As we find out more, we refine our theories, I think this is agreeable.
So let's roll back the clock.
Isn't it reasonable the first scientific theories were that a father-like figure created lightning and made the crops grow?
That guided our fortunes,just like when we were children?
Then as we learn more, we need to explain less with mommy and daddy gods? and more and more with fundamental particles and evolution?
Aren't gods just a psychologically driven scientific model to describe non-psychological phenomenon?
Religion is science?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Religion is science?
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
It wouldn't be right to call it scientific. In fact, it would almost be right to say that belief in spirituality was an evolved characteristic, though not in the way we would comprehend it.
The belief that all of nature was controlled by animistic forces was one that conferred a survival advantage, and so brains that expressed this tendency to over-personify their surroundings became fixed.
Animistic forces gave rise to personified spirits, which were later made into outright gods with dominion over either natural forces or human behavior. These religions diversified, and eventually monotheism arose.
Too put it simply, the earliest humans didn't make up spirituality to explain anything; explaining or accumulating knowledge (which is what science does) wasn't why spirituality developed at all. It developed because folks who believed every rustle in the bushes was a living, thinking organism, and all their social skills could be used to appease the weather (better to be overly cautious than underprepared), were the ones who survived and passed on the brain structure convenient for spiritual belief.
Right from the start, there never were any spirits or gods in control. But the incidental benefits of communal belief and how they reacted to the environment was enough to get by.
If we were to say that belief in gods was a rough framework for scientific explanation, we would have to extend that to pigeons. Pigeons, when presented with a reward for any random action, would reproduce that action to reproduce the reward regardless of if there was any causal link. It wasn't an attempt to explain anything, it was just a convenient trait used to survive.
As a result, religion is utterly useless in describing the natural world because it was never about establishing patterns or building on prior knowledge, it was a self-made delusion that reinforced behaviors conducive to survival.
It wouldn't be right to call it scientific. In fact, it would almost be right to say that belief in spirituality was an evolved characteristic, though not in the way we would comprehend it.
The belief that all of nature was controlled by animistic forces was one that conferred a survival advantage, and so brains that expressed this tendency to over-personify their surroundings became fixed.
Animistic forces gave rise to personified spirits, which were later made into outright gods with dominion over either natural forces or human behavior. These religions diversified, and eventually monotheism arose.
Too put it simply, the earliest humans didn't make up spirituality to explain anything; explaining or accumulating knowledge (which is what science does) wasn't why spirituality developed at all. It developed because folks who believed every rustle in the bushes was a living, thinking organism, and all their social skills could be used to appease the weather (better to be overly cautious than underprepared), were the ones who survived and passed on the brain structure convenient for spiritual belief.
Right from the start, there never were any spirits or gods in control. But the incidental benefits of communal belief and how they reacted to the environment was enough to get by.
If we were to say that belief in gods was a rough framework for scientific explanation, we would have to extend that to pigeons. Pigeons, when presented with a reward for any random action, would reproduce that action to reproduce the reward regardless of if there was any causal link. It wasn't an attempt to explain anything, it was just a convenient trait used to survive.
As a result, religion is utterly useless in describing the natural world because it was never about establishing patterns or building on prior knowledge, it was a self-made delusion that reinforced behaviors conducive to survival.
-
benchwarmer
- Guru
- Posts: 2324
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2002 times
- Been thanked: 767 times
Re: Religion is science?
Post #3[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
I would say that these "god did it" ideas were fine as initial hypotheses, but stopped being science as soon as the rest of the scientific method was not employed. This is the same as most religious claims about how reality works. It's fine to posit a 'god' as a hypothesis, but when the data (or lack thereof) does not support the hypothesis, one cannot then claim they have a correct theory.
I have no problem with theists putting forward a hypothesis that there is a god who did something. I DO have a problem when they run around claiming 'truth' without one shred of verifiable evidence. Most theists cannot even clearly define what their god is exactly. Most will hand wave and point to holy books as if that somehow helps. Those who do manage a clear definition will be noticeably lacking any verifiable evidence to back up their definition i.e. it's just a bunch of words with no basis in reality behind it that can be shown to be true.
I would say that these "god did it" ideas were fine as initial hypotheses, but stopped being science as soon as the rest of the scientific method was not employed. This is the same as most religious claims about how reality works. It's fine to posit a 'god' as a hypothesis, but when the data (or lack thereof) does not support the hypothesis, one cannot then claim they have a correct theory.
I have no problem with theists putting forward a hypothesis that there is a god who did something. I DO have a problem when they run around claiming 'truth' without one shred of verifiable evidence. Most theists cannot even clearly define what their god is exactly. Most will hand wave and point to holy books as if that somehow helps. Those who do manage a clear definition will be noticeably lacking any verifiable evidence to back up their definition i.e. it's just a bunch of words with no basis in reality behind it that can be shown to be true.
Post #4
Critical Thinking is the key to answer the question "Religion is Science?".
Science is the by-product of Critical Thinking. Science cannot exist without it.
There is no room for Critical Thinking with Religion. In fact, once Critical Thinking is applied to religion, religion crumples like a house of cards.
