Comments appreciated — Art48

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. — Astorre

In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share. — Astorre

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is religion. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid. — Pieter R van Wyk

There if anywhere should a person live his life, beholding that Beauty.

Plato, Symposium 211d

The Platonic philosophical theology unifies us with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with God, by explaining that a higher reality or God is present in this world and in us inasmuch as it inspires our efforts toward inner freedom, love, beauty, truth, and other ideals. These efforts give us a unity, as “ourselves,” that we can’t have insofar as we’re the slaves of our genes, hormones, opinions, self-importance, and so forth. For in contrast to our genes and so forth, which are implanted in us or are reactions to what surrounds us, efforts toward ideals like inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth are more likely to reflect our own choice. So that if anything reflects “us,” ourselves, and not just our surroundings, they do.

So through ideals like inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth, something that’s “higher,” because it’s free and fully “us,” is in us. Since we often fall short of it and lapse into merely reactive or merely bodily functioning, we can call this higher self-determination, by contrast, “divine.” And there’s nothing that we know better or more directly than we know this inner choice that we make, to be either automatic and reactive or free. and self-determining. So we have every reason to regard the choice as real, and our awareness of it as knowledge. And since “mysticism” is the name for the doctrine that we have direct knowledge of a higher reality or God, and this Platonic train of thought shows how we have such knowledge through awareness of our inner choices, it shows how mysticism in this sense is entirely rational.1 Since we often fall short of inner freedom, love, beauty, and truth, they have the “transcendence” that we expect of religion. They are inspiring as well as rational, “above” us as well as “in” us. But what’s remarkable is that because this transcendence is rational, it’s a feature not only of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate but also of science. In fact, because science is one of the ways in which we choose to pursue truth and thus transcend our genes, hormones, favorite opinions, and self-importance, science is a part or an aspect of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate...

So rather than inherently conflicting with mysticism and religion, science is a part of the higher reality that mysticism and religion celebrate. Religion and science both transcend by seeking inner freedom and truth. It’s just that science, being restricted to what we can know by scientific methods, is narrower. It’s only one aspect of the transcendent freedom, love, beauty, and truth, the higher reality, that religion or religion in the making celebrates. This unusual way of understanding the relation between science and religion can free us from a good deal of mental fog and fruitless disputation.

But the relation of science to religion isn’t the only familiar issue that the Platonic higher reality transforms. It’s probably evident from what I’ve said that the Platonic higher reality reveals an intimate connection between “fact” and “value.” A world in which there was no pursuit of values like love, beauty, and truth, or (as Plato puts it) “the Good,” would not be self-determining or fully “itself.” If being fully “itself” is the most intensive kind of reality, such a world would lack what’s most real. By directing our attention to the role of value in what’s most real, Platonism shows the limits of the “disenchanted” and “value-free” account of reality that we associate with scientific objectivity. Important though it is, the reality that science identifies is not the ultimate reality. The reality apart from itself that science in its normal activities identifies is not, in fact, the ultimate reality of which science itself, as a pursuit of truth and thus of self-determination, is an aspect. When science becomes aware of this ultimate reality to which it contributes, and which depends on values such as truth as well as freedom, love, and beauty, it becomes evident that the ultimate “fact” or reality is not actually independent of “value.”

Robert M. Wallace - Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible. — Pieter R van Wyk

I agree with SJ Gould, Wittgenstein, Spinoza et al that 'religion & science' are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), or in other words ... — 180 Proof

It seems to me that Indian thought avoids a lot of the problems that dominate Western discourse on this issue. As I see it, the West suffers from a sort of self-inflicted metaphysical wound that stems from the Reformation, that results in a truncated world-view and closed off epistemology that has approached solipsism at the limit. Indeed, so much of modern thought has been an attempt to escape this solipsism (or a sort of moral solipsism)—to build a bridge between us and the world—or else to learn to live as self-enclosed, contingent entities. In the midst of such a "crisis" (as it is often called), any bridge beyond the sensible becomes "a bridge too far." — Count Timothy von Icarus

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile: — Gnomon

Sorry, but these are both rubbish definitions. — L'éléphant

to be called it science — L'éléphant

after applying the scientific procedure — L'éléphant

Religion — L'éléphant

asks you to see the truth of life. — L'éléphant

You claim NOMA is "baloney" but don't even try to make your case. — 180 Proof

That may be why there are approximately 4200 different Christian denominations in the world today. Which is evidence that Science & Religion mix like oil & water. :smile: — Gnomon
The evidence you presented are most compelling. Thank you. — Pieter R van Wyk

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible. — Pieter R van Wyk

Mysticism (not Religion) --- i.e. personal, not social — Gnomon

CAN PHILOSOPHY RECONCILE IDEAL and REAL WORLDVIEWS? — Gnomon

• Science:= whatever is discovered using the scientific method. An absolutely useless self-referencing definition.
• Religion:= faith. "It was used (perhaps still is) to explain the unexplainable and to give reason to the unreasonable. At the same time, it was used to enforce civil obedience."
• Philosophy:= The quest for truth. A truth that cannot be find. " ... by who or how is the decision made that a reason is sufficient for a fact to be true - scientists or politicians?" Perhaps a religious leader or maybe a philosopher?

However, if you look at those doctrinal magisteria as a venn diagram of human wisdom, you may see a small area of overlap, which could be labeled as Philosophy : Rational but not Empirical ; Ideal but not necessarily Real. Plato and Aristotle worked together, but one focused on metaphysical Ideality (abstract & utopian) while the other emphasized physical Reality (practical & pragmatic). Yet their disparate philosophies did overlap in the middle : pursuit of Truth. — Gnomon

To interpret nature’s complexity as chaos is the oldest arrogance of our species. We call what exceeds our comprehension “weird,” “nonlocal,” or “probabilistic,” as though nature had changed its dialect merely to mock our intellect. But perhaps the only mockery is our presumption that comprehension is the criterion of truth.

Science, when humble, is noble; but when it imagines itself infallible, it becomes theology under a different name — worshiping equations as scripture, and declaring miracles wherever they no longer work.

In my understanding, religion is a collection of humans subscribing to a similar form of mysticism — Pieter R van Wyk

However a difference of course is that science is empirically testable — Mijin