June 26, 2009
Science and Religion are Not Compatible
Sean Carroll at Cosmic Variance:
Scientifically speaking, the existence of God is an untenable hypothesis. It’s not well-defined, it’s completely unnecessary to fit the data, and it adds unhelpful layers of complexity without any corresponding increase in understanding. Again, this is not an a priori result; the God hypothesis could have fit the data better than the alternatives, and indeed there are still respected religious people who argue that it does. Those people are just wrong, in precisely analogous ways to how people who cling to the Steady State theory are wrong. Fifty years ago, the Steady State model was a reasonable hypothesis; likewise, a couple of millennia ago God was a reasonable hypothesis. But our understanding (and our data) has improved greatly since then, and these are no longer viable models. The same kind of reasoning would hold for belief in miracles, various creation stories, and so on.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 08:53 AM | Permalink
Comments
I agree that science and religion are incompatible. The God of religion is an unsupportable scientific hypothesis. We are still left with the problem of how something came out of nothing, of how the big bang occurred. Taoism postlated a force called "Tao" that is eternal and about which nothing can be said. This seems very convenient. To say there is something about which nothing can be known amounts to saying "we really don't have a clue". Taoism seems to be a clever way of saying "I don't know". In this, it seems compatible with Socrates, when he said "
The only thing I know is that I don't know"
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 10:58:56 AM
The Tao, then, is also an "unsupportable scientific hypothesis". But then, the idea of something coming out of nothing is also unscientific, I guess.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 11:14:17 AM
Carroll, like other scientists who write on this issue, is not very careful about his terms, particularly the term "religion." As numerous folks have pointed out in the thread to that post, and in the threads to Chris Mooney's Discover posts (which, if anything, are even less philosophically grounded than Carroll's), there are many religions in the world, they are not all dualistic and they do not all posit interventionist deities. As one poster over there says, to claim that religion and science are not compatible is vacuous.
Posted by: giotto | Jun 26, 2009 12:03:27 PM
Not so fast, Sean!
We’ve been doing a lot of good work over here in the Discussion threads at 3QuarksDaily. Some of our younger Atheists have developed a very compelling proof of (a) God(s)’ existence that is pretty unassailable, and if you have a few minutes, I’d like to share it with you.
Here it goes.
In a *final answer* to the P.E.Q. conundrum that so bedevils any reasonable assertion that a materialistic view of causality, one that obeys and is fully enabled by a mix of simple probability and consistent scientific laws, a brilliant sub-set of the community here has decided that the whole problem is, quite literally, a non-starter. Creation does not need to be created. Creation just is. Always has been, always will be, from the get go (actually there is no get go). Further (and this is the best part), no explanation is necessary!*
They have played the infinity card. Cool huh?
Well this is just great for (a) God(s). Given infinity, natch, anything that can happen, will happen. Has happened. So is it possible that a universe has existed, even more conducive to life that our own? One wherein a supremely solitary intelligence powerful enough to unravel the workings of the universe and design new pocket universes could have sprung into being? Of course. And therefore it has, an infinite number of times, in fact.
So do we live in one of the infinite number of God built universes out there, or is ours a home grown one? Well the jury is still out on that one (but I’ll keep you posted). Certainly all the very interesting evidence for God’s existence needs to be re-evaluated now that we know that the non-existence of (a) God(s) is not possible. Fine tuning of the big 6 numbers? Hmm. Goldilocks sweet-spot location for earth’s orbit? Hot damn. That weird energy jump that creates all that lovely carbon for life to assemble out of? Wow! And then there are all the miracles we’ve heard about that we can’t claim are “just impossible” anymore, but let’s not go there right now.
Like I said, there is still much work to be done, but we’re on it!!!.
Stay tuned
Carlos
*there is a common word that is used to mean highly unlikely physical manifestations that cannot be replicated, explained or tested by scientific reasoning, but I am assured that this is not one of those.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 26, 2009 12:11:09 PM
Giotto,
I think there is a very strong tendency among "incompatibalists" to extrapolate from whatever religion they have personally rejected.
There is very little (if any) actual science to these claims, which would ideally begin with a much more precise definition of what "religion" is (instead we seem to be using the pornography/know it when I see it standard), and a quantification of how it actually impedes rational thought and observation.
Without such steps, isn't the proper scientific view to hold to the null hypothesis that no such impedance correlates directly to religious belief (whatever that is)?
At least when Charles Murray and James Watson claim that blacks are dumb, they pretend to have some statistical justification for it (species though it is).
Posted by: Chris Schoen | Jun 26, 2009 12:25:57 PM
"We are still left with the problem of how something came out of nothing"
Who's this "we"? :)
Posted by: billy | Jun 26, 2009 1:50:28 PM
As I tried to point out, science has no explanation for the big bang and neither does Taoism or Socrates. That makes these three honest in their ignorance. Religion, on the other hand, does make claims that are not supported or supportable. That makes religion dishonest.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 1:51:16 PM
Correction: Science and Socrates are honest. Taoism says "something exists, but we can't say what it is or anything about it - in fact, it both exists and doesn't exist". This is very clever, but not very honest.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 2:05:21 PM
In the comments I found an interesting response to this post. Check it out: http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/science-religion-humanity-and-other-unknowns/
Posted by: David_T. | Jun 26, 2009 2:34:37 PM
David T.
I read the article and do not understand the author's point. to claim that a man can rise from the dead, as Christianity does, is simply wrong and dishonest in that it violates all the available evidence. To claim that a "soul" survives death and goes to heaven or is reincarnated is similarly just a fairy story. At least science does not claim to know how the big bang came about, but confines itself to what can be known. Religion begins where truth ends.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 3:09:58 PM
By the way, isn't there a Taoist phrase "Beautiful words are not true; true words are not beautiful"
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 3:12:08 PM
"By religion, I mean what most people who are being honest know I mean..." [paraphrased] is not a definition of religion, and it hints to an attitude by the author of "And you know who I'm referring to..." about it. This suggests to me that the author is having a response to specific individuals about his specific beefs with their behavior and/or beliefs, projected large--which is often true of people who were subjected to rigorous religious indoctrination and then escaped to what feels like more solid "self-appreciating" footing. He doth, perhaps, protest too much. I wonder what his background is?
Posted by: Lambness | Jun 26, 2009 3:19:58 PM
Yes, rejecting specific factual claims made by specific religious people is fine and good and necessary, but lambasting ALL religion EVERYWHERE - religion as a general category - is unscientific, dare I say, fundamentalist behavior, and turns a blind eye to a ubiquitous aspect of the human experience.
Posted by: DavidG | Jun 26, 2009 3:33:09 PM
David G,
I disagree. I see all religions as fundamentally dishonest in that they make truth claims that are at worst, absurd, and at best not supported by evidence. Ethics and philosophy are entirely different, in that they are based on reason, as is science. That religion has co opted morality and ethics, which really do have value, does not alter the dishonesty at the heart of all religion.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 3:47:03 PM
J. Hawkins -
I don't think you realize the scope of the claim you're making. It's still an unscientific claim, and you can't refute that. Where is the evidence that, as you say, "all religions [are] fundamentally dishonest"? You may provide an exhaustive list of religious claims that are either specious or demonstrably false, but "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'". You may prove that a given religious community is making truth claims that are false, but that is not the same as demonstrating that ALL religion is doing this.
Posted by: DavidG | Jun 26, 2009 3:53:56 PM
See also:
http://underverse.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-neo-atheism-pseudo-science.html
Posted by: DavidG | Jun 26, 2009 3:56:47 PM
David G, Here is one of the main definitions of religion from the OED:
5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
There is no evidence for any higher power "controlling our destiny and entitled to our obedience" Now if you do not accept this definition, then I think you are stretching the definition of religion beyond reasonable limits, as the article implies.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 4:02:11 PM
Damn, Sean's really stepping up his controversy game lately. But he does it with such matter-of-factness and civility that you really want to believe that he's not making the same loose philosophical assumptions (which many have pointed out rather astutely in the discussions on this site) that almost all of the other scientistic writers of the day either continually ignore or call hair-splitting. It's even sadder when they have degrees or professorships in Philosophy. Is it possible that the 3QD discussion regulars actually have a leg up on these vaunted scholars and intellectuals? Not that I want to undercut my peoples. It's just that like many others we too want idols to whom we can point and say "there is a fine example of one who does not allow personal politics or the selling of an idea to undermine their principles". But what do I know?
Posted by: mentalelevation | Jun 26, 2009 4:07:21 PM
Ok, now we're getting somewhere! That's a specific definition of religion that I would say is indeed refutable.
However, that exceedingly Euro-centric definition pretty much rules out Buddhism (and arguably Hinduism) as a religion.
My big beef with neo-atheist anti-religion crusades is that they are driven by emotion, esp. the emotional revulsion to living among believers who oppose scientific advancement and reject a scientific worldview. I can totally sympathize with that experience. But we err if we let them get under your skin too much. There is certainly a war to be waged against those specific people who oppose scientific advancement on religious grounds, or who wish to drag the world down in their apocalyptic mythology, but we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we fail to recognize religion not as an alien ("supernatural") force imposed from outside, but as a naturally occurring byproduct of the human mind and social development. Seen in that light, that religion arises naturally, it becomes much harder to entertain the notion that it can be so easily dismissed merely by disproving its factual claims.
Not having easy access to the OED at hand, I'd like to see the rest of the full definition from the OED. Seems like it has more to say.
Posted by: DavidG | Jun 26, 2009 4:11:04 PM
Early humans worshiping the sun because obviously the energy, a word they wouldn't have used, of life mostly all comes from there, and clearly the strength of its brightness and warmth are central to nearly all living things, especially mammals.
It was an easy mistake to assume the observable east-west passage of the sun and moon - on nearly identical tracks and with the truly astonishing coincidence of both celestial bodies occupying a nearly precisely identical .5 degrees of celestial arc - meant they were same-size bodies with very different attributes.
We, in our sophistication and maturity, know this to be a kind of childish mistake.
But the power of the sun still drives all earthly life.
That the sky is not blue but only seems so is right in there with that.
But the false assumption based on appearance alone that space is a black empty void is something science has still not delivered us from all the way. Clearly, on reasoned thought, starlight is virtually everywhere in the not-black-and-empty-after-all universe.
That's a lot of energy. Assuming that it powers nothing at all is fine, if you're doing the whole thing one step at a time you wait until it gets proved. It seems silly to assume that there is no higher complexity to existence than Richard Dawkins' brain though. Given all that observable energy and how long it's been around. And that's just from the local anthro-sized perspective.
How big does this thing get?
Answer: It goes all the way.
That the institutions that now deliver religious "truths" to a confused and poorly educated public are mistaken about many things and self-aggrandizing in their mistakeness, and have as well histories of oppression and morally grotesque bigotry in defense of that mistakeness, is an important fact, but the role of religion shouldn't be confused with the role of science.
Science, at its finest, begins from the known and proceeds, ideally, toward the unknown with rigor and integrity; religion, at its finest, seeks to establish and maintain a conversation with what's out there already, whatever it is, even if it's essentially uncategorizable except as "unknown". religion begins from the premise there's something out there. Science proceeds from the Cartesian, that until proven ipso facto nothing can be said to exist.
Specific religions reinterpret their mandate along selfish lines and proceed into egregious error. Specific scientists - see for example the horrific Dr. Joseph Mengele, scientist, or the viciously smart Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, scientist - reinterpret their mandate along equally selfish lines. If all religion is to answer for the incompetence and venality of some religions, science and scientists may as well be taken and judged in one lump too.
Or not. Better to go the other way.
The goals of science and religion are not incompatible nor are they competitive, and they were both once part of the same posture of attentive wonder we brought to all things.
We've lost that. We need to get it back.
Carroll's as fatuous and bigoted in his cooly modern way as Jerry Falwell or the Pope is in his blustery obsolete way.
There's a Darwinian aspect to this conflict that doesn't get much recognition from either camp, both pretending it's really only about the truth, about who's got it and who doesn't.
But really they're both fighting for primacy, using partial truth as a weapon. Personally I'm sick of all of them, and have begun to lose any concern I once had with their fates, any of them.
Posted by: roy belmont | Jun 26, 2009 6:08:24 PM
David G.
Here is the complete OED definition of religion:
1. a. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church.
