Jung talked about the god-image--meaning the part of the psyche that wants to believe in a deity--decades ago. He then came under fire for turning belief into a psycology and challenged that he was an athiest. Both he and Jacobi defend what he meant.
Homework, sheesh, its amazing what happens when people try to be nice but stop thinking..
It used to be that there were three groups of kids in a clasroom. One was average, one was above average, and one was below average. The teacher taught to the average group. The above average kids got bored, but hopefully were given more work if they enjoyed it. The lower than average kids did work at home in order to keep up with the average. All was good.
Then we decided to be nice. So, instead of letting the lower-than-average kids deal with being such, we'll teach to their level so everything can be done in school. Well, that left most of the kids bored, and the nostalgic feeling of homework was going away. So, they started giving homework to everyone.
Parents liked homework too, because it occuppied their kids time for them. So teachers gave more, and than the kids complained or rebelled. It's just plain sad.
One of my teachers did it best. He wrote an assignment on the board every day at the beginning of class that was due the next day, and then proceeded to teach it. As soon as you understood it, you stopped listening and started on the work. The lower-than-average kids needed help, so the higher-than-average helped them when they were finished with it themselves. There was rarely homwork for anyone, unless they needed it to keep up with the class (and that was known by whether they could do the work in class.) I consider that teacher the best one. He gave work for learning it, not just to give it.
I wanted to by soup from a deli. I asked them why a quart cost more than two pints.
I wanted to buy pizza (that is cut into eight slices). I asked for eight slices. They asked "you mean a full pie?" I said "no, eight slices is cheaper." The idiot told me that he'll give me the eight smallest slices. At which point i threated to publicize his scam. Needless to say, i got it for the cheaper price.
In the supermarket i many times look to see the difference in prices when buying bulk. Many times the smaller amount is cheaper. Not usually, but many times.
The cable Internet company offers connections for very cheap for six months, but then charges astromically after that. When i challenged i would cancel and re-sign up, they told me that there had to be a five-month break in between the two to get the discount. So, i threatened to go DSL, and got a nice discount.
While in some cases the discrepency is by malicious intent, in most cases its because the price of software is what people are willing to pay, not what it is worth. (No, they are not the same. The latter can be calculated based on what it does and how cost incurred by not having it. The former is just perception.) Being it is harder to get a new customer than to retain a customer, breaks are given.
Had the business gone in to help the customer, and the customer in full-faith accepts this, he would accept the discount and then pay the "normal" amount during the retention period. However, in todays cut-throat society, where short-term financial goals are everything, there really is no such thing as a long-term relationship. There is no retention period. The person is in the system, unless they try to leave, it which case that triggers offers of cheaper prices.
I see no fault in all of this. It may be an example of a sad state of affairs, but its just business as usual.
Sheesh, what ever happened to good Star trek shows? One that could be scripted by a team of money, and acted by Shakespearian actors. Well, i'll give it a shot, the M Keyboard just have a way of evoking that nostalgic feeling in all of us. At this point i am typing nonsense just to get around the filter, so please just skip until the next paragraph. If only i had a heisenberg compensator, i could post this comment without any of the inane chatter up here. Please just skip this. I mean now. Just stop reading this, because i am only typing it to get around the filter and not saying anything important like the answer to your all-important question and that x=5 and r is a constant referring to all the tea in china. If the filter is looking for forty words, i'm just about there, but this is all so silly anyway, and i only want to post this because i spent a few minutes writing it.
*cue wordless music* Spock: It's a new keyboard xt84723. Kirk: What class is it? Spock: It's Class-M. Suitable for humanoid use. It just seems to "click" with them. *raises eyebrow* Kirk: Beam it up. Scotty: I'm trying cap'n, but i just don't have the power. Kirk: OK, when can you have it. Scotty: In twelve years. Kirk: The Klingons are coming, you have three seconds. Scotty: Okay. *two seconds pass and it appears* Uhura: The letters are in Swahili! Checkov: Nonsense! The letter are pristine cyrilic. Keyboard (in words on viewscreen): All your starship are belong to us! Spock: It appears to be typing in Vulcan. I suggest that we destroy it at once. *thinks* Spock: Try hitting the button marked "control", "alt", and "delete" at the same time. Kirk: Bones, go for it. McCoy: Darn it Jim, i'm a Doctor not a key puncher. Kirk: Scotty, go for it. Scotty: A keyboard? How quaint. *three red-shirts die trying to push buttons* Kirk: Let's do it ourselves. *Kirk, Spock, and Checkov press the buttons* The end.