Science is the by-product of Critical Thinking. Science cannot exist without it.
There is no room for Critical Thinking with Religion. In fact, once Critical Thinking is applied to religion, religion crumples like a house of cards.
Post #5
Critical Thinking is the key to answer the question "Religion is Science?".
All of Science is a product of Critical Thinking. Science cannot exist without it.
There is no room for Critical Thinking with Religion. In fact, once Critical Thinking is applied to religion, religion crumples like a house of cards.
Critical Thinking:
"The process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating data to reach an answer or conclusion"
All of Science is a product of Critical Thinking. Science cannot exist without it.
There is no room for Critical Thinking with Religion. In fact, once Critical Thinking is applied to religion, religion crumples like a house of cards.
Critical Thinking:
"The process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating data to reach an answer or conclusion"
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Religion is science?
Post #6[Replying to Willum]
Modern science was born out of the reformation.
The reformers rewrote the beliefs of the church by not believing any belief that the church had with out it specifically being outlined in the world of God.
They then took this model and applied to the natural world. Not believing anything to be true unless the event could be observed.
Therefore science is limited to what can be observed. If it cannot be observed it is not science it is philosophy.
Modern science was born out of the reformation.
The reformers rewrote the beliefs of the church by not believing any belief that the church had with out it specifically being outlined in the world of God.
They then took this model and applied to the natural world. Not believing anything to be true unless the event could be observed.
Therefore science is limited to what can be observed. If it cannot be observed it is not science it is philosophy.
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Religion is science?
Post #7[Replying to post 5 by EarthScienceguy]
I like Mark Twain's definition '[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact':)
like multiverses, phrenology, Darwinian evolution, global warming ...?If it cannot be observed it is not science it is philosophy.
I like Mark Twain's definition '[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact':)
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 14114
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1640 times
- Contact:
Re: Religion is science?
Post #8[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
What science uncovers is seen to be "GOD" in relation to that. One can either discard or put to one side the many mythological stories surrounding supposed actions of GOD/GODs which science has dutifully revealed to be without merit.
What the scientific method allows for is the realization that GOD is more awesome than anything religions have proclaimed.
What science uncovers is seen to be "GOD" in relation to that. One can either discard or put to one side the many mythological stories surrounding supposed actions of GOD/GODs which science has dutifully revealed to be without merit.
What the scientific method allows for is the realization that GOD is more awesome than anything religions have proclaimed.
Re: Religion is science?
Post #9Willum wrote:
Isn't it reasonable the first scientific theories were that a father-like figure created lightning and made the crops grow?
That guided our fortunes,just like when we were children?
There is some truth in suggesting that the first stirrings of scientific theory came from proposals about gods causing clouds or sunshine or snow or disasters. To test the theory, people might offer sacrifices to see if there was a change in fortune. This is an investigation of cause and effect. If change happened, gods were given credit in the absense of any better explanation.
Early experimenters had to tread warily, since their theories must not offend those who worshipped gods. So the action of atoms might be explained by the movement of gods in the heavens. Lucretius moved away from deities and was forbidden reading by the early Church. All the same, proposing that X is caused by God invites others to show it isn't. And so we advance, despite being burnt to death in the process. The theory of God as the mighty atomic starter still attracts attention from some of our brightest minds; such is the current depth of our ignorance.
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Religion is science?
Post #10[Replying to post 8 by marco]
I would not label either position 'bright' or 'stupid' though - the wise man knows himself a fool... as long as we recognize our different beliefs, faith as such, we can discuss them without the need for ad hominem arguments.
And likewise: Arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, that the universe did in fact have a beginning/ a specific creation event, was forbidden to many believers of 'no creation = no creator': static/eternal/ steady state models. But science eventually progressed in spite of atheism in this case.
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo
And to ride that train of thought a little further.. the God hypothesis was, in turn, the result of some of the earliest critical thinking and skepticism; towards the belief that everything 'just is- by chance, without any particular purpose' a belief which still remains attractive to a significant minority to this day.There is some truth in suggesting that the first stirrings of scientific theory came from proposals about gods causing clouds or sunshine or snow or disasters. To test the theory, people might offer sacrifices to see if there was a change in fortune. This is an investigation of cause and effect. If change happened, gods were given credit in the absense of any better explanation.
Early experimenters had to tread warily, since their theories must not offend those who worshipped gods. So the action of atoms might be explained by the movement of gods in the heavens. Lucretius moved away from deities and was forbidden reading by the early Church. All the same, proposing that X is caused by God invites others to show it isn't. And so we advance, despite being burnt to death in the process. The theory of God as the mighty atomic starter still attracts attention from some of our brightest minds; such is the current depth of our ignorance.
I would not label either position 'bright' or 'stupid' though - the wise man knows himself a fool... as long as we recognize our different beliefs, faith as such, we can discuss them without the need for ad hominem arguments.
And likewise: Arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, that the universe did in fact have a beginning/ a specific creation event, was forbidden to many believers of 'no creation = no creator': static/eternal/ steady state models. But science eventually progressed in spite of atheism in this case.
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo
