Can Science Explain Religion?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:54 pm

People frequently attempt to give scientific explanations for both the phenomenon of religion, and for various religious/spiritual things that happen. The consequence of this, inevitably, is that scientific theories of how knowledge work begin to overwhelm the different, less strict, epistemologies of religion.

I see science as a collection of metaphors that have useful applications, and religion/spirituality as a way to approach truths about human experience. They are different forms of knowledge. The unbelief of science, used on religion, always overwhelms faith. But it's inappropriate to do so; scientific skepticism has no place in spirituality.

To attempt an answer my own question, therefore, I don't believe that science should be used to explain religion. Scientific theories should not be used to explain matters of the spirit. The desire to make everything scientific leads to base scientism, which is an impoverished way to view the world.

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:13 pm

Science cannot explain religion, and on the same note, science and religion do not negate each other, in my opinion. I personally do not believe in polytheism, or take it seriously in most cases, so my opinion is solitary to monotheism.

Science simply explains the theory and logic behind the things that are currently in the world, while religion provides a spiritually satisfying explanation for how the world was created, who/what created the world, and what’s gonna happen when the world is over (entirely or for an individual).

They do not cancel each other out, they do not negate each other, and they are not mutually exclusive events. A person who is of faith cannot deny that gravity exists, which is an element of science, right? Just as science cannot explain or disprove the existence of a higher power.

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:32 pm

This is given with a grin, to the thread, and to Dwit in particular. Ready?

"If science can completely explain a super-natural deity then that deity is not super-natural."

Saarai · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Saarai** on Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:54 pm

Yes and no. The quote above is a good example. If it can be explained it would take away from what it is. If religion, some, are disproved then some people won't be happy campers. A lot of problems may be caused.

I'm saying that science shouldn't try to explain religion. It's one of those things that can help people who are falling on hard times, if they have nothing to turn to when at a low point in life what will they do? Some people are motivated by their faith to better themselves.

Science should not try to explain religion.

Furry Dragon · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Furry Dragon** on Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:05 pm

I just finished rereading a book called Calculating God by Robert J. Sawyer. One of the characters, Hollus, says something akin to that she believes god exists because of science. There are many things that Hollus says points to god's existance (i.e. properties of water, the laws of the universe (gravity, etc.)). I don't have much to say right now, but if you want food for thought on the subject I would definitely reccomend this book.

Tea · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Tea** on Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:06 am

Interesting. I suppose that I will add a little more to the thread.

"If a human being can completely theorize a thing then, in theory, they can create that thing."

Religion...is a system. All religions are systems and they are human-thought-based systems. Religion is the struggle of Humankind to give worth to their empty and useless existences. Religion is the practice of giving dogma instead of answers to the person, the soul, who truly seeks answers.

I will not say that all religions are wrong. What I mean to say is that in my experience most religions seem to take on the position of emphasizing Humanity's perspective, the...physical perspective, rather than a perspective which focuses on what should be identified as a spiritual reality.

I suppose, then, that I should say, "Please take care with your perspective." Also, enjoy the day.

DarknessUndying · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **DarknessUndying** on Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:14 am

As a scientist, I can confirm what Tea has said. Admittedly, i'm a Microbiologist, so i focus on the little things. But this topic would be best to bring up with a Physician. Next time I'm in the University i'll ask a few of them. Probably [REDACTED] or someone.

Good day.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:29 pm

Religion is a set of beliefs grouped together to form a world view, with appropriate scripture if applicable. Science can explain this is as a cultural phenomenon and I believe it's a response to the need for knowledge in areas that lacks it.

Sarifa · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Sarifa** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:52 am

I watch spirit science on youtube so yes I think science and math can explain it check it out

Susie Maddy Daison · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Susie Maddy Daison** on Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:37 pm

dealing with it wrote:People frequently attempt to give scientific explanations for both the phenomenon of religion, and for various religious/spiritual things that happen. The consequence of this, inevitably, is that scientific theories of how knowledge work begin to overwhelm the different, less strict, epistemologies of religion.

Sadly, no. Religious and irrational thinking still abound in the societies, and they don't want to go away anytime soon.

I see science as a collection of metaphors that have useful applications,

I think you're talking about folklore. Science is not "a collection of metaphors", it's a collection of empirical data and well-tested theories, and to say that it has "useful applications" is a pretty large understatement, considering that without it, we really wouldn't know anything more than birds do.

and religion/spirituality as a way to approach truths about human experience.

I.e., make things up? They can be comforting, sure, but don't go looking to them for facts.

They are different forms of knowledge.

One form of knowledge has been proven throughout the centuries and is the base of everything we know, whereas the other smugly hides in the not-yet-vanquished shadows and occasionally ventures into its previous domain, only to be slapped back down again (i try to be poetic). What has religion and mysticism given us, besides veritable falsehoods and, sometimes, an ununique sense of comfort?

The unbelief of science, used on religion, always overwhelms faith.

Again, if only that were true. Last time i checked, religiosity in America, as an example, hovers somewhere around 75%. That's not what i would call 'always overwhelming faith'.

But it's inappropriate to do so; scientific skepticism has no place in spirituality.

Superstitionists always like to construct artificial boundaries around there special lies, saying that 'no, you can't apply critical thinking here'; it's because, like you said, 'spirituality' can't hold a candle to the truth of science, even if the public doesn't usually pay that much mind.

To attempt an answer my own question, therefore, I don't believe that science should be used to explain religion.

What do you mean by "explain religion"? That's vague. Do you mean explain away the claims of religion, explain why people believe in religion, etc.?

Scientific theories should not be used to explain matters of the spirit.

How would i know there's the spirit in the first place? Since i have to start with axioms, i'd much rather start with the ones of science, which we know produces facts (at least to our generalized perceptions), rather than whatever you'd use to justify spiritualism.

The desire to make everything scientific leads to base scientism, which is an impoverished way to view the world.

Since we are emotional creatures, there's nothing wrong with using philosophy or whatnot to add some color to the grayscale of the world -- but don't start photoshopping it.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:09 pm

solidmatterdrive25 wrote:I think you're talking about folklore. Science is not "a collection of metaphors", it's a collection of empirical data and well-tested theories, and to say that it has "useful applications" is a pretty large understatement, considering that without it, we really wouldn't know anything more than birds do.

Science is nothing but metaphor used to make the world relatable. The brain is a computer. The solar system is a clock. The fabric of the cosmos is made up of strings. Atoms are plum pudding. Gravity is a force. Madness is a disease. Light is a wave (or a small mote of dust when that makes more sense). Speciation is the branches of the tree of life. Space is the 3 dimensions of a mathematical model.

If you don't see scientific knowledge as a series of useful metaphors, you are taking your imagination far too seriously, and severely misunderstanding the nature of science. We don't need beliefs when we think scientifically; we can easily do science with nothing but radical skepticism. Or we can do it while under the influence of the most elaborate religious system.

And the scientific method has nothing whatsoever to say about religion, just as you don't need to know jack or shit about science to be a fantastic author.

Susie Maddy Daison · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Susie Maddy Daison** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:10 am

dealing with it wrote:Science is nothing but metaphor used to make the world relatable. The brain is a computer. The solar system is a clock. The fabric of the cosmos is made up of strings. Atoms are plum pudding. Gravity is a force. Madness is a disease. Light is a wave (or a small mote of dust when that makes more sense). Speciation is the branches of the tree of life. Space is the 3 dimensions of a mathematical model.

Just because people use metaphors to more-easily understand scientific concepts does not, in-fact, make the scientific concepts themselves metaphors.

And the scientific method has nothing whatsoever to say about religion, just as you don't need to know jack or shit about science to be a fantastic author.

Of course it doesn't -- methods, scientific or otherwise, don't hold opinions (i try to be a smart-ass). But science and skepticism are closely intertwined, and good scientists believe things that are grounded in evidence.

And you don't need scientific knowledge to be a good author, but it tends to help in sci-fi.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 am

Have you ever heard of the measurement problem Solid? The universe exists because our consciousness allows it to exist. Without consciousness, nothing can exist as it goes against Schrodinger's equation as there is no wavefunction collapse which allows for it to exist. It is the simple problem of quantum physics which is made famous by the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox. Everything exists until a consciousness sees it in order to make it exist.
Hence, science can only define what our conciseness tells us and it does that through language. With language, we have a problem as it is just a set of symbols made up to explain something from a relative perspective. The word "atom" for example is not what it used to mean. Atom used to mean something along the lines of "nothing is smaller". Coming from two different words "a", meaning "not" and "tom" meaning "to cut". So really, what atom means is that it cannot be cut any smaller. However, we have now discovered that an atom is made up of smaller particles which are ultimately (according to quantum physics) are made up of string. Why aren't these string now being called atoms?
This is just one of many examples. I suggest if you really want to understand it, you look into postmodernism, specifically Derrida, who explains the problem of language very well.
Either way it doesn't matter because we can always go back to the measurement problem and, even further, back to Descartes famous, "I think, therefore I am." which address' the problem with even trusting your senses. This would bring even more issues with the measurement problem and the problem of language because if we both call the chair blue, but one of us sees it as yellow and the other as red, who's to say that any of us are correct?

When it comes to science proving the existence of god, I think it is possible. Aristotle spoke of the "unmoved mover", or the beginning, big bang, whatever you wish to call it. It had to have started somewhere and I think science is on the hot trail to discovering it. Whether it is god or not is something that I cannot be sure of. And then the question arises of how much of a god god was if science can explain it. This again, I cannot really pass judgment on. I'm not even sure how I'd speculate on the matter. It would take a lot of thinking for me to come up with an acceptable response.

LordSaladin · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **LordSaladin** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:28 am

Let's all assume for a moment that God exists and that he created the universe and everything in it.

Now consider Genesis (yes, I know the question is 'religion' not 'Christianity', but I am most familiar with Christianity): There was a heaven or a nothing, depending on your particular denomination and personal beliefs. God decided to create the universe and did so. It didn't happen in a day (that it happened in 7 24-hour periods I think is purely symbolic, by the way, and should not be taken literally in the slightest), it took a while to create this universe we live in. It wasn't a click of the fingers, "Here you go, have a universe to live in folks!"

Because it took time to build, I think it's a safe assumption to say that bits had to be put together. Part A7 goes into Part z74 and is secured with screw 9a12 after the glue must be allowed to set for 10 minutes. Ya know, not quite a flat pack piece of furniture, but symbolism, metaphor.

So all these little bits that God put together finally became the universe we see around us. But we're curious and start poking at the corners and the seams. We begin to realise that the world isn't one single piece. And as we look closer and closer and in more and more detail we realise shit aint what we thought. We see all the little lego pieces (that's a switch of metaphor, by the way, for those that can't keep up). Some folk realise that this was done by some greater power and worship God. Other folk can look at the little pieces and see exactly how they go together. They claim that because they can figure it out, God couldn't possibly have done it.

Those people who claim that science is wrong and false are far too arrogant in their own religiosity to believe that we mere mortals are able to see the way in which God does things, how he built things. And those who claim religion is false because of science are too arrogant to believe that anyone else not one of us might have created all these little bricks and glue that we're only just beginning to understand.

Why must science and religion be either mutually exclusive or contradictory? What if, heaven forbid, they're the same thing from a different angle?

Susie Maddy Daison · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Susie Maddy Daison** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:28 am

Lord Saladin wrote:Why must science and religion be either mutually exclusive or contradictory?

They don't have to be, but they often are.

What if, heaven forbid, they're the same thing from a different angle?