*cue wordless music* Data: Coming up on new keyboard xt84723. Picard: What class is it? Data: It's Class-M. Suitable for humanoid use. It just seems to "click" with them. *tries to grin* Troi: Stop it! I can't comunicate with it. *Troi cries* Picard: Beam it up. Geordi: I can try to, but i will have to reroute all power from life supports systems to do it. Picard: Go ahead, we must see what this new keyboard can teach us. *two seconds pass and it appears* Beverly: It's like nothing i've ever seen before! Riker: It looks like we just gopt a new interface. *smiles smugly* Keyboard (in words on viewscreen): All your starship are belong to us! Data: It appears to be typing in binary. I suggest that we put a forcefield around it at once. Data: Try hitting the button marked "control", "alt", and "delete" at the same time. Picard: Number 1, you have the bridge. Slashdot poster: In Soviet Russia, bridge has you. Picard: Data, Worf, you're with me. *Worf stares at keyboard and growls* Data: If we try a positronic pulse rotated to the third degree and bounce it off a stationic wave, it should be able to neutralize. Picard: Do it. *keyboard evolves into a new life form* The end.
*cue wordless music* Dax: A new keyboard xt84723 just appeared out of the wormhole. Kira: It's a Cardiassian vessels, they used them during the occupatrion. Let's destroy it. Sisko: Kira, you can;t just go around destroying old keyboard just because you don't like them. *Kira stares* Sisko: Am i clear: Kira: Absolutely clear. Odo: Fine, just don't let it on the promenade. Dax: It's Class-M. Suitable for humanoid use. It just seems to "click" with them. *tries not to grin* Sisko: Kira, welcome our new guest and try to slow it down while we figure out what is going on. O'Brien: I can't exlain it, but that keyboard is using up all of our power. Sisko: Options? Sax: If we could just use a quantum modulated beam, we sho
>> That perhaps is true about Catholicism. Protestants believe is personal revelation. Judiasm believes is seeking out the truth for oneself, and that revelation cheapens it, the list goes on.
I am saying that all believe in personal revelation (prophets.)
You're original comment on this stated "I was saying that religions, in so far as the Christian tradition goes at least (and perhaps I should have stuck with that) places an empasis on persons as authority for truth.", implying that the persons are the main source. Now you are saying that they all believe in it, making it one method of discerning truth. I have no qualms with that.
But Christianity pursues what we might call a grander vision of truth
Why is it grander? Sure, they consider it grander, for their value of truth is the goal, whereas for science it is merely a tool. Regardless, the truth sought after by both is one and the same.
There is nothing like the Bible, for example, or the prophets, in Science.
Yes there is. They are called Laws. Science has many Laws. Can a Law be usurped by another? Yes. Can the Bible be usurped by another? Xianity says yes. The NT takes priority over the OT. Muslims believe the Quran takes authority over both.
God (literally or metaphorically speaking) does not speak to the Scientist- or if He does, this is not how the scientist ultimately justifies his argument.
True. Indeed, if a Scientist did converse with a deity, he wouldn't care much anyway, since he wants personal discovery. As such, this is a moot point.
For example, the moral authority of a divine being could never be tested with any experiment.
That is not true. Assuming, for the purpose of a test, that morals were set in stone and the actions of said deity were known, they could very well be tested.
The reason they cannot be tested, is that in Xianity, it is the deity that sets the morals and changes them at will. Not only that, the deity's actions define morality. They can be tested, per se, just only in-as-much as we can test the statement "1 = 1".
Finally, as to your comment about advertising: when I try to sell you something like hamburgers, my first purpose is not to tell you the truth- it is to get you to buy hamburgers.
You were the one who used hamburgers as an example and you are also assuming that people will lie to sell them. Being your assumptions are different then mine, i cannot agree to use them as an appropriate example.
Advertising refers to presenting information for people to perceive if they want to, and then leaves it up to them to make their own decisions. As an example, a religion was using this at one point on billboards, leaving "messages" from their deity on black backgrounds. They were not trying to lie or force you to believe. They were merely presenting their own views, in the hope that you will agree.
believing that you know the truth is optimism
...to an objectivist.:)
To the subjectivist, however, it is self-confidence.
believing that you know the truth is optimism not fanaticism.
True. But my comment of "Bingo! Evolutionism is a religion. Of fanatics too." was in respoinse to your comment which stated "No, I am trying to get you to see truth." That is different than "knowing the truth." So, i agree with you that believing that you know the truth is not fanaticism. However, i still say that trying to get me to see it is (or at least has the elements of it). And that, indeed, was the entire point of my original comment.