c1200 Vices & Virtues 43 {Edh}o {edh}e {edh}ese swikele woreld habbe{edh} forlaten and serui{edh} ure drihten on religiun, hie fol{ygh}i{edh} Daniele, {edh}e hali profiete. a1300 Cursor M. 23049 {Th}ai..went {th}aim in to religiun,..For to beserue vr lauerd dright. 1362 LANGL. P. Pl. A. IX. 82 Dobet..is Ronnen in-to Religiun..And preche{th} {th}e peple seint poules wordes. 1390 GOWER Conf. III. 317 In blake clothes thei hem clothe,..And yolde hem to religion. c1449 PECOCK Repr. V. ii. 484 In oon maner religioun is..a binding vp or a bynding a{ygh}en of a mannys fre wil with certein ordinauncis,..or with vowis or oothis. c1500 Lancelot 1300 Non orderis had he of Relegioune. 1528 ROY Rede me (Arb.) 66 Ware thou never in religion? Yes so god helpe me and halydom, A dosen yeres continually. 1586 A. DAY Eng. Secretary I. (1625) 126 Forsweare thou nothing good, but building of Monasteries and entring into Religion. 1663 H. COGAN tr. Pinto's Trav. xxviii. 111 Those of the country [China] repute him for a Saint, because he ended his dayes in Religion. 1765 H. WALPOLE Otranto iv, My father..was retired into religion in the Kingdom of Naples. 1825 SOUTHEY in Q. Rev. XXXII. 364 We must enter into religion and be made nuns by will or by force. 1886 H. N. OXENHAM Mem. R. de Lisle 6 The two others..are in religion; the former entered the Order of the Good Shepherd in 1863.
transf. 1535 LYNDESAY Satyre 3673 Mariage, be my opinioun, It is better Religioun, As to be freir or Nun.
{dag}b. man, etc. of religion, one bound by monastic vows or in holy orders. Obs.
c1200 Trin. Coll. Hom. 49 {Th}is loc ne haue{edh} non to offren bute {th}ese lif-holie men of religiun. a1300 Cursor M. 29285 Qua smites preist or clerk,..or ani man of religion,..he is cursd. 13.. E.E. Allit. P. B. 7 Renkez of relygioun {th}at reden & syngen. c1380 WYCLIF Wks. (1880) 7 {Ygh}if {th}ei seyn {th}at {th}ei ben most holy and best men of religion. 1426 LYDG. De Guil. Pilgr. 3192 Somme folkys of relygyon. 1485 CAXTON Paris & V. (1868) 12 To become a man of religion.
{dag}c. house, etc. of religion, a religious house, a monastery or nunnery. Obs.
13.. Sir Beues (MS. A) 4613 An hous he made of riligioun, For to singe for sire Beuoun. 1340 Ayenb. 41 Huanne me bern{th} o{th}er brek{th} cherches..o{th}er hous of relygioun. ?a1400 Arthur 488 In Abbeys of Relygyoun {Th}at were cristien of name. c1460 FORTESCUE Abs. & Lim. Mon. xix. (1885) 155 O{th}er kynges haue ffounded byshopriches, abbeys, and o{th}er howses off relegyon. c1535 in Speed Hist. Gt. Brit. IX. cxxi. §95 (1611) 773/1 Spoiled in like maner..as the housys of Religion hath bene. 1568 GRAFTON Chron. II. 144 Many houses of relygion within the Citie..were searched for goodes of aliauntes.
2. a. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; {dag}a religious house. Now rare.
a1225 Ancr. R. 4 Rihten hire & sme{edh}en hire is of euch religiun, & of efrich ordre {th}e god, & al {th}e streng{edh}e. c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 52/192 Seint Edward cam..To an holi man {th}at {th}ere was nei{ygh} in an o{th}ur religion. 13.. E.E. Allit. P. B. 1156 His fader forloyne..feched hem wyth stren{th}e, & robbed {th}e relygioun of relykes alle. c1400 Rom. Rose 6352 Somtyme am I prioresse,..And go thurgh alle regiouns, Sekyng alle religiouns. 1483 CAXTON Gold. Leg. 426/1 Saynt Rygoberte..ordeyned a relygyon of chanounes and clerkes. 1528 CROMWELL in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) I. 322 The exchaunge to be made bitwene your colledge in Oxforde and his religion for Saundforde. a1548 HALL Chron., Hen. VIII 143 This priest..was receiued into euery Religion with Procession, as though the Legate had been there. 1568 GRAFTON Chron. II. 194 This Religion of Saint Iohns, was greatly preferred, by the fall and suppression of the Templers. 1631 WEEVER Anc. Funeral Mon. 114 If any professed in the said Religion were negligently forgotten. 1687 A. LOVELL tr. Thevenot's Trav. I. 12 A Dagger, which the King of Spain sent as a Present to the Religion. 1769 Ann. Reg. 147 Some ships of the religion of Malta. 1858 FABER Foot of Cross (1872) 70 There were several false and counterfeit religions, which had troubled the church about this time.
transf. 1497 BP. ALCOCK Mons Perfect. Biij, As hymself for his pryde and enuy was cast out of the holy relygyon of heuen.
{dag}b. collect. People of religion. Obs.
1297 R. GLOUC. (Rolls) 2812 {Th}anne {th}e religion & holi chirche wor{th} ef sone ybro{ygh}t al adoun. 1375 BARBOUR Bruce xx. 162 Till religioune of seir statis, For heill of his saull, gaf he Siluir in-to gret quantite. c1450 HOLLAND Howlat 190 Alkyn chennonis eik of vther ordouris, All maner of religioun, the less and the mair.
{dag}c. A member of a religious order. Obs.
13.. Cursor M. 22001 (Gött), Quatkin man sum euer it es..Or laued or religiun. 1303 R. BRUNNE Handl. Synne 7557 Specyaly {th}at comande{th} he.. to bysshopes, and persones, To prestys, an ou{th}er relygyons. c1325 Chron. Eng. 527 in Ritson Metr. Rom. II. 292 That on partie he sende..To thilke that were povre in londe; That other to povre religiouns; The thridde to povre cleregouns.
3. a. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Also pl., religious rites. Now rare, exc. as implied in 5.
a1225 Ancr. R. 10 Cleane religiun..is iseon & helpen widewen & federlease children & from {th}e worlde witen him cleane & unwemmed. c1250 Kent. Serm. in O.E. Misc. 29 {Th}er were vi. Ydres of stone..wer {th}o gius hem wesse for clenesse and for religiun. a1300 Cursor M. 12676 {Th}is iacob..was o gret religiun, Hali liue he ladd al-wais. 1382 WYCLIF Lev. xvi. 31 The holiday forsothe of restyng it is, and {ygh}e shulen traueil {ygh}oure soules thur{ygh} perpetuel religioun. 1553 EDEN Treat. Newe Ind. (Arb.) 27 They eate that fleshe with great religion. 1577 T. VAUTROLLIER Luther on Ep. Gal. 151 They that trust in theyr owne righteousnes, thinke to pacifie the wrath of God by their..voluntarie religion. 1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage III. i. (1614) 232 They vsed yet some Religion in gathering of their Cinamon,..sacrificing before they beganne [etc.]. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 372 The Image of a Brute, adorn'd With gay Religions full of Pomp and Gold. 1726 LEONI tr. Alberti's Archit. II. 21/2 The Ancients used to found the Walls of their Cities with the greatest religion, dedicating them to some God who was to be their guardian. 1788 GIBBON Decl. & F. xlix. V. 89 The public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple and spiritual. 1900 R. W. DIXON Hist. Ch. Eng. xxxvi. (1902) VI. 5 The religions of the religious orders..were swept away under the condemnation of superstition and abuse.
{dag}b. A religious duty or obligation. Obs.
1537 St. Papers Hen. VIII, I. II. 557 Thei thoght a religion to kepe secret, betwene God and them, certayn thinges. 1549 LATIMER 5th Serm. bef. Edw. VI (Arb.) 135 The dutye betwene man and wyfe, whiche is a holy religyon, but not religiouslye kepte.
4. a. A particular system of faith and worship.
a1300 Cursor M. 18944 In {th}at siquar was in {th}at tun Men of alkin religioun. 1340 HAMPOLE Pr. Consc. 4522 {Th}e Iewes and cristen men,..Sal {th}an..Assent in Crist als a religion. 1560 J. DAUS tr. Sleidane's Comm. 92b, They neyther allure nor compelle any man unto their Religion. 1594 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. IV. xi. §2 The church of Rome, they say,..did almost out of all religions take whatsoever had any fair and gorgeous show. 1625 B. JONSON Staple of N. II. i, I wonder what religion he is of. 1662 STILLINGFL. Orig. Sacræ II. vi. §15 Whereby we plainly see what clear evidence is given to the truth of that religion which is attested with a power of miracles. 1732 BERKELEY Alciphr. IV. §25 The Christian Religion, which pretends to teach men the knowledge and worship of God. 1791 PAINE Rights of Man (ed. 4) 79 If they are to judge of each others religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right. 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. vi. II. 65 All religions were the same to him. 1862 MAX MÜLLER Chips (1880) I. ix. 186 All important religions have sprung up in the East.
transf. 1849 LONGFELLOW Kavanagh xvi. 78 The memory of that mother had become almost a religion to her. 1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. i. 23 We hear men speak of a religion of art, of a religion of work, of a religion of civilization.
