Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: Reply to comment. A Journal only to get around junk filter 15

Original comment is here.

Philosophy does use logic but it is also the

OK, let's try a matrix of disciplines:

Study........|..Logic...| Faith

When looking at the tools side, Religion is opposite both Science and Philosophy, but Philosophy and Science are identical. However, when looking at the application side, Philosophy is similar to Religion, in that they are both mostly non-physical studies, yet Science is opposite them, being a mostly physical study. Each discipline *could* be used in any of the two its connected to (and maybe the fourth) but would not be most suited for that area. (I am still trying to figure out what is best for the Physical/Faith quadrant.)

So, which Philosophy is closer to, is a matter of the application. Since the application here is origins of fact, rather than belief, Philosophy is closer to Science in this case.

Before Socrates, they were not distinguishable from each other.

Yes they were. Philosophy uses logic, Religion uses belief. They were *extremely* distinguishable. Socrates himself was killed on the claim that he didn't worship well, ostensibly because he used logic instead of faith. The early scientists used both philosophy and empirical evidence, because they are both logical. If anything, the religious used Philosophy because most people were strongly religious, and therefore the non-physical was more important than the physical, resulting in Phylosophy being more popular than Science.

Perhaps we are getting caught up with our phraseology a bit


I was only considering the "common school" when using the word science. I was also trying to narrow down the definition of what science is designed to do. To science, it is a "fact" if it is observable and reproducible. Since UFO sightings are unproducable, it fails the test of fact for the "common school" of science.

So, if the whole world saw a UFO, it wouldn't be a Scientific "fact"?

When Einstein predicted the viewability of some star during an eclipse, and it was seen *once* it wasn't Science?

And on what basis would anyone try to reproduce anything, if the first time it was seen it wasn't a reproduction, thus invalidating its observation?

*Anything* observed is notable in Science. Whether people go further into it within the discipline of Science, depends on whether or not it was reproducible. Basically, the first step in Science is observation, then second is reproducibility. Though hypothesizing and predicting can sometimes replace the first two steps.

I assume you believe that there are rules that govern the universe, regardless of origin. Therefore, is it impossible for men to use science as a tool to "guess" some of the rules?

They can guess, but it is a guess. The guess is then tested via the Scientific method. And until it is tested, it is a guess. Science never discovers rules. The rules are guessed and tested.

For someone who has no clue about particle physics, understanding how muons and bosons are formed is a process of discovering the rules.

Once the first person guesses and validates it via the Scientific method, the *person* discovers the rules from presentation by another person.

To me, religion is something used by men to understand a God and follow what they term to be His will.

First mistake. :)

Religion has nothing to do with G-d. (Though almost all *current* religions do.) A religion is a belief structure. Whether in G-d, in Science, or anything. If the belief is the tool that one uses to discovers truth, and when in conflict, overrules truths presented by other rules, the person is using the discipline of Religion. (Though that fourth quadrant may change that a little.)

It is something used by men to facilitate their relationship with God.

Second mistake. :-)

It is something used by men to provide truths via Faith. What the Faith is in, is irrelevant.

The code of conduct given to man by God (commandments, covenants, ordinances, etc.) may be incorporated into a religion, but in the end, it is a direct relationship between God and us as individuals.

Third mistake. :P You are describing very specific western Religions. That is not what all religions are like.

An oracle so described could certainly exist, however it is usually not the case.

Now *that* is a religious statement. :^D

religion is just a tool.

Religion is a discipline. Faith is a tool.

Religion itself is not necessarily imperfect, only when it is used by man because man is imperfect. In other words, the use of religion by man can produce imperfect results.

That's your belief again. My belief, is that Religion not used by man is imperfect, since the entire world was created *for* man. And, in all cases where my religion was tried, I believe it produced superb results.

So how would you use religion to calculate the volume of a cube? I am interested. :-)

Um, what's a cube? <G>

Please explain. I am interested in what you mean by "religion has givens".

Creationist religions have a given that the world was "created" by a being. In that religion, therefore, it is a fact that the world was created by a being.

That some things are "good" and others "bad" is a given in various religions.

That the Earth is a sphere is a given in some religions.

Legends and stories of old are givens in many religions.

There are plenty of givens. And they are all truths or facts as far as the religion is concerned. So much so, that belief that it is a fact can be an integral part of the religion.


Possible new chart:


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reply to comment. A Journal only to get around junk filter

Comments Filter:
  • Faith (Score:3, Insightful)

    by turg ( 19864 ) * <turg AT winston DOT org> on Thursday June 05, 2003 @10:31PM (#6129039) Journal

    What is your definition of faith here? Seems to me like you are using faith and religion as almost synonyms and that has you going in circles a bit

    The truth is that 99.9% of the things we know are based purely on faith. I myself have no personal experience (e.g. I have not done any experiments) that would prove to me the existence of atoms and molecules (or of bacteria, etc.); or that the earth is round and orbits the sun; or that the continents of Africa or Asia actually exist, or that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Empire. I believe that these things are true because I trust the sources of the information. That's faith.

    What people often mean when they talk about faith is the areas of belief where there is not a consensus -- issues where one person's faith is different than another. Your chart is incorrect in saying that faith is a tool only used for religion. In fact, it is most essential in science. Otherwise, each scientist would have to start from scratch -- reinvent the wheel over and over, and could not build on what others had discovered.

    Your discussion partner also has a definition turned around -- science is not the source of facts but the source of explanation for facts (e.g. people knew that things fall down long before Newton started talking about gravity)

    • What is your definition of faith here?

      Actually I don't know fully yet. I'd definitely like some input on it.

      At its core, it uses something similar to value-judgements, that is, that not everything is true/false, rather greater value/lesser value. However logic judgement are used, but it would seem that when value-judgements and logic-judgements are in conflict, the value-judgements overrule.

      Also Faith can be used to make all things fall within the realm of the religion. The "flavor" of Faith depends on
      • Hmm. I'm still not clear about your definition of faith and now I'm confused about your definition of belief and tool.

        To believe something is to know/think that it is true. This applies to proven things and unproven. I believe that I am sitting in my office typing on a computer. I believe that the sun is shining outside the window. I believe that there is such a place as Los Angeles. The first two are things I can verify/prove for myself. The third is something I accept on faith -- I haven't seen it for mys

        • definition of belief and tool

          Belief is what takes a proposed truth from a discipline (such as Science or Religion) and elevates it to Believed Truth.

          A tool is what is used inside the discipline to make judgements. Science uses Logic on its observations and tests to judge their veracity. Religion uses something else. I was calling it Faith, though I am debating if it is just a value-judgement. But, unlike traditional value-judgements, the core values do not have to be set by the self.

          I believe that I am
    • Hmm.. it may also be the belief in values set outside the self. See my reply to Com2Kid below. I am trying to figure this out, so I can waver a lot.
  • The code of conduct given to man by God (commandments, covenants, ordinances, etc.) may be incorporated into a religion, but in the end, it is a direct relationship between God and us as individuals.

    Third mistake. :P You are describing very specific western Religions. That is not what all religions are like.

    What, pray tell, do you mean by "western religions"? Mayan religion? Mormonism? ;-)

    Well, I know what you mean, but calling them "western" is a misnomer. The Ten Commandments were given to Moshe on

    • They are western in that they are not eastern. Eastern referring to the Orient.
      • The Orient generally means the Far East (i.e., eastern East, although one definition [] says that orient is synonomous with the entire eastern hemisphere). Israel is in the Middle East. So Judaism and Christianity should be considered Eastern religions. The West consists only of western Europe and the American continents.
        • So, I was using a *far* reaching term? :)
        • Actually, imagine a line dividing the areas that practice the "western" religions from the "eastern" religion. The line will be (somewhere around) inbetween the far-east and the middle east. Those to the west of the line are called "western religions" and those to ther east are called "eastern religions".
  • (Although you don't read me anymore because I said a curse in a 'reactionary' way to something bad)
    I have an einstein quote that is rather fitting here.

    Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
    • I am still trying to figure out what is best for the Physical/Faith quadrant.)

    Any of the world religions that employee magic(k)s

    Parts of Catholicism might also count. . . .

    Oh, and Philosophy and Religion are the same thing, it just depends on how coherent of a form your "Universal Oneness" factor takes up. If it coagulates beyond a certain degree to a single (or a number of) preset stereotypes, congratulations, you have yourself a church!

    Really now, Shintoism is either a Philosophy or a Religion depen

    • >I am still trying to figure out what is best for the Physical/Faith quadrant.)

      Any of the world religions that employee magic(k)s

      Interesting thought.

      We may be able to extend that past religion, and just to any magic that is not based on the a factual study of what works and what doesn't. But hopw does the Faith part fit in? Hmm.. this is food for thought.

      Oh, and Philosophy and Religion are the same thing,

      If you don't care about which tool is used, they are the same. However, since in this chart
    • Now that I think about it some more. Magic is Science. It's a logical analysis of the application of certain powers/forces.

      However, maybe what I am calling Faith, is really Values. Or, a specific set of values.

      (See the journal "Update".)

      Also, the other axis has changed to be the Discerner. If the person discerns for himself the use of Logic (such as saying things must be repeatable) or the core-values are set by the person, the Discerner is one's self. However, if the values are provided by another (say

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!