Can religion tell us more than science?

[rug]

When he recounts the story of his conversion to Catholicism in his autobiography A Sort of Life, Graham Greene writes that he went for instruction to Father Trollope, a very tall and very fat man who had once been an actor in the West End.

Trollope was a convert who became a priest and led a highly ascetic life, and Greene didn't warm to him very much, at least to begin with.

Yet the writer came to feel that in dealing with his instructor he was faced with "the challenge of an inexplicable goodness". It was this impression - rather than any of the arguments the devout Father presented to the writer for the existence of God - that eventually led to Greene's conversion.

The arguments that were patiently rehearsed by Father Trollope faded from his memory, and Greene had no interest in retrieving them. "I cannot be bothered to remember," he writes. "I accept."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

[Warren DeMontague]

1. it can

particularly about things that are imaginary, unprovable, or flat-out false.

[rug]

2. Read on.

"We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don't believe. It's an assumption with a long history in western philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate on atheism.

"In this view belonging to a religion involves accepting a set of beliefs, which are held before the mind and assessed in terms of the evidence that exists for and against them. Religion is then not fundamentally different from science, both seem like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there's no longer any need for religion.

"This was the view presented by the Victorian anthropologist JG Frazer in his book The Golden Bough, a study of the myths of primitive peoples that is still in print. According to Frazer, human thought advances through a series of stages that culminate in science. Starting with magic and religion, which view the world simply as an extension of the human mind, we eventually reach the age of science in which we view the world as being ruled by universal laws.

"Frazer's account has been immensely influential. It lies behind the confident assertions of the new atheists, and for many people it's just commonsense. My own view is closer to that of the philosopher Wittgenstein, who commented that Frazer was much more savage than the savages he studied."

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I'm not sure Wittgenstein can talk, though

not after he attacked that guy with the fireplace poker. :rofl:

[rug]

8. Karl Popper was asking for it.

:)

[LAGC]

3. Yep, religion makes all sorts of claims about the unknown that science can't fully explain yet.

That doesn't mean those claims are true, by any means, just not fully refuted yet.

[rug]

6. Yet.

That sounds almost messianic.

[LAGC]

Well, as long as we don't end up worshiping on the altar of Scientology, I'm cool with it.

;)

[madrchsod]

13. you mean you don`t want to be e-metered?

the last i saw those meters would only set you back a few thousand bucks...

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Honestly, bub, that brand of nonsense doesn't sound any more or less ridiculous

than the rest of it, to many of us.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. the difference is, religion presents the 'answers' and then accommodates/ignores the evidence as it

comes in.

Science, OTOH, is an open-ended methodology which claims no final "answer" but merely attempts to construct ever-better explanations or 'maps' for reality and phenomena, always subject to further revision as new data comes in.

Look at it this way: Is "Christianity" ever going to say "Oh, yeah, we thought Jesus was savior, but now we've got new information and, sorry, Jesus isn't lord anymore". No. Then it wouldn't be "Christianity" anymore, would it? But if Jesus showed up tomorrow, science would have to completely revise and accommodate him into the scientific framework (not that that's going to happen) because that's how science works.

[rug]

12. It's the difference between an answer and a question.

Religion is based on revelations and science is based on questions.

Two different methodologies that don't mesh.

[darkstar3]

15. Assumed and unverified revelations.

[rug]

20. Unverified by scientific methodology.

[darkstar3]

23. Are they verified in another way?

[Warren DeMontague]

58. But have there been any new "revelations" in the field of Christianity lately?

Or is it basically confirmation of the same stuff. Did we find out, for instance, that God has a step-brother or likes motocross?

[rug]

60. Not for 1900 years.

But there is constantly a deepening understanding of it.

I'm sure that's disappointing if you follow motocross.

[laconicsax]

63. The continual divergence there suggests a reduction in understanding.

You see, a deepening understanding leads to convergence, not divergence. That's why science has been so successful at synthesizing so many phenomena into a handful of theories. Hell, one theory, quantum electrodynamics, explains everything except for gravity and radiation.

[rug]

64. To the contrary, there has been a significant understanding of common positions.

For example, do you think the Hindu Godhead is polytheistic?

[laconicsax]

65. I suppose the more than 40,000 Christian denominations is incidental then.

BTW: Hindu isn't a unified religion and there are multiple positions on whether there are many gods, one god, or no gods.

[rug]

69. It is, since groups like Westboro are in that number.

[skepticscott]

66. Oh really?

Then why don't you give us 5 or 6 examples of this "deepening understanding" of Christianity? Tell us what is better understood about it than 20 years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. "But there is constantly a deepening understanding of it."

How do you quantify and/or validate that statement objectively?

[tama]

73. If you read

Gospel of Thomas, it becomes clear that the deepening understanding has very much to do with letting go of the subject-object division. Often used modern simile is hologram, imagine you are a part of a hologram, a dynamic and constantly evolving one, if you like. What is the difference of information content between "subject" as a part of the hologram and "object" as the whole of the hologram? Is there any difference, and if so, what kind of difference?

Or in other words, deepening understanding of it is not unrelated to the philosophical interpretations of the quantum measurement problem. How do you quantify and/or validate quantum measurement objectively? You don't, e.g. in Feynmans approach you stop trying to understand "objectively" (ie. subjectively about what objectively means etc. etc. ad nauseam infinite regression) and just "shut up and calculate".

[skepticscott]

74. If you really believe that what you wrote

represents deeper understanding among the Christian population, I can recommend a good therapist.

[tama]

75. LOL

Any case, "esoteric" deeper understanding can be found also among the population of Christian nomination and not all of them are authoritarian book worshippers aka "exoterics". I have no idea about current population statistics between "esoterics" and "exoterics" among all Christians of the world, but I do hypothesize that the proportion of "esoterics" is growing in numbers and deepening understanding, as the proportion of "exoterics" is growing if in any way, only in loudness and attention from active atheists. ;)

[skepticscott]

77. On second thought

I'd recommend your nearest emergency room.

[tama]

79. OK

You claim that I'm insane. Prove it, with a rational diagnosis, with ethical axiom of helping me to get better.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. So what is the atomic weight of one Jesus?

There isn't one. Quantum equations can be calculated b/c they deal with shit that "exists", at least for the purposes of the measurement, in reality.

Arguing endlessly about how many furious green flimhatzits fit inside the dreams of a fitzwardle isn't science, not even close.

[tama]

85. Origin of mass

is still unkown to science. Higgs boson and the standard model remain still unverified.

In what kind of reality do quantum equations (Hilbert spaces and rest of the math) exist?

Do you define the potentiality to be measured also as reality, or only the measurement actualizations?

[skepticscott]

84. Apparently this is just one more claim

that you pulled out of your ass.

[Angry Dragon]

4. NOPE

[NMMNG]

7. "What practitioners believe is secondary, if it matters at all. "

Tell that to those who screech any time someone questions or challenges their "beliefs", or to those who use their "deeply held beliefs" to oppress women, LGBT people, minority religious groups/nonbelievers, etc.

[rug]

10. Ok, as soon as I see one of them on DU.

PM me if you see one.

[NMMNG]

55. Moving the goalposts

You post a story about religious people in general and I'm restricted to examples solely from DU. I already deal with an uneven playing field in real life thanks to religious folk. I'm not playing with it here.

[rug]

61. Good.

I don't play.

[madrchsod]

11. no.........

[darkstar3]

14. Name one instance in which it has.

Cite facts that have been found and verified by religion alone without the help of science.

[rug]

21. You haven't read #12.

[darkstar3]

24. Sure I have. The point stands.

If religion can tell us "more than science", it stands to reason that religion would have found us some facts without the aid of science. You make a good point in #12, in that science and religion are incompatible methods of inquiry, but you miss the greater problem of that incompatibility.

We can talk about those problems at another time. For now, I want to know what facts have been given to us specifically by religion. If you cannot give us any, then why should anyone believe that religion can somehow tell us "more than science"?

[rug]

29. No it doesn't.

The article is not about measuring facts.

"There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth." - Maya Angelou

[darkstar3]

32. No one on this board has managed to express what "truth" is.

Angelou's quote, especially used in this instance, is special pleading. If religion is to give us "more than science", it must be something we can quantify or at least describe effectively.

[rug]

33. There's a big difference between quantifying and describing.

Theology is an attempt at description. That is the topic.

[darkstar3]

35. So describe truth, and please, use a theologically agreed upon description.

[rug]

37. Which truth?

Ontological truth?

Logical truth?

Philosophical truth?

Moral truth?

Mathemathical truth?

Semantic truth?

[darkstar3]

40. Now you see the problem in the word.

You're the one who invoked "truth", now you're hedging because you know there's no such thing.

So how will religion tell us more than science if you can't even describe a concept which you invoked yourself?

[rug]

41. There have been thousands of words written describing each of them i've listed.

[darkstar3]

44. All of them expressing divergent views incapable of reconciliation.

How does that give us anything?

[rug]

46. Assuming you've read all those words, it's a pity that's what you got from it.

These philosophies, and the effort to articulate them, are themselves monuments to the human mind.

[darkstar3]

50. You don't know what the word monument means, do you?

[rug]

53. Indeed I do. I know what a sham is too.

[darkstar3]

54. Clearly not.

[onager]

43. Hey, those goal-posts are galloping away!

:rofl:

[rug]

52. If you chase them, don't fall off your high horse.

[dogmoma56]

16. i am reading..' the Evolution of God' so far it is a fantastic book >Link>>

religious scholars really cant be christians or anything else.. he keeps making comments about 'no religious scholar comes near to believing this..'

there was no Exodus there was no Moses.. that shit was was all made up. it is all superstitions of bronze age goat herders, and power plays later in history.. that caused the same shit to happen that is happening now since 800 bce, over and over.!!

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-God-Back-Readers-Pick/dp/031606744X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316394388&sr=1-1

[sudopod]

17. lolworthy

"Because it's a human invention, science - just like religion - will always be used for all kinds of purposes, good and bad. Unbelievers in religion who think science can save the world are possessed by a fantasy that's far more childish than any myth. The idea that humans will rise from the dead may be incredible, but no more so than the notion that "humanity" can use science to remake the world."

Just how many "people" do you know who have contracted "polio" in the last fifty years? :3

Also, why is "humanity" in "scare quotes"?

[rug]

22. Do you think science will save the world?

[darkstar3]

25. The world doesn't need saving.

The people are pretty fucked if we continue down the path of global destruction that we're on, but scientific discovery and progress will be the only way in which we avoid that.

[sudopod]

26. This!

Though I don't mind not dying of smallpox, too. That's pretty great. And clean water. And safe food. And living past forty.

[rug]

27. Do you think science will stop global destruction?

[darkstar3]

30. Why is it when you invoke that phrase I think you mean something different than I did.

I was talking about destruction of our environment on a global scale. When you write it I see destruction of the globe on an astronomic scale. I don't think that's going to happen.

At any rate, to answer your question, I do think scientific progress will stop the destruction of our environment eventually. Do you think there is anything else that will, save our extinction?

[rug]

31. I read it as the destruction of the globe.

You, of course, realize science holds the earth will end.

[darkstar3]

34. All things end.

It is the single most universal fact in the universe. It is not completely universal, but it's as close as we get. I never said or implied that science would prevent the destruction of this world on an astronomic scale. You inferred it because it's a way for you to shift focus and dodge the question at hand.

Is there anything else except scientific progress that will put a stop to our current path of environmental destruction?

[rug]

36. No, stay on topic.

You concede science can noot stop the end of the planet. Fine. That's one of the points of the article, not ozone.

[darkstar3]

39. You're the one having trouble staying on topic.

#30 asked you a question. You have yet to answer it. If the point of this discussion is the overarching question of "Can religion tell us more than science?", then it is important to demonstrate this possbility. Give an example, any example, of how religion can save the environment.

[rug]

42. I'm sure you can discuss it here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[darkstar3]

45. Refusal to answer will be taken as lack of an answer.

[rug]

47. Take it any way you want.

[MisterP]

18. also, you can try mushing them together

http://mjt.org/main2.html
http://mjt.org/exhibits/kircher/Knots.html

[laconicsax]

19. Tell us more about what?

The natural universe? Not by a longshot.
The limits of human imagination? Yep.

[Billy Burnett]

28. Albert Einstein on creation.

‎"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." - Albert Einstein




:hi:

[rug]

48. Good quote.

Thanks!

[onager]

49. Fake Einstein quote, most likely...

I removed this "quote" as almost certainly fabricated, as a Google search indicates no published sources of it prior to 2005, and that book merely cites an internet web page as its source:

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."

Though Einstein respected many traditions the stated views are directly contrary to most of his known opinions regarding traditional faiths and his notions of God.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein

Real Einstein quotes on the subject:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...

Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

The word "god" is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this. - Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

[Silent3]

38. Can we get more vague about what's meant by "religion"?

Real religion is apparently whatever sort of warm fuzzy glow is left over after all of the arbitrary and irrational bits that don't stand up well to argument have been thrown away.

Let's throw in the beauty of a sunset and the sound of a child's laughter while we're at it.

[onager]

51. And a puppy!

[rug]

56. Why, it's the magic of reality!

[shyama555]

57. Science and religion

When we talk about a religion it goes with believe.Some time scientifically we can't prove it but those who follow these religion believe it.It's difficult to change these things.

[tama]

62. I'm not sure

if shamanism and buddhism can be categorized as religion or spiritual practices, and don't really matter, but to answer to the OP question with couple examples:

1) Many shamanistic cultures have been and still are attested of being able to live sustainably, without harming the carrying capacity of the environment they depend from. There is no evidence of scientific high tech cultures cultures of being able to live sustainably, withhout harming the carrying capacity of the environment they depend from.

2) Buddhist methodologies have been and are able to produce "awakened" or "enlightened" states in those who follow the methodology. Scientific methodologies have no such ability, AFAIK.

So the answer to reformulated quation, can spiritual traditions tell us more than (current state of) science, is enlight of these examples YES. As open and self correcting method of seeking truth, science can learn from spiritual traditions and incorporate their empirical knowledge.

[darkstar3]

67. Agrarian societies are always more sustainable than industrialized ones.

By contrast, industrialized societies lead to specialization and technological breakthroughs. An agrarian society could simply never have given us the microprocessor, as one example.

As for Buddhist methodologies producing awakened or enlightened states, I've seen no proof.

[tama]

72. Didn't mean agrarian societies

but hunter-gatherers and (forest)-gardeners. AFAIK there are no proof of sustainable agrarian society, on the contrary the classical study "Civilisation and top soil" makes a convincing case that agrarian societies aka civilisations destroy "top soil", ie. fertility of the land by deforstation and erosian etc. and after that often go into imperialistic phase to rob and mine top soil from elsewhere - and then collapse. Sustainable agriculture is still something to be learned, not something that we know.

Hunter-gatherers can also cause mass extinctions and experience population expansions and collapses, but not all of them do. Most live perfectly sustainably, and according to anthropological studies, the social function of shamanhood is central in preserving sustainable nature relation in shamanistic hunter-gatherer-gardener societies.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of Buddhist methodologies working, and also EEG studies showing that meditation practices cause short term and long term changes, but I guess there is no "real proof" except seeing for yourself.

[laconicsax]

76. If I might interject...

The EEG studies were about meditation in itself, not Buddhism. IIRC, monks were used because they could achieve the fastest results.

[tama]

80. Yep

Buddhism does not claim copyright on meditation practices or awakening/salvation etc. Copyright on salvation (only through Jebus!) is what I would believe everybody on this forum does not think highly of.

[laconicsax]

81. Then it's a false claim you made.

When the methods are incidental to the results, it's incorrect to assert a causal relationship.

[tama]

86. Causal relationships

are allways logically questionable, as Hume said.

[Iggo]

70. LOL...no.

:rofl:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. Hell no!!!

Religion is about speculation.

Science is about facts and the scientific method. If the theory does not fit the facts, the theory must be disposed of.

I run my life on facts.

[Jim__]

78. I don't think the heading captures what Gray is saying.

I don't believe he is claiming that religion tells us more than science, rather he is saying that religion can give us a different, but still meaningful, understanding of who we are from the understanding that we can get from science:

Through science humans can lift themselves beyond the view of things that's forced on them by day-to-day existence. They can't overcome the fact that they remain animals, with minds that aren't equipped to see into the nature of things.

Darwin's theory is unlikely to be the final truth. It may be just a rough account of how life has developed in our part of the cosmos. Even so, the clear implication of the theory of evolution is that human knowledge is by its nature limited.

It's been said that the universe is a queerer place than we can possibly imagine, and I'm sure that's right. However rapidly our knowledge increases, we'll always be surrounded by the unknowable.

Science hasn't enabled us to dispense with myths. Instead it has become a vehicle for myths - chief among them, the myth of salvation through science. Many of the people who scoff at religion are sublimely confident that, by using science, humanity can march onwards to a better world.

...

[Deep13]

83. If it can, what is it waiting for?

So far, most of what it has told us is dead wrong. I don't just mean guesses about the universe or the origin of life, either. The ethical lessons, the morality either take credit for what we already knew or are simply horribly immoral lessons.