{dag}b. the Religion [after F.]: the Reformed Religion, Protestantism. Obs.
1577 F. de Lisle's Legendarie Gviij, There was a noise raised that the Admiral had endeuoured to expel the Masse, and to plant the Religion in France. 1601 R. JOHNSON Kingd. & Commw. 106 They againe are deuided into 13 Cantons, 8 whereof are catholike, the residue of the religion. 1642 HOWELL For. Trav. (Arb.) 46 They of the Religion, are now Town-lesse and Arme-lesse. a1674 CLARENDON Hist. Reb. xv. §153 Those of the Religion possessed them~selves with many arm'd Men of the Town-House.
c. religion of nature: the worship of Nature in place of a more formal system of religious belief.
1902 W. JAMES Var. Relig. Exper. iv. 91 In that ‘theory of evolution’ which..has within the past twenty-five years swept so rapidly over Europe and America, we see the ground laid for a new sort of religion of Nature, which has entirely displaced Christianity from the thought of a large part of our generation. 1961 D. G. JAMES Matthew Arnold i. 22 The essay itself is given up chiefly to a warm exposition of her religion of nature.
5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
c1535 in Burnet Hist. Ref. (1679) I. Rec. III. 140 That true Religion is not contained in Apparel,..singing, and such other kind of Ceremonies; but in cleanness of mind [etc.]. 1560 J. DAUS tr. Sleidane's Comm. 46b, Amonges the Suyces encreased dayly contention for Religion. 1597 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. V. lxv. §16 The tribe of Reuben..were..accused of backwardness in religion. 1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 20 True Religion is the right way of reconciling and reuniting man to God. 1651 HOBBES Leviath. I. xii. 52 There are no signes..of Religion, but in Man onely. 1704 NELSON Fest. & Fasts ix. (1739) 587 It keeps a lively Sense of Religion upon our Minds. 1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. V. ii. (1869) II. 459 So slender a security as the probity and religion of the inferior officers of revenue. 1832 H. MARTINEAU Hill & Valley iii. 45 The best part of religion is to imitate the benevolence of God to man. 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. ii. I. 176 About two thousand ministers of religion..were driven from their benefices in one day. 1877 SPARROW Serm. vii. 90 True religion, in its essence and in kind, is the same everywhere.
personified. 1597 SHAKES. Lover's Compl. 250 Religious love put out Religion's eye. 1607 {emem} Timon III. ii. 83 Religion grones at it. c1652 MILTON Sonn. to Sir H. Vane, Therfore on thy firme hand religion leanes In peace, & reck'ns thee her eldest son. 1717 POPE Eloïsa 39 There stern Religion quench'd th' unwilling flame. 1781 COWPER Expost. 492 Religion, if in heavenly truths attired, Needs only to be seen to be admired. 1844 A. B. WELBY Poems (1867) 72 'Tis then that sweet Religion's holy wing Broods o'er the spirit.
b. to get religion: see GET v. 12d.
{dag}c. Awe, dread. Obs. rare{em}1.
a1642 BEDELL Erasmus in Fuller Abel Rediv. (1867) I. 78 He took a general view of most parts of Italy as far as Cumae, where (not without some religion and horror)..he beheld the cave of Sibylla.
6. transf. {dag}a. Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment. Obs.
1592 SHAKES. Rom. & Jul. I. ii. 93 When the deuout religion of mine eye Maintaines such falshood, then turne teares to fire. 1600 {emem} A.Y.L. IV. i. 201 Ros... Keep your promise. Orl. With no lesse religion, then if thou wert indeed my Rosalind. 1630 B. JONSON New Inn I. i, Out of a religion to my charge, And debt profess'd, I have made a self-decree. 1640 HABINGTON Edw. IV 182 The ancient league observ'd with so much Religion betweene England and the Low Countries. 1691 WOOD Ath. Oxon. I. Pref., An old Word is retain'd by an Antiquary with as much Religion as a Relick.
b. In phr. to make (a) religion of or to make (it) religion to, to make a point of, to be scrupulously careful ({dag}not) to do something.
(a) 1599 B. JONSON Cynthia's Rev. V. ii, Let mortals learn To make religion of offending heaven. 1622 PEACHAM Compl. Gent. 44 Nor bee so foolish precise as a number are, who make it Religion to speake otherwise then this or that Author.
