Do We Need Faith?

[nPeace]

Certainly not. If you want to define 'science' as meaning any form of trial and error process for determining knowledge, be my guest. That type of science has always been around. But the modern scientific process has been around since the 1600s.

Can you clarify. I probably didn't understand your words.
I seem to do that a lot, when you 'speak'.

What did you mean by...
Quote Hmm...well, there are two ways you could define science. In it's simplest form, the oldest record of scientific process being followed that I'm aware of is Ancient Egypt. There are records of a medical science in a very simple form being followed. Examination, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. However, I was more talking about modern science, and the modern scientific process, which is more like the 1600's (with the evolution of scientific method largely taking the entire century). People commonly seem to be referring to modern science, rather than a much looser definition, when talking about it, and it was in that sense that I suggested science as 'unnecessary' in the truest sense. Unquote

Were they "scientific process" in ancient times, or not? Does that count as science, or not? ...in your view.

I'm a massive history nerd, so I'm going to let the 'no people before 1600' crack pass by.

You should laugh. It takes the frown off one's face, and adds a few years to one's life.

If you want to talk about what passed for science in classical times with me, no problems. But I find it is somewhat useful to clarify when talking to people as to whether it's modern scientific process they are talking about. Humans prospered for many centuries without it, despite it being a much more efficient and effective means of building knowledge.

Science is just what it is. It's not defined by our preferences.
There were coolers in the past... ovens, etc. They don't have to look like what we know today, in order to be called such.

I don't have a 'side of the coin', and have been consistently against binary thought-concepts like that. But I'd simply ask them to extrapolate out what they mean to a level of coherence I could respond to.

Huh? Thankfully, all scientists do not wear straight-jackets.

I think you're getting the point a little tangled, to be honest. I'm not suggesting it's preferable or healthy to live without higher thought, or love, or family. I'm suggesting it's not in any way, shape or form POSSIBLE to have love, higher thought, family, etc, without basic survival requirements being met.

It doesn't matter how well adjusted and loved I am, nor how spiritually attuned I am, if I have no food, no shelter, or a neighbouring tribe deciding I'd look tasty in a cooking pot, and me without any security.

Maybe you missed my point... Or, I don't understand your point.
Man can live without anything physical - food, water, clothes, shelter, love, family...
The thing is, each one's life-span will differ in shortness.

So, yes, man can live without science and religion, but it will still be short-lived. Only not as short as a few weeks fasting.

So if you are saying that man only needs to eat and drink to live, I say he only needs to breath.

The simple way of stating it is that to survive, we need food, shelter and security. To LIVE, we need food, shelter, security, companionship, self-actualising, etc.
The basic survival requirements are a pre-requisite ALWAYS. Other things can be done without for certain periods of our life, and we can survive, before returning to higher end thought when our basic needs are more easily satisfied.

We needed science to survive.
What tools did our ancestors use to survive? | Bushcraft Buddy
history of technology - The urban revolution (c. 3000–500 bce)
Ancient Survival Techniques that Were Part of Everyday Life

Trial and error? Is that what testing hypotheses are?
I'm sure the ancient people had ideas, and they proved those ideas worked.
Is that science? History of science in early cultures - Wikipedia

Without modern science? Indefinitely. Man wasn't going anywhere. Life is better with modern science, but it's not required. And there are plenty of people and nations doing just fine without religion, although some might argue it was an important part of their formative years. That's pretty much the point I already made, but I have to admit, I'm not seeing much of a direct addressing of these. Perhaps we're simply talking past one another.

You are obviously missing something.
The fact is that people are surviving due to achievements of centuries of science and religion.
We are only doing fine because we are standing on an already laid foundation. If the foundation was not laid, we would not be here.

So, it's like a person saying, we are doing quite fine without the teacher, because I am living on what that one taught me.

Science <> knowledge. It is entirely possible to build knowledge without science. It's just less efficient. Humans did it for centuries.

Rather than make the claim, please, can you demonstrate this?

