>> I think the divine aspect is largely the make/break criteria [[in 
>> what is or isn't a religion]].

> Wikipedia doesn't include this, necessarily:

> "A communal system for the coherence of belief -- typically focused 
> on a
> system of thought [...] that is considered to be [...] of the 
> highest
> truth."
>
> No divine aspect in this phrase.
>
> Besides, defining "religion" with "divine" just shifts the problem 
> to
> "divine". There's a point where you have to show colors :)


As often, I don't think we disagree greatly (B,IMBW) - just have to 
hammer out the words used :-).
"... of the highest truth." can, to me, ONLY mean "divine". Tnis is a 
point that an atheist may dsisagree on (even though they would be 
incorrect to do so :-) ). They would only agree if they acknowledged 
that without a divine source / external reference there cannot be a 
"highest truth" in the moral sense. [There can be 'highest truths' in 
the hard sciences observational sense - eg "things tend to fall 
towards the planet centre".]. Many great (and not so great :-) 0 
atheists acknowledge the total lack of  foundation for "highest 
truths" without an external reference = divine. Some (eg James) insist 
to the end  that you can have meaning, "truth" etc without any 
external "divine" reference. While we speak the same language and use 
the same logic system we are not able to rationally able to convey our 
points of view to the other party thus far at least :-).

>> Genuine science is religion free.

> That's recursive, as long as we're still discussing whether the 
> definition
> of religion includes science. And adds another distinction that 
> needs to be
> defined: "genuine" science.

I was being sloppy for the sake of brevity.
What I was trying to convey was the "fact" that
AS:
        science claims to deal only with the measurable and testable 
and claims to shun that which is based solely on opinion, desire or 
belief
THEN:
        this stance should be carried through to all aspects of its 
practice if it is to be consistent.

I was alluding to the 'fact' that many scientific positions are built 
on house-of-cards belief systems which are not testable or provabel 
and are opinion based but that the proponents seek to criticise just 
such aspects of other systems such as religious beliefs. "Science" as 
we know it generally now must be both irreligious in its practice AND 
have no opinion, fair or foul about matters which it is not qualified 
to deal with. Many 'scientists' forget or do not know this and think 
that the concept "deals only with testable measurable things" means 
"only testable measurable things exist or have merit. The latter 
perpsective may (or may not) be true BUT science is unable to deal 
with it.

> Science is the belief in that there is a way to describe how the 
> world
> works and that what is called the scientific method leads to an
> approximation to the truth about how the world works. No? Should fit 
> the
> above.

No :-).
As above.
Science is a system of attempting to describe the describable. It does 
not, at core, claim that the indescribable exists or does not or is 
valid or not. Just as the Copengagen view of Quantum Mechanics not 
only does not seek to know what happens between a triggering event and 
when its wave functioin collapses to deliver a probabilistic outcome, 
but INSISTS that the question has no meaning to it.  So Science 
must/should INSIST that it has no opinion on that which it's rules do 
not cover. But the temptation is for it to try and expand into the 
"gaps". Or for its proponents to insist that gaps not only do not but 
cannot exist. This leads to fully self fulfilling positions - if 
nothing is inexplicable then anything inexplicable represents an error 
in the use of the tools or in the data gathered. .  It is not 
science's place to be concerned that if you allow the metaphysical the 
slightest foorhold then you will be buried in charlatans, swamis, 
gurus, televangelists and worse (if indeed there can be anything worse 
than a televangelist*). It may be lamentable that such is the case BUT 
as soon as people start abusing the system because they do not like 
what happens outside it you are on the path to the scientifice 
equivalent of rendition/abu graib/ suspension of habeus corpus and the 
like - ie as soon as you seek to fight the enemy with the enemy's 
illegal tools you start to become like the enemy yourself. This is NOT 
meant to be a backdoor descent into political sniping but an apt 
metaphor that most who have waded through this far will appreciate 
well enough. Just as attempts to protect democracy start to founder 
when you use anti-democratic means to defned it, so too science starts 
to lose its way when it descends to non scientific means to defend 
itself against the non-scientific. To be just a tiny bit specific, too 
specific being dangerous :-), IF your major model makes lots of common 
sense but is NOT fully testable / falsifiable but it does produce good 
predictions quite often, if you pretend that it is in fact fully and 
rigorously falsifiable and yell loudly and wave your hands when people 
suggest otherwise, then sooner or later the emperor will find he has 
no clothes on. IF your system deals with vast periods of time, and you 
cannot test certain aspects with certainty without a time machine, you 
can either admit the unavoidable problem which is no fault of yours or 
your theory or model, or you can pretend it doesn't exist. The day you 
do the latter you queue to join the dinosaurs. As alas all too many 
scientists have done. Hence, the corollary of  my "Genuine science is 
religion free" - "Science which contains aspects of religious 
methodology within itself is not genuine science". Which dosn't make 
it wrong per se - just not science.




        Russell



. 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist