Yes, I think that was the thing that was bothering me about the OP, but I didn’t realise it until I posted my last one.
Why does that ‘bother you’? That science and religion have some similarities in no way undermines science nor raises up religion. Gandhi and Mao Zedong also had similarities. Does that mean that Ghandi and Mao are practically of the same value? That one is not significantly better than the other?
Yes, science and religion have some vague similarities. Why only focus on the similarities? It’s the differences that cause science to systematically improve our understanding of the world, and religion to systematically stifle improvement of understanding.
Saying that science engages in ritual is an insult to religions everywhere.
The thing that “bothered” me was the fact that the title is “A strange assymetry between science and religion” and we have noticed “A strange symmetry between science and religion”. Otherwise I don’t share your concern for science’s esteem 
Thats another take on the subject for sure … =D>
I don’t see what’s strange about the symmetry or assymetry either of you are pointing out. I also don’t see why someone pointing out an assymetry should bother you simply because you can point out a symmetry. There’s nothing wrong with there being both similarities and differences. Why would that bother you?
And of course you wouldn’t be concerned about science’s esteem if you’re the one trying to point out how similar it is to religion. 99 times out of 100, people pointing out similarities between religion and science are doing it to prop up the former and undermine the latter. But similarities between Mao and Ghandi wouldn’t prop up the former and undermine the latter. Regardless of the fact that they were both humans with a large following, both Asians, both had five fingers on each hand and two eyes, both lived in the 20th century, etc etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The similarities between the two men are innumerable, but that doesn’t undermine their differences one iota.
Yes, religion and science are similar in many ways. If they weren’t similar in many ways, there wouldn’t be conversations comparing the two. People compare things only when they’re similar. People compare apples and oranges because apples and oranges are similar in a lot of ways. You never hear of people comparing apples and radio waves. If they didn’t have any similarities, there wouldn’t be any shared criteria by which to judge them. Once we start comparing them, it’s only natural that the differences come to the forefront instead of the similarities. That shouldn’t bother you.
Why is that?
Because repetition and following instructions isn’t ritual. Ritual forms are in service to inner transformation. That can happen in science, but there are no such instructions that fall within the purview of “science”.
Stop taking things so damned seriously! Gib said he saw an asymmetry, which I had a feeling about when I read it. It turns out, that I think there is a symmetry between the science and religion. Having said that, it is a symmetry of opposites or complementary content that I see (as you can read above)
Again, read again …
Hey, you’ve actually come around to what I was saying … we agree! Halleluja!
Gib asserts asymmetry in the thread title but he himself describes symmetry in the OP.
No, it’s asymmetry. Symmetry would be a similarity between things. The relation between beliefs and rituals that I see in religion is reversed in science. (Though I did misspell asymmetry in the title).
Two sides of a coin?
‘Symmetry’ is a vague enough word to make both of you correct-enough.
Look at the yin-yang for example. There’s an assymetry in that the colors are reversed on one side as compared to the other. But the reversal of the colors is what, in a way, makes it symmetrical.
Look at the OP:
religion=beliefs>rituals | rituals>beliefs=science
See the symmetry?
Of course, scientific experiments are not rituals, so science and religion are not really symmetrical.
About rituals–tell that to the plodding scientists who experiment with rats at NIMH.
The similarity is superficial. Rituals are intended to evoke numinous experience e.g. a sense of the presence of God. Experiments are designed to show how things work.
I agree. I may not understand the specific’s of this person’s worldview (I don’t know what “universal mind” means, for instance), but the following quote I just found gives a good sense of how ritual functions. Even anthropologists don’t necessarily understand this, because they can only study, as a “science”, easily observable and documentable facts about the external world. It takes an actual practitioner to “get it”:
I understand that you can make it into a symmetry (in the way you did), but two things:
- you cheated a little: on the right, you put “science” on the right side of the equation, whereas on the left, you put “religion” on the left side of the equation. Nothing wrong with this, of course, the notation still works, but it’s inconsistent. This is more consistent:
religion=beliefs>rituals | science=rituals>beliefs
- If the above is symmetry, what is this?
Christianity=beliefs>ritual | Hinduism=beliefs>ritual
What does “>” mean in those equations?
leads to. Causes. results in.