That's a comment about evolutionary skill-building, not Neanderthal science.

Skill building? That's a new one.

The point - Had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

What is technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.

Technology in the ancient world
The beginnings—Stone Age technology (to c. 3000 BCE)

And you think indigenous tribes developed their extensive knowledge about medicinal plants via scientific process? Then you have a much looser definition of 'science' than I would use. That's fine, but it's the reason I tried to define terms in my original post.

Well I haven't seen you provide anything credible in support of your viewpoint. So why should what you think matter?

I'm completely at a loss as to how that relates to the topic at hand, for all that I find it interesting.

Seriously... You are?
Could it be, you isolated it from the connecting statements?
It was linked to this... I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

Neanderthal extinction linked to human diseases
In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, Greenbaum and his colleagues propose that complex disease transmission patterns can explain not only how modern humans were able to wipe out Neanderthals in Europe and Asia in just a few thousand years but also, perhaps more puzzling, why the end didn't come sooner.

"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.

If there were no advances in knowledge of combating diseases, man would not have survived... Thanks to ancient science.

So...you're going to need to explain that VERY carefully, I would suggest. Exactly which moral law do you think was broken, and how does that relate to ANY modern situation?

Through religion, moral laws were implimented. Some of these played a role in survival, as well.
For example, what is known about promiscuity today.

The results of, or costs associated with, these behaviors are the effects of human sexual promiscuity.

A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.

Thus, with religion playing a role in preventing this "animalistic" behavior some 'societies', lives were preserved.

 

[nPeace]

Atheism promotes no thinking except that there isn't evidence for any of the stories about theism. That is it. Does your disbelief in Islam create flawed thinking?





Science isn't a thing to get rid of. It's just a process people do. Make an idea about reality, test it, confirm it. You might be thinking of the technology that is created from scientific knowledge.





No the "good science has done" is people using science to further technology. It has far outweighed any religion or all put together. Vaccines, X-ray, MRI, medicines, clean water, food distribution..

Europe is largely secular. People use philosophy, therapy and many ways to deal with the difficulties of life. Praying to an imaginary deity is not at all essential.
Religious charity has done much good but Secular humanist organizations can also do charity. If religion was completely gone secular organizations would emerge for community and charity.





Sure, go back to the Middle ages. 50% mortality rate for babies and children. People live to 38 on average and suffer for years with rotten teeth, and all sorts of easily preventable illnesses. Read Grant's biography, even that late people suffered daily with teeth, eyesight and all types of terrible problems now easily fixable.
No knowledge of germs so even if you needed a life saving surgery you will die of infection. Your bathroom has a bucket of well water you had to get and waste goes in the street or where ever you find a spot.
These people needed mythology.
Take away religion now and you have Europe. Very happy well adjusted people. They love philosophy and appreciate what they have. Secular organizations perform charity. Food banks but without a lecture on getting saved to go to an imaginary afterlife.

There is no such thing as "good religion". Religion has interpretation. There are peaceful Muslims and radical. Christians felt fine killing "heretics" in the Middle Ages. Nations based on law and freedom has ended that. Christianity enslaved scientists (or killed them) for suggesting the planetary models were wrong. Killed over 100,000 "witches". People were interpreting the "will of God". Go right back to the Middle Ages and start over, you'll find the same thing happening all over again.
Right now ISIS is ruling brutally in the name of God. Death to young girls who become educated. Death to homosexuals. But in the late 1800's over 100,000 women killed in the U.S. because Satan or pagan arts. Doesn't sound much different. American Indians were forced on serious threat of land seizure or inability to work if they didn't abandon their religion for Christian practices. Because the Christians knew the will of the "true God". So does Islam. An "epidemic" of child molesters in the 1980's in the church? Hundreds of cases, how many in past decades when there was NO questioning church leaders?
Religion is not needed. Mostly secular countries have learned to find comfort in family, psychology, philosophy and they don't need to believe in fake stories about deities and afterlife promises. They know what they have may be their only experience at life and they are glad to know the truth. I have spoken with many people from Europe and there are pockets of religion but it's very secular. Some just go to church for tradition. ISIS (religion) is a problem. Right wing Christians hating on gays, transgender, taking away rights, undermining education because it contradicts Mesopotamian influenced mythology, is a problem.

Science/technology and religion are not comparable. Philosophy/psychology vs religion might be more apt.

Right. Thanks for describing the results of bad religion, and science's role in causality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you clarify. I probably didn't understand your words.
I seem to do that a lot, when you 'speak'.

Fair enough.

What did you mean by...
Quote Hmm...well, there are two ways you could define science. In it's simplest form, the oldest record of scientific process being followed that I'm aware of is Ancient Egypt. There are records of a medical science in a very simple form being followed. Examination, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. However, I was more talking about modern science, and the modern scientific process, which is more like the 1600's (with the evolution of scientific method largely taking the entire century). People commonly seem to be referring to modern science, rather than a much looser definition, when talking about it, and it was in that sense that I suggested science as 'unnecessary' in the truest sense. Unquote

Were they "scientific process" in ancient times, or not? Does that count as science, or not? ...in your view.

You're jumping straight into binary thinking again. Not everything is 'Yes/No', and nuance exists.
But for the sake of keeping things simple, No. There was no scientific process in ancient times.

You should laugh. It takes the frown off one's face, and adds a few years to one's life.

I laugh plenty, but if you are worried about me, you should try saying something funny.

Science is just what it is. It's not defined by our preferences.
There were coolers in the past... ovens, etc. They don't have to look like what we know today, in order to be called such.

I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Science is a human construct. It means exactly what humans decide it means, and nothing more. I was merely explaining my thoughts, but if you prefer things to be simple, science has existed since the 1600s.

Huh? Thankfully, all scientists do not wear straight-jackets.

No idea what this means, nor why there is a winky face at the end of it. Did you not understand my point? If so, just say that.

Maybe you missed my point... Or, I don't understand your point.
Man can live without anything physical - food, water, clothes, shelter, love, family...
The thing is, each one's life-span will differ in shortness.

That's about as meaningful as saying 'man can live tied on a railroad track with the 8.19am train approaching rapidly'

So, yes, man can live without science and religion, but it will still be short-lived. Only not as short as a few weeks fasting.

There are plenty of scientifically illiterate people, and not all of them are religious. Many of them manage to survive longer than 'a few weeks fasting'.

So if you are saying that man only needs to eat and drink to live, I say he only needs to breath.

I didn't say that, but again you seem to need to reduce everything down to it's simplest parts. I'm not sure why. My points weren't as basic and reductionist as that. And saying 'man only needs to breath to live' is patently ridiculous.

We needed science to survive.
What tools did our ancestors use to survive? | Bushcraft Buddy
history of technology - The urban revolution (c. 3000–500 bce)
Ancient Survival Techniques that Were Part of Everyday Life

None of those show 'science'. At the most fundamental level, you can equate 'science' with 'knowledge' if you like. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make then, though.
Do people need knowledge to survive? Of course. Do they need science? No. Were neanderthals scientists? Nope.

Trial and error? Is that what testing hypotheses are?
I'm sure the ancient people had ideas, and they proved those ideas worked.
Is that science? History of science in early cultures - Wikipedia

Good grief. I've spelled out very clearly that there are two ways you can define 'science' with one being around the use of modern scientific principles. What you are pointing to are various proto-scientific and emergent disciplines. Once again, if you want to include all knowledge as science, then fine. I have no issue with it. I simply wonder why you feel the need to argue about something.

You are obviously missing something.
The fact is that people are surviving due to achievements of centuries of science and religion.
We are only doing fine because we are standing on an already laid foundation. If the foundation was not laid, we would not be here.

*blinks*
No, I'm not missing something. You appear to be alluding to the old 'standing on the shoulders of giants' metaphor.

"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."
Source : John of Salisbury in Metalogicon, talking about 12th century scholars

That is a given, but it's got nothing to do with the point I am making. Indeed, it is precisely backwards.
We have modern scientific principles now, and they are a organized way in which we develop and build knowledge, with agreed principles, practices and standards.
What we had before modern scientific practices is what I'm talking about. I know humans can live without modern science, because humans lived without modern science for a long time. Current humans do not.

So, it's like a person saying, we are doing quite fine without the teacher, because I am living on what that one taught me.

And no. It's like a person saying 'I don't need school to survive' in the times before schools existed. When people survived.
It might be better with schools, but they are not neccessary. Like modern science.

Rather than make the claim, please, can you demonstrate this?

You demonstrated it. Various tools were designed and used by ancient peoples without knowledge or use of scientific principles.
Are you suggesting science = knowledge? It hardly seems that my suggestion they do not mean the same thing is controversial, surely?

Skill building? That's a new one.

That's literally the whole point of the first article you linked, on the inability of neanderthals to develop hand-eye coordination via art in the way early humans could. The article literally has no comment to make on science at all, and is about skill-building.
Did you read it?

The point - Had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

Knowledge <> science. But if you want to place everything humans ever developed under the umbrella of 'science' then sure.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Cont- (due to length)

What is technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.

Technology in the ancient world
The beginnings—Stone Age technology (to c. 3000 BCE)

Well I haven't seen you provide anything credible in support of your viewpoint. So why should what you think matter?

My goodness. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
All I did was give my opinion, and spell out the rationale behind it, because...as I have said many times...things are not binary. If it's so vital to you to think science and religion are necessary for humans, and your evidence is that ancient men made stone axes, and myths were commonly used to pass information on, then more power to you.

Seriously... You are?
Could it be, you isolated it from the connecting statements?
It was linked to this... I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

Neanderthal extinction linked to human diseases
In a new study published in the journal Nature Communications, Greenbaum and his colleagues propose that complex disease transmission patterns can explain not only how modern humans were able to wipe out Neanderthals in Europe and Asia in just a few thousand years but also, perhaps more puzzling, why the end didn't come sooner.

"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.

If there were no advances in knowledge of combating diseases, man would not have survived... Thanks to ancient science.

WHAT? Do you actually read the stuff you link? There is no mention in your linked article that humans were protected from these diseases by any sort of medicinal knowledge AT ALL, let alone one perfected via scientific process.

Through religion, moral laws were implimented. Some of these played a role in survival, as well.
For example, what is known about promiscuity today.

The results of, or costs associated with, these behaviors are the effects of human sexual promiscuity.

A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.

Thus, with religion playing a role in preventing this "animalistic" behavior some 'societies', lives were preserved.

Again, you read things in the wrong way. Humans survived encounters with neanderthals, with the article you linked speculating that humans were better equipped to survive diseases which may have been introduced via interbreeding. That is interbreeding of species. Something that doesn't happen today, because the neanderthals became extinct. So, the 'promiscuous behaviour' you are suggesting caused this...and I'm going to ignore momentarily that you have no idea what sort of sexual morality was being applied...in fact established humans pre-eminent role on earth as the only species with complex intelligence.

There is nothing there about 'religion' saving us, nor science. Humans and neanderthals had sex (speculative) and humans had better natural immunity to the diseases (speculative). Religion, morality and science aren't evidenced at all.
And the earlier article you linked suggested that neanderthals died out due to their inability to transition from using spears to thrust with, to being able to accurately throw them, and that this lack of hand-eye co-ordination was due to a lack of artistic practice. Which is even more highly speculative, but still has nothing to do with science.

 

[nPeace]

Fair enough.



You're jumping straight into binary thinking again. Not everything is 'Yes/No', and nuance exists.
But for the sake of keeping things simple, No. There was no scientific process in ancient times.



I laugh plenty, but if you are worried about me, you should try saying something funny.