Science: gathers empirical data, constantly tests and retests, builds theories from data, uses peer-review, is responsible for most of the actual knowledge we have.
Religion: claims stuff, usually that's untestable or false; asks you to believe on blind faith.

Unless we're in some alien dimension, i don't see how those can be on the same shape.

LordSaladin · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **LordSaladin** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:53 pm

You should probably read more than just the last two lines of a debate post.

Susie Maddy Daison · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Susie Maddy Daison** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm

Lord Saladin wrote:Now consider Genesis (yes, I know the question is 'religion' not 'Christianity', but I am most familiar with Christianity): There was a heaven or a nothing, depending on your particular denomination and personal beliefs. God decided to create the universe and did so. It didn't happen in a day (that it happened in 7 24-hour periods I think is purely symbolic, by the way, and should not be taken literally in the slightest), it took a while to create this universe we live in. It wasn't a click of the fingers, "Here you go, have a universe to live in folks!"

Why not? It would make far more sense for a god to instantly make the universe, unless xe wants to mislead us.

Because it took time to build, I think it's a safe assumption to say that bits had to be put together. Part A7 goes into Part z74 and is secured with screw 9a12 after the glue must be allowed to set for 10 minutes. Ya know, not quite a flat pack piece of furniture, but symbolism, metaphor.

If you're making the universe, why not make it come preassambled?

They claim that because they can figure it out, God couldn't possibly have done it.

Who claims that? I have never heard anyone use that line of reasoning to justify nonbelief in (a) god(s).

And those who claim religion is false because of science are too arrogant to believe that anyone else not one of us might have created all these little bricks and glue that we're only just beginning to understand.

When there's no evidence for religious claims, it's not arrogant to not believe in them -- and not believing and denying as true are barely different in a practical sense.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:09 pm

Lord Saladin wrote:Some folk realise that this was done by some greater power and worship God.

How do you jump from seeing a component of reality to saying the christian god made it? There's dozens of problems wrong with that.

Lord Saladin wrote:Other folk can look at the little pieces and see exactly how they go together. They claim that because they can figure it out, God couldn't possibly have done it.

Who?

Sench · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Sench** on Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:38 am

Can science explain religion, as in church? Yes. It is a social institute created to unite a like-minded group of people for the sake of kinship and, quite often, to abuse this unity for personal gain.
Can science explain religion, as in faith? Yes. People choose to believe in god for a vast number of psychological reasons and/or because they were taught to do so.
Can science explain religion, as in God? No. God defies explanation and cannot be defined by scientific terms and methods.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:52 pm

Sench wrote:That wasn't so hard, now was it?

The question of whether or not this question is so easy as to have been answered in 3 short lines depends, in this case, on whether or not those three short lines are both scientific and thorough.

Can science explain religion, as in church? Yes. It is a social institute created to unite a like-minded group of people for the sake of kinship and, quite often, to abuse this unity for personal gain.

This sounds like an attempt at an anthropological definition. If it wasn't for your transparent bias "abuse this unity for personal gain", something like this might appear in the front of a first year textbook (Anthropology 101). Then the rest of the textbook will attempt to explain religion from a non-religious perspective, successfully or not, scientifically or not. So what you've done is pointed in the direction of anthropology and expected that we might believe some anthropological explanation of religion might be complete and accurate. While only saying the definition, not the explanation.

Can science explain religion, as in faith? Yes. People choose to believe in god for a vast number of psychological reasons and/or because they were taught to do so.

Again, with the finger pointing. Freud wrote "The Future of an Illusion" where he attempted to describe religion in psychological terms; I consider it to be an utter failure; it's barely science, and completely misunderstands religion. Could you please specify whose psychological account is scientific and accurate?

Can science explain religion, as in God? No. God defies explanation and cannot be defined by scientific terms and methods.

What about non-scientific terms? Can you define God without scientific terms and methods and hope for accuracy? Can religions explain themselves? What of science: can we use science to explain science?

Can religions explain science?

Can Science Explain Religion?

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

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