(b) 1606 SHAKES. Ant. & Cl. V. ii. 199 By your command (Which my loue makes Religion to obey) I tell you this. 1869 W. M. BAKER New Timothy 199 (Cent.), Its acidity sharpens Mr. Wall's teeth.., yet, under the circumstances, he makes a religion of eating it.
{dag}7. The religious sanction or obligation of an oath, etc. Obs.
a1619 M. FOTHERBY Atheom. I. vi. §2 (1622) 42 Vnder the religion of an Oath. c1645 HOWELL Lett. (1650) II. 117 According to the rules and religion of friendship. a1694 TILLOTSON Serm. (1742) II. xxii. 65 If the religion of an oath will not oblige men to speak truth, nothing will. 1704 J. BLAIR in W. S. Perry Hist. Coll. Amer. Col. Ch. (1870) I. 107, I shall under the same religion of an oath acquaint your Lordships with..what I remember.
8. attrib. and Comb., as religion-complex, -dresser, -game, -making, -mender, -monger, -shop; religion-arousing, -infectious, -masked, -raptured adjs.; {dag}religion man = sense 1b.
1957 J. S. HUXLEY Relig. without Revelation (rev. ed.) vii. 174 Potential *religion-arousing objects. 1922 Brit. Jrnl. Psychology Oct. 117 Such complexes clearly exist in the normal mind with perfectly free access to consciousness, e.g. the ‘*religion complex’. a1640 DAY Peregr. Schol. (1881) 72 This new vicker was made out of an olde ffrier that had bene twice turnd at a *Religion-dressers. 1961 J. WILSON Reason & Morals ii. 120 Thus J. R. Lucas..even puts in a good word for the *religion-game. 1706 A. SHIELDS Inq. Ch. Communion (1747) 51 Such as are..*religion-infectious, like to spread and leaven all in communion with such a congregation. 1888 MRS. H. WARD R. Elsmere xlix, We are in the full stream of *religion-making. c1430 LYDG. Min. Poems (Percy Soc.) 57 *Religioune men alwey wonnyng in the Court,..It may wele ryme, but it accordith nought. 1633 FORD 'Tis Pity V. iii, Your *religion-masked sorceries. 1824 W. E. ANDREWS Crit. Rev. Fox's Bk. Mart. I. 380 The irreligious and blasphemous pretentions of those *religion-menders. 1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 366 The Antiquaries..who have searched more narrowly into this up~start *Religion-Monger. 1718 Entertainer 253 The Fathers [are represented as]..a Parcel of old passive Religion-Mongers. 1796 SOUTHEY Lett. fr. Spain 341 The fervid soul of that blest Maid, *Religion-raptur'd. 1811 L. M. HAWKINS Countess & Gertrude (1812) II. xxvii. 79 Well may scoffers talk of the *religion-shops of London.
By the way, I was thinking of Socrates's comment: "The only thing I know is that I don't know". It seems to me that this could be mistaken for ignorance when it is actually wisdom. In short:
To know nothing is ignorance.
To know you know nothing is intelligence.
To know that no one knows anything is wisdom.
To pretend you know something when you know nothing is religion.
Posted by: J. Hawkins | Jun 26, 2009 6:45:25 PM
Congratulations to Carlos on his thorough victory over his straw man.
Posted by: Christopher | Jun 26, 2009 7:22:29 PM
Hey thanks! That means a lot coming from you Chris :-)
I'm waiting for a refutation of my conclusions, if that is what they are indeed proposing. It certainly seems like it is. I was also somewhat inspired by Dawkin's analysis of the Anthropic Principle in The God Delusion improbable odds, given vast opportunity yields N. Thus improbable odds, given infinite opportunity yields N∞
To submit that what they are proposing constitutes a miracle is not a strawman position at all though. It is simply definitional.
Posted by: Carlos | Jun 26, 2009 9:07:13 PM
In my view science and religion are compatible.
Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
AND
‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.
Posted by: a.k.satsangi | Aug 21, 2009 6:20:36 AM
a. k. satsangi what a fucking dumb, stupid comment is that? It is garbage.
Posted by: Decium | Aug 21, 2009 7:07:54 AM
Decium, I feel pity on you. Perhaps you can understand well the meening of fucking, dumb, stupid and garbage. This may be an approved language of your culture. Thanks
Posted by: a.k.satsangi | Sep 3, 2009 5:13:58 AM
Post a comment