This was supposed to be the foundation for something else. Got bored. Publishing for the sake of publishing-----

What are the differences of these three and what are their applied modern practices?

Having these three practices understood is necessary. Science and religion are two major methodologies that guide the overwhelming super majority of people through life.

What is ‘science’?

For now, let’s just say that ‘science’ is a belief backed by the scientific method. In addition, let’s just say that the scientific method is the acquisition of evidence, and for now, we’ll assume that any evidence will do. Later, after defining the other practices, we’ll refine the practice of the scientific method.

What is ‘anti-science’?

I personally do not find the definition of ‘anti-science’ employable. To google the definition of anti-science and I get, “the rejection of the scientific method”. This makes sense in my head I suppose, but I’m not sure how applicable it is. A rejection of science sounds more like madness to me. Taking a simple example, a man who jumps up and down in the air expecting to fly but always coming back down. Is he insane or does he subscribe to anti-science? Or someone who searches for angels, but never finds any, is she an anti-scientist or religious?

To me, personally, it feels that the use of modern use of anti-science is an oral weapon at large employed to discredit. For me still personally, I find the use of madness and religion to describe ‘anti-scientific’ behaviors as better documented ways to understand the relevant human elements of such habits.

What is ‘religion?

To ask one of my peers ‘what is religion?’, and the response will typically constitute examples. Catholicism, Christianity in general, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on and so on. I find this definition immensely distasteful. It’s like defining air not as a state of matter, but as the compounds in the air. Two parts oxygen, one part CO2, mostly nitrogen, or what have you. Will this definition do its job and help you recognize religion what you come across it? Maybe. I am not inclined to think so.

To ask the generation senior to me and I get a better answer. A religion is a belief that someone holds that will not be swayed by contradicting evidence. Now this is a model I can use. When someone describes an abstract belief to me, I can ask, will this belief be swayed by evidence? If not, it is a part of their religion. For example: “I believe I am being watched.” Is something someone might say prompted by a feeling. Then they may check their surroundings for further evidence to which they may or may not reformulate their belief as to whether or not they are being watched. In this particular case, where the person is open to changing their belief based on if not there are actually other others to watch them, this statement is not religious.

But what about a scenario like this. A child who has been told of a magic man in the sky who loves everyone on the planet except those he does not love. The child accepts this statement and does not bother to evaluate it too closely. Is this a part of her religion or is it evidence based? The aforementioned definition does not help here, until someone comes along to challenge the child’s belief. Until then, the idea of God to this child is evidence based because it was the delivered to her by her parents who have thus far not led her astray. She has no reason yet to question otherwise.

Here is part of my conflict. Is this sufficient as a definition? How useful is it? Is the child’s understanding of God better applied as scientific understanding or moral religious guidance? I guess it could be argued that it doesn’t matter whether or not a belief is recognized as scientific or religious until it is brought to bare anyway. But to counter, I think it’s beneficial to quiz the self about whether or not a belief is religious or evidenced base. Otherwise, how do you know an assumed thought to be scientific or taken by faith?

An alternative definition to religion and a revaluation of the scientific method

I prefer this definition to religion.

A belief is religious if you do not understand the means to the end that formulate the belief.

This is a fairly strict model for religion and science. Under this premise, the act of discovering evidence, the active practice of the scientific method becomes a personal reasonability if one wishes to make informed actions. The child told of God must either learn of how it is the God loves for her, or accept that she is operating under the pretense of faith in her parents. Similarly, when I take a bottle of pills from my pharmacist, I must admit that I am taking a leap of faith by trusting that my pharmacist has not lied to me about the function of my pills. I have no real idea of how they work or half the time what they are supposed to do. Personally, the matter is very much a religion. I have faith that the pills will work their magic.

It can be argued that the creation of the pills was not magic at all, but actually intensely scientific. And at the bigger picture that may very well be true. But no one here is capable of seeing the full picture for everything and anything. All we can hope for is to recognize where we understand the process and where we should leave our faith in an authority.