamentalist. All that means is that we believe the things that are fundamental to Christianity. A world without science or religion? I can do without the religion, but I can't do without knowing God. That's not religion.
There's false science, and there's a ton of false religion. I want none of it.
The Bible, God's Word, is 100% accurate wherever it touches on scientific matters. So my choice is... "I want a world with pure science, and a knowledge of God."
(Yes, I know. . . some of you won't 'get' that.)
PS - I just noticed how old this thread is! Any of you still around?
John wrote: "I'm a Christian. Even (scary drum roll), a fundamentalist. All that means is that we believe the things that are fundamental to Christianity. A world without science or religion? I can do without ..."
I did not hear a "Scary Drum Roll" when I read your artical, I heard a "Screeching Violin". My definition of a Religion is "A belief in a God".
It does seem that you put an emphasis on "Knowing" God over Believing in a God. Have you met God? Has God spoken to you? Are you a prophet?
If you have "not" met or heard from God then I would think it would be a belief and not knowing.
Are you John a "Predestinationist"?
Do you belive that you are better than others because you beleive you were chosen?
So tell us John what is your definition of a "Religion"?
My take on this god thing. God exists in our minds simpy because there is death. No death, no need for a belief in a higer spirit, force, whatever.The people who have a faith on god, are simply people that don't simply understand what they're doing on this planet. They think their life has a meaning. They try make an excuse for why bad things happen to them.
I never throughout the day think of god, nor do I try to beg to one when I'm in dificulty. Face your problems with your mind, rationalizing, crying helps as well. But never say:"why, god, why!
Use your brain to understand why thing are like they are. Life has no meaning at all, just live the way society created it. bIRTH, INFANCY, WORK, RETIREMENT, DEATH.
Mickey wrote: "John wrote: "I'm a Christian. Even (scary drum roll), a fundamentalist. All that means is that we believe the things that are fundamental to Christianity. A world without science or religion? I ca..."
You've got a lot of good points, and are right on the money when it comes to knowing/belief, but you spelled 'prophet' wrong.
Sorry, the nitpicky part of my brain couldn't let that go.
Daniel wrote: "My take on this god thing. God exists in our minds simpy because there is death. No death, no need for a belief in a higer spirit, force, whatever.The people who have a faith on god, are simply p..."
People say 'without god, life has no meaning', but really we make our own meaning.
I just wish people would pick meanings in the real world, rather than make something up.
The world's a full place. Lots of good stuff to chose from without resorting to mythology.
Travis wrote: "You've got a lot of good points, and are right on the money when it comes to knowing/belief, but you spelled 'prophet' wrong.Sorry, the nitpicky part of my brain couldn't let that go. "
I shall blame everything on the almighty "auto spelceker" :)
One thing I like about Goodread, they let you edit your postings.
John, you mentioned that the Bible is 100% accurate wherever it touches on scientific matters. Could you please give us an example or two?
John said: "there's a ton of false religion. I want none of it."Hi John - do you celebrate Christmas, Easter or Halloween? All of those holidays have their roots deep in false religious "holy days" and pagan traditions.
"Fundamentally" that would be reason to shun them, correct? Since the Bible does say not to mix pure worship of him with that of false gods.....
Maria wrote: "John said: "there's a ton of false religion. I want none of it."Hi John - do you celebrate Christmas, Easter or Halloween? All of those holidays have their roots deep in false religious "holy da..."
If false religion involves free candy, I'm willing to cut it some slack.
Yes, Travis - my sentiments exactly. Just remember that the week after each of those holidays, most of the treats are 70% off regular price - at least in my area. Almost free.... ;)
Travis wrote: " Iffalse religion involves free candy, I'm willing to cut it some slack. "If it means a day off work with pay I am all for it!
Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."This is easily explained by random genetic mutations.
Hector wrote: "This is easily explained by random genetic mutations."The explanation for distinct sibling personalities seems to be as a result of a combination of genetic and environmental effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal...
Each child receives half of it's chromosones from each parent - with meiosis shuffling "the genes between the two chromosomes in each pair (one received from each parent), producing chromosomes with new genetic combinations in every gamete generated"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
The environment in which the child grows then takes over and the resulting phenotypic variations are displayed as the child's "distinct personalities"
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
A world without a religion. Though I believe that it is impossible to live in a world without science because it would be very hard for us... because that also means not being able to light a fire - the most fundamental of all.
Even as an atheist, you must believe in something. Everyone believes in something and lives his life according to that.
When one considers that the ultimate spirituality is a philosopy of universal truth, then religion and science are actually the same. Henceforth, I could not possibly envision a world without either.
That's really easy... RELIGION, not spirituality, that's something entirely different. Anyone who has chosen science I'm curious to know how an excuse can be made for how many lives have been lost in god or gods names. Sure, science can be argued to do some of that as well but those decisions are made by people who have views on things like, religion.I think it's not even an argument as long as 1. We're talking about organized religion that has ideas of how other people should be like who are both religious or not & 2. They don't push their ideas on other people & religion makes them a better person.. In that case I call it spirituality cuz it's personal. The history of religion & theology makes me sick whether its the crusades, jihads, or just not letting a black person in a church? If u talk about Catholicism the argument to moot, thou shall not kill... Where's the argument?? I know people pro-life but pro death penalty??? I don't even want to hear the rationalization, cuz that's what it is.... Ridiculous, anyways, I'd boot religion without a thought
Jeez, I just know I'm going to regret this, but... what the F is a "false" religion? (Gary, where are you? You could have argued this point in your sleep!) "False" religion implies a "true" religion...so what the heck might that be? Wendy Joyce
Julian wrote: "When one considers that the ultimate spirituality is a philosopy of universal truth, then religion and science are actually the same. Henceforth, I could not possibly envision a world without either."And "the ultimate spirituality" is a purely human concept! Most likely created to give us hope over the thousands of years of us consciously thinking about death, pain, agony and strife.
It sure is fun trying to philosophise on the universal truth but “religion” tends to state it’s “truths” without evidence and on pain of some punishment: that is not for me.
Religion was (wo)man’s first documented attempt to understand the universe and our part in it – I’ll excuse it for that – but there’s no reason to continue in unfounded superstitious bunkum.
I often hear comparisons with children and Santa and adults with God: some people just don’t want to hear the truth – we are biological animals who live, love, suffer and die.
Wendy wrote: "Jeez, I just know I'm going to regret this, but... what the F is a "false" religion? (Gary, where are you? You could have argued this point in your sleep!) "False" religion implies a "true" religio..."Father Ted: (praying) "...you who are the most forgiving of all gods..."
Bishop Brennan: "'All gods'? What other gods would there be, Crilly?"
Father Ted: (thinking) "....false gods?"
Just to clarify - I'm a Buddhist, so perhaps my words might be interpreted at different angles according to the pervasive religion of your geographies. But then again, herein lies the achilles heel of many "religions" - they are enterprising human institutions masked by centuries of dogmatism and ceremony rather than spirituality. In the purest positive sense, religion offers comfort to those who need them and seek them (those who don't, need not bother). Science, in this sense, might not be too dissimilar.
I think what is implied by the term "false religion" - is that if someone claims to be a Christian, it would mean that they worship the Christian god of the Bible, recognize his son Jesus, etc etc., then anything associated with pagan rites or ceremonies, idol worship, - things the Bible condemns - is considered "false". If you consider the god of the Bible to be the "true" god, then all other gods - at least to you - are false.
And since the Bible says you should shun any celebrations that have their roots in these practices - if you claim to use the Bible as your holy book, that means that most "Christian" holidays are a no-no.
Maria wrote: "I think what is implied by the term "false religion" - is that if someone claims to be a Christian, it would mean that they worship the Christian god of the Bible, recognize his son Jesus, etc etc...."Quite agree with you. :)
As a matter of fact ... religion disappears for a doctor as soon as he is at surgery table ... as simple as that..
Brooke wrote: "I have no religion, and living without is no problem."yeah I agree with u ... if religion causes crusades ... if religion causes sacrifice deaths .. if religion makes a man blind to do rituals .. then Science is far more better.. :D
Carol wrote: "You CANNOT have one without the other. There is evil in the world because Satan is real and attacks those in the church and outside of the church equally. But God wins in the end! As I read this di..."I'd have to disagree, we are not talking about ying & Yang, Hot & Cold, Evil & Good, science is separate from 'the church' it was done so because if it didn't u would die... ask Galileo, joan of arc, William Tyndale - just a guy that translated the bible into English - charged of heresy, burned at the stake, the knights templar, & everyone that died from the inquisition & witch hunts. What from the old testament did science unequivocally prove? I'd argue the exact opposite, because of the church science & the church were separated to ensure u didn't... ummm, DIE whenever someone in clergy didn't like the way u smelled & thought. But yes, if there is a being god he probably does win?? There is a reason we have separation of church & state...
they both continue each other science makes our life easy and religion make us know why we are here and what we should do
Asmaa wrote: "they both continue each other science makes our life easy and religion make us know why we are here and what we should do"Not by my definitions.
Science - creates new knowledge.
Technology - applies current knowledge to create new items.
Religion - belief in a God (A supreme being).
Religion makes me do nothing and has nothing to do why I am here. Religion also has nothing with why or how I live my life. I create my own rules in which I choose to live my life.
You can only speak for yourself, religion does not make "us" do anything, unless it is by violence or force. If you wish live by someone else's rules, go ahead. I follow no one.
i agree with heather. everything else is besides the point!
Asmaa wrote: "they both continue each other science makes our life easy and religion make us know why we are here and what we should do"Science may well show us why we are here and what we should do: Science has already explained the universe back to way less than a yocto-second after the initial Big Bang event some 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago where space AND TIME were created (so no point asking “What came before?” from an anthropomorphic temporal aspect); Quantum Mechanics details the interaction of physics at the quantum (Planck) level; the Standard Model explains the physics of the weak and strong nuclear forces; Quantum Electrodynamics explains the physics of photons and electrons and all of chemistry and hence biology; General Relatively goes a long way to describe gravity. Other facets of science have advanced understanding of all aspects of the universe. All these scientific advances have been achieved over the last 200 years; what can we expect over the next 200!
Rational thought is the way to an ideal world view detailing how we should live and how we should treat the planet we live on and the life we share it with; better to think logically then to obey the rules and regulations of ignorant man-made control cults which, even after thousands of years of rationalisation, would lead us into ignorance and darkness.
What has religion given us? Thousands of conflicting, supernatural, un-evidenced ramblings which take years of brain-washing to fully come to terms with. Which one of these myriads of gobbledegook will “make us know why we are here and what we should do“? Let me guess: the one you were born into!
Just take the Christian faith with it’s ridiculous primitive creation myth (likely stolen from the Babylonians); exaggerated folk history and legends of an arrogant peoples who thought they were god’s gift; culminating in a human sacrifice (so abhorred in “pagan” religions but fine in this nonsense) by a god as a man who couldn’t just “forgive” the beings that it had created and imbued with the ability to do all that this god disagreed with. Summed up in my mind as guilt for this vicarious redemption, and:
“The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. “
Madness!
Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."I agree...
I wonder when some one says religious people should be open minded. I think that street goes two ways. How ever Religion gives us structure, boundary's, something bigger then our selves to love. I know God/Jesus Loves me. That means more to me the anyone opinion.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
"...if you use infinity you can prove almost anything making it completely useless as a method.
That statement assumes infinity applied universally, like "If everything is beautiful, then nothing is beautiful."
...Every "fact" in existence is "just a theory" (or indeed an axiom). The fact that the computer screen exists in front of you is "just a theory". You can sense it through the light it emits, or you can reach out and touch it, but you cannot prove that it exists with 100% certainty. The screen may actually be a clever technological projection, or it could be a vivid hallucination that you are having while in "reality" your body is somewhere else.
Yep, we are in a world of axioms. But exploring our relationship to axioms--am I real, or a figment in someone's dream?-- that's Philosophy.
I would disagree with the narrow definition of religion, especially since a great proportion of adherents are demonstrably not "governed" by those tenets but instead either use said tenets to justify their governance of others by their own preferred standard...
My definition was flawed; I agree. But it wasn't too narrow, it was too vague. So let me try again. Religion is a definitive set of tenets premised in spirituality and a group of people who ascribe to those tenets. (You can't take the people nor the tenets out of the definition.) I can't comment on your definition of Religion because you didn't offer one.
As for the scientific community responding with "full condescension" I do not think so, for a start there are still a large proportion of scientists with some form of personal faith, and the attitude of the majority is that of Gould's "Non-overlapping magisteria" which is effectively a non-aggression pact with religion that is pretty much ignored by the religious side and in my opinion tantamount to intellectual surrender on the side of scientists.
It has nothing to do with personal faith. It has to do with anger, perhaps stemming from a perception of intellectual surrender. And then it plays out through condescending statements such as this: ...for example the "it's only a theory" misrepresentation which is appealing to those without a scientific education because they do not understand the specific technical meaning of the term as used in science.
Uhm, that statement exalts those in science and insults those lacking science, and it does so with an elitist's concern...Oh, the ignorant fools lacking a science education, and therefore, easily misled when terms possessed by science are misappropriated and bandied about, willy nilly, without a shred of decorum to their technical meaning.
That pretty much defines condescension.
Science, for all the puzzles she has answered and for all the equations she has solved and for all the benefits she has given us, she is still, and has always been, and forever will be, the vainest bitch on this planet, her knowledge eternally limited to what reflects from her own mirror.
Wendy Joyce
The Anomaly