Jump to content

Physics and Philosophy (Religion) Have Overlapping Interests


Recommended Posts

@Cynique, I'm not attempting to speak for Sean; I'm elaborating on his statement.  If religion is not fundamentally philosophical what is it?

 

@Delano, the reason I shared this quote is that Sean is saying there is indeed an overlap between science and philosophy (I'd as argue religion) when you ask question like do we have free will.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if Sean had wanted to say "religion", he would've said it.   Religion, which brings to mind the worship of a deity, is more akin to mythology and spirituality.  Philosophy pertains to schools of thought in regard to life and reality.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy asks why are we here. Religion asks what is the purpose of life. Science asks how things work. 

 

So the nature of their queries show the subsequent alignment . Which is interesting because I agree with yet it weakens my argument re the similarities between science and religion. Although I can borrow @Mel Hopkins argument that what the participants do doesn't represent or perhaps reflect the organisation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique for the second time I'm using the word "religion."  Not all religions worship a deity.  Are you trying to say that religion does not address "life and reality?"

 

We were talking about science being a religion; a notion I initially rejected.  However perhaps in a way it is, or can be.  So while Sean did not use the word religion his recognizing that there is overlap with philosophy -- indeed there must be got me thinking a bit differently about our conversations.

 

@Delano, I don;t think any of these subjects are as cut and dried as you've described.  Sean's quote in he video explains why.  In fact it you watch the entire documentary it does into more detail why 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

for the second time I'm using the word "religion."  Not all religions worship a deity.  Are you trying to say that religion does not address "life and reality?"

I  don't think that religion addresses reality. It's about faith. And that could very well be why Sean used the word philosophy rather than religion, - perhaps because he doesn't think that  one per cent of science is about religion but rather about philosophy which addresses life. You are putting your spin on his words, making religion interchangeable with philosophy.   

 

Your sacred Merriam-Webster defines religion thusly:  the belief in a god or in a group of gods. : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

 

What religion do you know that doesn't worship a deity. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique for the 3rd time I'm speaking for myself not Sean.  Why are you having trouble with this today?  Del answered your question., but aren't you familiar with the word "Nontheist?" 

 

I'm not making philosophy interchangeable with religion any more than I am making it interchangeable with science.  What I'm saying is that there is overlap.  I'm not saying Sean said that, but his statement sparked the my statement.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Troy OK.  i find Sean's statement unremarkable, since i see no conflict between physics and philosophy. So you and Del can discuss amongst yourselves since i'm not up for another marathon exchange that involves parsing words.  

 

Quakers are a sect, - a way of life whose members may or may not believe in god.  The term nontheistic religion strikes me as being an oxymoron. But,  of course, i'm just speaking for myself. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that Quakers are a "sect".  To inform me that they are a religious sect was unnecessary because that's the definition of sect. There are no other types of sects.

 

Sect: a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.

 

Redundant:  exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique I based my statement upon you rejecting the definition of nontheistic: "The term nontheistic religion strikes me as being an oxymoron."

 

I presume this is because your definition of religion is to tied to the notion of a deity.  This is a limited version of what religion is or could be.  Maybe this is why you reject my statement that religion and science overlap, a little, in the questions they ask. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del I never said the Quakers weren't a nontheistic religion.  I conceded that they are a sect.  (Presumably the religion they are a sect of is Christianity.)  

 

@Troy. i did not reject the definition of nontheistic, mostly because neither you nor Del posted a definition of it.  This adjective, however, is self-explanatory but to me  it seemed contradictory to use it to modify the noun "religion",  given the definition of religion, all of which was why i called it an "oxymoron", and i said i was "just speaking for myself" in calling it this.  (i didn't see any definition of religion that strayed far from the one i posted. All information on its being something other than god-centered seemed inconclusive to the point of being controversial.)   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del I was not familiar with the term "non-theistic".  Once you and Troy used it and i looked it up, i accepted that Quakers are a non-theistic  religion which is categorized as a "sect".  What more acknowledgment do you need?? Or should i say what more validation do you need. So, OK, when i asked Troy "what religion did he know that didn't worship a god?" you supplied the answer: "Quakers."

 

I never thought of Quakers as a religious group. I thought they were like the Amish or even Zen Buddhists; just a "cult" who followed a certain way of life. Even as i was posing that question, however, i wondered if either of you would say "Unitarians" because I'd considered becoming one of them since they do not believe in the Trinity. 

 

Obviously, i was wedded to the common definition of religion.  And i still am curious as to why such a word came into being since it encompasses 2 different disciplines. The color "black" is "black". When it blends with the color "white",  it is called "gray".  "Not "white-black".  Non-theistic stands on its own and I, personally, have problem with calling it a "religion".   But i'm never too old to learn.  Thank you for enlightening me.  

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stumped when you posted it. Then a checked the Hinduism the have many Gods but seem to worship the creating God  Brahma  less than the destroying God Shiva. 

It's seems like a reversal of roles. Me asking you for clarity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique, I would not the definition to the word, because I just assume people can look them up.  I look up words all the time, something my understanding of a word has a different nuance that the way someone else uses it.  Like the word religion.  Using a broader definition of religion is why my stance on science becoming a new religion (from @zaji's post) has loosed.  

 

Now science is in no way anything like Christianity... I'm not saying that. But if is becoming a new  form of religion for some.  It helps people make sense of this very mysterious universe.... no deity required.  Though for some Feynman comes really close :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites


While not all philosophy is religion, religion falls under the category OF philosophy.
Right up there with "creed".


One of the ways that philosophy and physics overlap is how the dominant philosophy of a particular society "sets the tone" for the premises and hypotheses of scientific endeavors.

For an example OUTSIDE the realm of physics:

Say I'm a social scientist or sociologist.

And the society that I'm practicing in is predominantly monogamous and promotes monogamy as a general rule.

If I observe a group of men who are all divorced and have issues at their jobs because they constantly engage in sex with multiple partners......I'm going to believe that something is WRONG with them.

Why?

Because the dominating philosophy of my society...the philosophy that monogamy is normal and best...will dictate that something MUST be wrong with these men for going against that which is "normal".

Either that analogy is valid OR I'm using that term "philosophy" erroneously, lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the point you are trying to make, but your analogy fails to make the point. 

 

There are issues of discretion and judgment that come into play when dudes (and the ladies) start having sex with coworkers, subordinates.  So yeah there probably is something "wrong" with the folks on the job screwing each other, when there are so many other ways to find sex partners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...