Can Science Explain Religion?

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:31 am

Now that I think about it, I realize that my second interpretation is correct. The first line is a disclaimer. "Make of it what you wish." Self referential sentences, I love you.

For me personally, religion is a way to bestow knowledge to people. You know how mothers talk about cookie monsters, like that. I think it is a way to keep people on the track of righteousness, at least that is why it was created. After that, corruption took over, as it always does.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:07 am

I consider it more thesis than disclaimer. Legalism (re: Chinese philosophy) is pretty much the direct antithesis to Taoism; under legalism, everything can, and must, be written.

If corruption always takes over, has science been corrupted? (If yes, is the corruption in science reason not to be a scientist? Is the corruption of religion reason enough not to be religious? So you know where I'm going with this.)

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:57 am

dealing with it wrote:I consider it more thesis than disclaimer. Legalism (re: Chinese philosophy) is pretty much the direct antithesis to Taoism; under legalism, everything can, and must, be written.

I have always been plagued by the inability to choose correct words.

If corruption always takes over, has science been corrupted?

Yes.

Science and religion are both means to an end, illumination. Religion can be considered an encapsulation of science, a way to spread scientific knowledge. If science was a person it would say, "That knife is sharp", and that would be all. Religion would say, "That knife will hurt you." Which has more impact on you? Something personal, right?

Another example. Consider religion as Steve Jobs and science as Steve Wozniak. Steve Wozniak does all the hard work of inventing the things and Steve Jobs has the work of marketing it. What science is doing is finding out whether the knife is dangerous or not and what religion is doing is making sure people know that that knife will hurt them if they are not careful. Of course, two three thousand years ago the religious and the scientists were one and the same. Religion and science were one and the same. For some reason, they have split. 1984 has the reason why they split.

If yes, is the corruption in science reason not to be a scientist? Is the corruption of religion reason enough not to be religious?

No. No.

Think of it this way. Let's say you are eating a burger and you notice a hair on it. Would you throw away the burger or just remove the hair and continue eating. The concept of religion and science have been corrupted. Instead of using it for the greater good of man, we are using it to attain individual power. We can easily purge this corruption if we put our minds to it. Alas! The following quote rings far too true:

Unknown wrote:"Our greatest strength is our ability to know our differences. Our greatest weakness, is our inability to accept them."

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:11 pm

dealing with it wrote:If corruption always takes over, has science been corrupted? If yes, is the corruption in science reason not to be a scientist? Is the corruption of religion reason enough not to be religious?

"Science is always corrupted until the student dismisses their opinions in favor of the Answer."

"Religion is always corrupted until the zealots divorce from their hubris and become Pious."

Is the corruption reason enough to avoid these things? No. Corruption comes from Humanity, of course. Eliminating human pride will cleanse away the corruption.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:19 pm

TheFinalOne wrote:Science and religion are both means to an end, illumination. Religion can be considered an encapsulation of science, a way to spread scientific knowledge. If science was a person it would say, "That knife is sharp", and that would be all. Religion would say, "That knife will hurt you." Which has more impact on you? Something personal, right?

So religion is an interpretative tool, a framework onto which we place science. Is there ever a time when the tool is inadequate for a job? Would new religions be necessary? How would we identify a new religion?

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:30 am

I like this discussion with you, Dealing_with_it. :)

So religion is an interpretative tool, a framework onto which we place science.

Religion is also a framework onto which we place philosophy. That is, we can also inform people the public about morals, ethics, etc. using religion. Like I said before, religion and science used to be together before. So when they split, religion lost a major part of it. Slowly, stuff like preaching and propaganda and idol-worship emerged from it.

Is there ever a time when the tool is inadequate for a job?

Indeed, when science came to religion and said, "Look, I created something to kill fellow humans. Glorify war for me, please?" This was against everything the philosophy side stood and so the splitting began. But, a small part of religion broke off and said to science, "If you kill some people for me, I'll glorify war."

Would new religions be necessary?

No.
Like I've said. The concept of religion has been corrupted. It has lost itself. Every religion is saying the same thing.

How would we identify a new religion?

I don't understand this question.

Tea wrote:Eliminating human pride will cleanse away the corruption.

You do realize that there is no way to remove pride, good or bad, right? Unless, of course, 1984-ing is allowed.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:00 am

No.
Like I've said. The concept of religion has been corrupted. It has lost itself. Every religion is saying the same thing.

BS. That is a mass generalization and a fallacy.

TheFinalOne · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheFinalOne** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:54 am

Which religion does not tell us to be nice, Aniihya?

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:07 am

There are some religions that want to bring peace and order but manage to mind their own business (some polytheist movements), those who promise peace and order but do not do so (the mainstream), then there are those who want chaos but arent necessarily bad (i.e. Discordianism) and then those which promise the rule of evil (Satanists who arent LaVeyans or Palladists). But anyways, good morals are relative. They depend on the society.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:46 am

TheFinalOne wrote:The concept of religion has been corrupted. It has lost itself. Every religion is saying the same thing.

Shouldn't all religions say the same thing? Isn't that the ideal situation?

TheFinalOne wrote:
dealing with it wrote:]How would we identify a new religion?
I don't understand this question.

It's a bit stratospheric, but I don't like what happens when I ask people to define words. If you were standing in the middle of a field of untamed ideas, how would you pick out a religion from all of them? I've heard it often claimed that atheism is a religion; might there be some indirect truth to that, some unnamed religion that some people (generally atheists) connect with?

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:31 pm

Because I find Dwit's thread additions to be so interesting...

A single concept is not, and can not be, a religion. A religion is a system. It is a collection of concepts and ideas. These are often organized into a formal or informal code which the practitioner must follow in order to be identified as religious.

To simplify a bit, a person can not be religious about cake. But perhaps they could be religious about the Sacred Recipe.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:10 am

Tea wrote:A single concept is not, and can not be, a religion. A religion is a system. It is a collection of concepts and ideas. These are often organized into a formal or informal code which the practitioner must follow in order to be identified as religious.

What makes something like "Proustian worldview" or "Shakespearean world view" or "Sadistic world view" or "Byronic worldview" not religious? Can't a genius author be considered a prophet of sorts, bringing his conceptual framework into the world? Might a scholar of Proust be considered a priest of the Proustian religion? What about when a scientist like Richard Dawkins gains a large following (or even a cult): wouldn't that "Dawkinism" be an atheist religion? (Certainly Homer, a "mere" poet, was central to the religion of ancient Greece.)

I'm just trying to challenge your definition with some counter-examples. I'm being Socratic in my reasoning. Am I thereby a priest of the Socratic Faith?

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:05 am

dealing with it wrote:I'm just trying to challenge your definition with some counter-examples. I'm being Socratic in my reasoning. Am I thereby a priest of the Socratic Faith?

Reversal: Only the physical reality responds to the Socratic Method. The spiritual reality could very well respond like Russian Roulette for all of its lack of predictability.

Also, "A prophet is not considered to be so because of genius. A prophet must have more qualities than mere intellect."

Shakespeare, for example, has a particular mood. Taking on, duplicating, or replicating this mood is not a world-view. A religion is a system, not a feeling, mood, or emotion. Were Shakespeare to have invented a particular system from which he never deviated in constructing his plots then that process might possibly hold weight as a definition for a religion. However, I do not think that such a process was codified which is one of the...symptomatic traits of a religion.

And on that point, I hope that you are ready... A religion...is methodologically predictable.

In other words, "Religion, and the Spiritual Reality, are not the same thing."

...an interesting discussion, though.

mad_gater · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **mad_gater** on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:52 pm

It would depend on what kind of science. The simplest definition of religion is that it is a set of rules and principles by which we seek to understand the supernatural and it's also a way by which we can apply said principles to our daily lives. I tend to think of religion as a kind of scientific study of the supernatural world. natural mathematics and science, while important, falls short of what religion seeks to do because the supernatural world is a world of infinity. And it is fundamentally impossible for natural mathematics and science to render infinity into a sense perceptible measurement. I do firmly believe though, that science and religion need not be enemies, that both faith and reason can work hand in hand towards towards the betterment of us all. And like in the world of natural science and math we tend to go by theorem sets that make the most logical sense, so it is in the world of religion, that we have many and varied faiths, each with their own set of "theorems" that seek to make sense of the supernatural. I chose to remain Catholic when I could've chosen anything else in college because after a rigorous study of the Catholic faith I was born into on the Catholic answers website I found the tenets of Catholicism at their core to make the most logical sense. And not only that it fulfills me spiritually as well. It is difficult I think to explain religion to people who want to live a solely rational life. Because if you live a solely rational life it becomes fundamentally impossible to be in a state where you can understand the infinite love, mercy, and grace of a God who would become one of us so that we might be free of our sins and be eternally united with the Father.

mad_gater · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **mad_gater** on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:55 pm

this is because such a love cannot be fully comprehended by the mind. If we were to try our purely rational minds would burn out from the attempt. To understand this love requires not intellect but a heart open to truth and understanding

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:03 pm

Tea,

"A prophet is not considered to be so because of genius. A prophet must have more qualities than mere intellect."

I think that genius is a necessary component of being a prophet, however. Then again, genius in my eyes has little to do with intellect or honours, and more to do with how well one understands reality.

Shakespeare, for example, has a particular mood. Taking on, duplicating, or replicating this mood is not a world-view. A religion is a system, not a feeling, mood, or emotion. Were Shakespeare to have invented a particular system from which he never deviated in constructing his plots then that process might possibly hold weight as a definition for a religion. However, I do not think that such a process was codified which is one of the...symptomatic traits of a religion.

And on that point, I hope that you are ready... A religion...is methodologically predictable.

Okay, so not all works of genius are works of spiritual or religious genius. How far can you bend your definition of religion, then? Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics results in methodologically predictable behaviour. It leads one to prize health, temperance (The Middle Way), and thought.

I'm forced to admit that at some point Aristotle does cross over into religion. Theologians love him. But would pure Aristotelianism, separate from where Thomas Aquinas stitches it into Catholic theology, be its own separate religion? Is Aristotle the father of an un-named (implicit) religion, just as Paul is the father of Christianity?

mad_gater,

And it is fundamentally impossible for natural mathematics and science to render infinity into a sense perceptible measurement.

What do you mean by infinity? Because calculus, a whole limb of mathematics, deals with precise measurements of infinity. (Precise measurements are necessarily perceptible.)

mad_gater · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **mad_gater** on Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:38 pm

what I mean by infinity is that object that actually is not very desireable in mathematics....you want to find ways of cancelling infinity out of the equation

this object has no defineable value...infinity by definition has no upper limit....you can count upwards from 1 for the rest of your life and never reach infinity

infinity is intrinsically undefineable by any finite quality

in·fin·i·ty

[in-fin-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural in·fin·i·ties.
1.
the quality or state of being infinite.
2.
something that is infinite.
3.
infinite space, time, or quantity.
4.
an infinite extent, amount, or number.
5.
an indefinitely great amount or number.

definition number 5 fits the concept well enough I think

that infinity has no defineable measurement, since it has no defineable measurement it cannot be mathematically operated on....you can't add a number to a quantity that is undefined, nor can you multiply it or divide it or subtract from it....because one of the operators is not defined, so any operations done on an undefined operator yields an equally undefined result

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:40 am

dealing with it wrote:I think that genius is a necessary component of being a prophet, however. Then again, genius in my eyes has little to do with intellect or honours, and more to do with how well one understands reality.

I apologize. I must abdicate from the discussion for now, but neither do I wish to be rude and neglect a proper reply. It was an interesting set of thoughts that Dwit provided. I enjoyed the process of the conversation. Thank you. Please enjoy the day.

TheCoriProject · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **TheCoriProject** on Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:37 am

I feel like, no matter how anyone tries to explain it, we'll never really know whether or not any religion is the religion. Whether or not science is involved or not. There'll always be that doubt... and religion is a difficult subject to explore and try to explain, especially when people collectively believe in things (or lack belief in something) so strongly that it's their reality.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:44 am

TheCoriProject wrote:I feel like, no matter how anyone tries to explain it, we'll never really know whether or not any religion is the religion.

Is the point of a religion to be the religion? I'm not Jewish (my birth religion) because it offends my taste, not my reason. I don't think the question of whether or not Judaism is right or wrong even entered into it. Choosing not to be Jewish was purely aesthetic, kind of like how I walked out of the theatre when Nicolas Cage ruined Ghost Rider.

Can Science Explain Religion?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Re: Can Science Explain Religion?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online