Having no doubt that you might be in some way wrong, I would say, is fanaticism.
If God talks to me, and not you, then I have a fundamentally different access to Truth than you do. Our positions become unequal. Whether the ultimate authority is me, the prophet, or God, is interesting, but not important to the point I was trying to make, I think.
That perhaps is true about Catholicism. Protestants believe is personal revelation. Judiasm believes is seeking out the truth for oneself, and that revelation cheapens it, the list goes on.
is a quantum wave function objective, or real, or both.
It is either real or it isn't real. Our perception of it is inherently subjective.
Also, I think my original point that regardless of whether knowledge is objective or subjective, science and Christianity justify knowledge in inherently different ways.
Not really. Both Xianity and Science prize knowledge. Indeed, early Xianity helped fund scientific research. St Augustine wrote how religion should take note not to speak where Science can do better.
The difference is not how they justify knowledge, indeed not even in how they derive knowledge, as Xianity accepts Scientific discoveries (though the reciprocal is not true), it is which has more weight when there is conflict. Science gives greater weight to objective data, whereas Xianity gives more weight to subjective data. There is less in the former, but agreeable by more people, there is more in the latter, but agreeable to less people.
To say that I advertise my beliefs seems, to me, to imply that your and my ideas are equally valid, and therefore equally true.
No, it does not.
It says that we both have equal rights to believe in whatever we want(, even if the belief is inherently wrong).
You and I are have equal worth, but our ideas, most likely, are not.
Would be better said as, respecting the other does not mean respecting the other's beliefs, just the right to believe in them.
If you are a creationist who tries to tell me that my belief in evolution is unjustified, then I think you are wrong.
And i would also not be advertising.:)
I am not trying to advertise my opinion to you; one advertises hamburgers
And what is the difference? In both cases you want me to agree to your will of what i should do (or believe).
No, I am trying to get you to see truth.
Bingo! Evolutionism is a religion. Of fanatics too.;^) 1 It is the same type of truth that has allowed us to wipe small pox (almost) from the face of the Earth, go to the moon, and harness nuclear power.
Now *that's* some good advertising. See how easy it was?:P
First of all, I wasn't trying to say that all religions include "givens", although I think that any sort of human activity that includes any sort of communication or debate would have to include assumptions. I was saying that religions, in so far as the Christian tradition goes at least (and perhaps I should have stuck with that) places an empasis on persons as authority for truth. In Christianity, for example,
That is mostly an Xian thing. Other religions, while they make use of seers, witch doctors, prophets, or priests, they do not give any more credence to the revelation than to the deity itself, as the channeler is merely a tool.
Second of all, I specifically avoided using the word "objective" because of all the baggage it brings with it. I don't know what the heck "objective" means. I know, for example, that "objective" meant very different things to Heisenberg and Einstein
In the realms of belief structures, it would be best tro rely on a psycological definition, and both Freud and Jung agree on the definition here. That is, that when a person related with an object he either equates himself with the object, or equates the object with himself, thus the terms objectivity and subjectivity, respectively.
More to the point, a belief that is understood very personally, is using the subject (the person) more than the object (the thing observed). A belief that is intended to be cross-person, must be rooted more in the object itself, because even when the subject (the viewers) are different, the object remains one and the same. That is objectivity.
I cannot command what scientific theories you are to believe- I have to try to convince you instead.
Actually, i think advertising would be better. It is respectful in that it values my opinion as much as yours. Whereas "convincing" me just tries to ignore my current beliefs, and put yours in place instead.
Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "subjective", but I certainly believe that any individual's reasons for believing a particular scientific theory are ultimately going to be unique from any other individual's. Science doesn't tend to focus on those differences though- it leaves that for art and religion. Instead, science focuses on the reasons that seem common between individuals (which art and religion may or may not focus on as well.)
Perhaps you need to revisit that view. All things mentioned just now have truths. The question is which to believe. Each has their benefits. But when choosing to believe one, that is subjective.
Screaming about researchers not referring to something in a specific way that promotes their viewpoint, sure sounds like it to me.
but religion tends to include an element of personal revelation, or truth by testimony. For example, there is no way, even in principle, for you and I to verify that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.
That is just one religion. Perhaps what you mean to say is that religions include "givens" (regardless of how they became such). That is true for Western religions, but i do not think all religions include that.
All scientific claims, on the other hand, can be verified by you or I personally, if we have the time and skill.
What you mean to say is that Science is objective. That is true, and is a point of pride for Science. I would like to point out two caveats, however. One, that being objective means giving up on a large pool of data (it is a trade-off between objectivity and all evidence), and two, that to accept the objective data as correct, requires subjectivity.
IOW, to believe anything we must be subjective. To get others to believe it, we need to be objective. So, the more objective we are, the less we say, but the more people we have aboard. The more subjective we are, the more we say, but the less people we have aboard.
The purpose of Science is to be as objective as possible (though an arbitrary limit of "reasonable doubt" (set subjectively) is applied) and try to explain everything explainable.
Not everything has to be explianable, but some people believe that it is. That is when Science becomes a religion. To say that everyone should be Scientific, for whatever the reason, is to be a fanatic. To say that anything that Science come up with is the "truth" is to be a believer.
To merely accept Science as a fine tool to discern objective truths, is to be truly objective. But so are all religions.
Slashdot Mirror
and sneak peaks into the future of processors.
and sneak peaks into the past^H^H^H^Hfuture of processors.
What are the chances it merged up with an alien life form, and together they are charting their own course?
Parlimentary inquiry.
How do we know this is indicative of an entire species, and not just a single freak of nature?
If you hadn't added some of those yourself, it might have been funny. :)
So, it's just plain sad.
it seems these outside advisers want a surveillance system that would put Big Brother to shame
Huh? Why would it put them to shame? This is what they want.
Was this public school?
Nope.
Jung talked about the god-image--meaning the part of the psyche that wants to believe in a deity--decades ago. He then came under fire for turning belief into a psycology and challenged that he was an athiest. Both he and Jacobi defend what he meant.
Homework, sheesh, its amazing what happens when people try to be nice but stop thinking..
It used to be that there were three groups of kids in a clasroom. One was average, one was above average, and one was below average. The teacher taught to the average group. The above average kids got bored, but hopefully were given more work if they enjoyed it. The lower than average kids did work at home in order to keep up with the average. All was good.
Then we decided to be nice. So, instead of letting the lower-than-average kids deal with being such, we'll teach to their level so everything can be done in school. Well, that left most of the kids bored, and the nostalgic feeling of homework was going away. So, they started giving homework to everyone.
Parents liked homework too, because it occuppied their kids time for them. So teachers gave more, and than the kids complained or rebelled. It's just plain sad.
One of my teachers did it best. He wrote an assignment on the board every day at the beginning of class that was due the next day, and then proceeded to teach it. As soon as you understood it, you stopped listening and started on the work. The lower-than-average kids needed help, so the higher-than-average helped them when they were finished with it themselves. There was rarely homwork for anyone, unless they needed it to keep up with the class (and that was known by whether they could do the work in class.) I consider that teacher the best one. He gave work for learning it, not just to give it.
Glad to be of service. :)
Yep. No SETI, no watchy.
Why is this specific to software?
I wanted to by soup from a deli. I asked them why a quart cost more than two pints.
I wanted to buy pizza (that is cut into eight slices). I asked for eight slices. They asked "you mean a full pie?" I said "no, eight slices is cheaper." The idiot told me that he'll give me the eight smallest slices. At which point i threated to publicize his scam. Needless to say, i got it for the cheaper price.
In the supermarket i many times look to see the difference in prices when buying bulk. Many times the smaller amount is cheaper. Not usually, but many times.
The cable Internet company offers connections for very cheap for six months, but then charges astromically after that. When i challenged i would cancel and re-sign up, they told me that there had to be a five-month break in between the two to get the discount. So, i threatened to go DSL, and got a nice discount.
While in some cases the discrepency is by malicious intent, in most cases its because the price of software is what people are willing to pay, not what it is worth. (No, they are not the same. The latter can be calculated based on what it does and how cost incurred by not having it. The former is just perception.) Being it is harder to get a new customer than to retain a customer, breaks are given.
Had the business gone in to help the customer, and the customer in full-faith accepts this, he would accept the discount and then pay the "normal" amount during the retention period. However, in todays cut-throat society, where short-term financial goals are everything, there really is no such thing as a long-term relationship. There is no retention period. The person is in the system, unless they try to leave, it which case that triggers offers of cheaper prices.
I see no fault in all of this. It may be an example of a sad state of affairs, but its just business as usual.
Infalatable moon bases?
That looney idea is full of hot air.
Why, thank you, Capt. Obvious.
How could you mistake him for Capt. Obvious?
He isn't even Cpt Obvious, Cptn. Obvious, Captain Obvious, or Captian Obvious.
Forget captain. He isn't even Lieutenant Obvious or plain old Mr. Obvious. No names are given like Ron Obvious, Archie Obvious, or Seor Obvious. And it's pretty obvious that he isn't The Obvious Man, an Obvious troll, or even some Overly Obvious Guy.
I think what you posted is Obvious Nonsense and the obvious thing to do would be to keep quiet.
Researchers have found that depressed people performed poorly on the video game
I have found that depressed people perform poorly, period.
Dominoes, a new technology?
Next thing you know, IBM will have a Domino Server.
Open Access For Research Gaining Steam
First steam, maybe they'll get electricity soon?
I couldn't come up with a beter joke, even if i fried.
Behold, the first open-source virus.
>> That perhaps is true about Catholicism. Protestants believe is personal revelation. Judiasm believes is seeking out the truth for oneself, and that revelation cheapens it, the list goes on.
:)
I am saying that all believe in personal revelation (prophets.)
You're original comment on this stated "I was saying that religions, in so far as the Christian tradition goes at least (and perhaps I should have stuck with that) places an empasis on persons as authority for truth.", implying that the persons are the main source. Now you are saying that they all believe in it, making it one method of discerning truth. I have no qualms with that.
But Christianity pursues what we might call a grander vision of truth
Why is it grander? Sure, they consider it grander, for their value of truth is the goal, whereas for science it is merely a tool. Regardless, the truth sought after by both is one and the same.
There is nothing like the Bible, for example, or the prophets, in Science.
Yes there is. They are called Laws. Science has many Laws. Can a Law be usurped by another? Yes. Can the Bible be usurped by another? Xianity says yes. The NT takes priority over the OT. Muslims believe the Quran takes authority over both.
God (literally or metaphorically speaking) does not speak to the Scientist- or if He does, this is not how the scientist ultimately justifies his argument.
True. Indeed, if a Scientist did converse with a deity, he wouldn't care much anyway, since he wants personal discovery. As such, this is a moot point.
For example, the moral authority of a divine being could never be tested with any experiment.
That is not true. Assuming, for the purpose of a test, that morals were set in stone and the actions of said deity were known, they could very well be tested.
The reason they cannot be tested, is that in Xianity, it is the deity that sets the morals and changes them at will. Not only that, the deity's actions define morality. They can be tested, per se, just only in-as-much as we can test the statement "1 = 1".
Finally, as to your comment about advertising: when I try to sell you something like hamburgers, my first purpose is not to tell you the truth- it is to get you to buy hamburgers.
You were the one who used hamburgers as an example and you are also assuming that people will lie to sell them. Being your assumptions are different then mine, i cannot agree to use them as an appropriate example.
Advertising refers to presenting information for people to perceive if they want to, and then leaves it up to them to make their own decisions. As an example, a religion was using this at one point on billboards, leaving "messages" from their deity on black backgrounds. They were not trying to lie or force you to believe. They were merely presenting their own views, in the hope that you will agree.
believing that you know the truth is optimism
...to an objectivist.
To the subjectivist, however, it is self-confidence.
believing that you know the truth is optimism not fanaticism.
True. But my comment of "Bingo! Evolutionism is a religion. Of fanatics too." was in respoinse to your comment which stated "No, I am trying to get you to see truth." That is different than "knowing the truth." So, i agree with you that believing that you know the truth is not fanaticism. However, i still say that trying to get me to see it is (or at least has the elements of it). And that, indeed, was the entire point of my original comment.
Having no doubt that you might be in some way wrong, I would say, is fanaticism.
Could we use an ex
This whole case is troublesome. Something just doesn't add up right.
If God talks to me, and not you, then I have a fundamentally different access to Truth than you do. Our positions become unequal. Whether the ultimate authority is me, the prophet, or God, is interesting, but not important to the point I was trying to make, I think.
:)
;^)
:P
That perhaps is true about Catholicism. Protestants believe is personal revelation. Judiasm believes is seeking out the truth for oneself, and that revelation cheapens it, the list goes on.
is a quantum wave function objective, or real, or both.
It is either real or it isn't real. Our perception of it is inherently subjective.
Also, I think my original point that regardless of whether knowledge is objective or subjective, science and Christianity justify knowledge in inherently different ways.
Not really. Both Xianity and Science prize knowledge. Indeed, early Xianity helped fund scientific research. St Augustine wrote how religion should take note not to speak where Science can do better.
The difference is not how they justify knowledge, indeed not even in how they derive knowledge, as Xianity accepts Scientific discoveries (though the reciprocal is not true), it is which has more weight when there is conflict. Science gives greater weight to objective data, whereas Xianity gives more weight to subjective data. There is less in the former, but agreeable by more people, there is more in the latter, but agreeable to less people.
To say that I advertise my beliefs seems, to me, to imply that your and my ideas are equally valid, and therefore equally true.
No, it does not.
It says that we both have equal rights to believe in whatever we want(, even if the belief is inherently wrong).
You and I are have equal worth, but our ideas, most likely, are not.
Would be better said as, respecting the other does not mean respecting the other's beliefs, just the right to believe in them.
If you are a creationist who tries to tell me that my belief in evolution is unjustified, then I think you are wrong.
And i would also not be advertising.
I am not trying to advertise my opinion to you; one advertises hamburgers
And what is the difference? In both cases you want me to agree to your will of what i should do (or believe).
No, I am trying to get you to see truth.
Bingo! Evolutionism is a religion. Of fanatics too.
1
It is the same type of truth that has allowed us to wipe small pox (almost) from the face of the Earth, go to the moon, and harness nuclear power.
Now *that's* some good advertising. See how easy it was?
First of all, I wasn't trying to say that all religions include "givens", although I think that any sort of human activity that includes any sort of communication or debate would have to include assumptions. I was saying that religions, in so far as the Christian tradition goes at least (and perhaps I should have stuck with that) places an empasis on persons as authority for truth. In Christianity, for example,
That is mostly an Xian thing. Other religions, while they make use of seers, witch doctors, prophets, or priests, they do not give any more credence to the revelation than to the deity itself, as the channeler is merely a tool.
Second of all, I specifically avoided using the word "objective" because of all the baggage it brings with it. I don't know what the heck "objective" means. I know, for example, that "objective" meant very different things to Heisenberg and Einstein
In the realms of belief structures, it would be best tro rely on a psycological definition, and both Freud and Jung agree on the definition here. That is, that when a person related with an object he either equates himself with the object, or equates the object with himself, thus the terms objectivity and subjectivity, respectively.
More to the point, a belief that is understood very personally, is using the subject (the person) more than the object (the thing observed). A belief that is intended to be cross-person, must be rooted more in the object itself, because even when the subject (the viewers) are different, the object remains one and the same. That is objectivity.
I cannot command what scientific theories you are to believe- I have to try to convince you instead.
Actually, i think advertising would be better. It is respectful in that it values my opinion as much as yours. Whereas "convincing" me just tries to ignore my current beliefs, and put yours in place instead.
Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "subjective", but I certainly believe that any individual's reasons for believing a particular scientific theory are ultimately going to be unique from any other individual's. Science doesn't tend to focus on those differences though- it leaves that for art and religion. Instead, science focuses on the reasons that seem common between individuals (which art and religion may or may not focus on as well.)
Perhaps you need to revisit that view. All things mentioned just now have truths. The question is which to believe. Each has their benefits. But when choosing to believe one, that is subjective.
Bees are dying?
Maybe they haven't perfected the black oil yet.
I don't know about religious fanaticism
Screaming about researchers not referring to something in a specific way that promotes their viewpoint, sure sounds like it to me.
but religion tends to include an element of personal revelation, or truth by testimony. For example, there is no way, even in principle, for you and I to verify that Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.
That is just one religion. Perhaps what you mean to say is that religions include "givens" (regardless of how they became such). That is true for Western religions, but i do not think all religions include that.
All scientific claims, on the other hand, can be verified by you or I personally, if we have the time and skill.
What you mean to say is that Science is objective. That is true, and is a point of pride for Science. I would like to point out two caveats, however. One, that being objective means giving up on a large pool of data (it is a trade-off between objectivity and all evidence), and two, that to accept the objective data as correct, requires subjectivity.
IOW, to believe anything we must be subjective. To get others to believe it, we need to be objective. So, the more objective we are, the less we say, but the more people we have aboard. The more subjective we are, the more we say, but the less people we have aboard.
The purpose of Science is to be as objective as possible (though an arbitrary limit of "reasonable doubt" (set subjectively) is applied) and try to explain everything explainable.
Not everything has to be explianable, but some people believe that it is. That is when Science becomes a religion. To say that everyone should be Scientific, for whatever the reason, is to be a fanatic. To say that anything that Science come up with is the "truth" is to be a believer.
To merely accept Science as a fine tool to discern objective truths, is to be truly objective. But so are all religions.