I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Science is a human construct. It means exactly what humans decide it means, and nothing more. I was merely explaining my thoughts, but if you prefer things to be simple, science has existed since the 1600s.



No idea what this means, nor why there is a winky face at the end of it. Did you not understand my point? If so, just say that.



That's about as meaningful as saying 'man can live tied on a railroad track with the 8.19am train approaching rapidly'



There are plenty of scientifically illiterate people, and not all of them are religious. Many of them manage to survive longer than 'a few weeks fasting'.



I didn't say that, but again you seem to need to reduce everything down to it's simplest parts. I'm not sure why. My points weren't as basic and reductionist as that. And saying 'man only needs to breath to live' is patently ridiculous.



None of those show 'science'. At the most fundamental level, you can equate 'science' with 'knowledge' if you like. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make then, though.
Do people need knowledge to survive? Of course. Do they need science? No. Were neanderthals scientists? Nope.



Good grief. I've spelled out very clearly that there are two ways you can define 'science' with one being around the use of modern scientific principles. What you are pointing to are various proto-scientific and emergent disciplines. Once again, if you want to include all knowledge as science, then fine. I have no issue with it. I simply wonder why you feel the need to argue about something.



*blinks*
No, I'm not missing something. You appear to be alluding to the old 'standing on the shoulders of giants' metaphor.

"Bernard of Chartres used to compare us to dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants. He pointed out that we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature."
Source : John of Salisbury in Metalogicon, talking about 12th century scholars

That is a given, but it's got nothing to do with the point I am making. Indeed, it is precisely backwards.
We have modern scientific principles now, and they are a organized way in which we develop and build knowledge, with agreed principles, practices and standards.
What we had before modern scientific practices is what I'm talking about. I know humans can live without modern science, because humans lived without modern science for a long time. Current humans do not.



And no. It's like a person saying 'I don't need school to survive' in the times before schools existed. When people survived.
It might be better with schools, but they are not neccessary. Like modern science.



You demonstrated it. Various tools were designed and used by ancient peoples without knowledge or use of scientific principles.
Are you suggesting science = knowledge? It hardly seems that my suggestion they do not mean the same thing is controversial, surely?



That's literally the whole point of the first article you linked, on the inability of neanderthals to develop hand-eye coordination via art in the way early humans could. The article literally has no comment to make on science at all, and is about skill-building.
Did you read it?



Knowledge <> science. But if you want to place everything humans ever developed under the umbrella of 'science' then sure.

Do you want to decide what is scientific knowledge from a modern viewpoint, and refer to anything else as just knowledge? Be my guest. That's your viewpoint.

 

[nPeace]

Cont- (due to length)



My goodness. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
All I did was give my opinion, and spell out the rationale behind it, because...as I have said many times...things are not binary. If it's so vital to you to think science and religion are necessary for humans, and your evidence is that ancient men made stone axes, and myths were commonly used to pass information on, then more power to you.



WHAT? Do you actually read the stuff you link? There is no mention in your linked article that humans were protected from these diseases by any sort of medicinal knowledge AT ALL, let alone one perfected via scientific process.



Again, you read things in the wrong way. Humans survived encounters with neanderthals, with the article you linked speculating that humans were better equipped to survive diseases which may have been introduced via interbreeding. That is interbreeding of species. Something that doesn't happen today, because the neanderthals became extinct. So, the 'promiscuous behaviour' you are suggesting caused this...and I'm going to ignore momentarily that you have no idea what sort of sexual morality was being applied...in fact established humans pre-eminent role on earth as the only species with complex intelligence.

There is nothing there about 'religion' saving us, nor science. Humans and neanderthals had sex (speculative) and humans had better natural immunity to the diseases (speculative). Religion, morality and science aren't evidenced at all.
And the earlier article you linked suggested that neanderthals died out due to their inability to transition from using spears to thrust with, to being able to accurately throw them, and that this lack of hand-eye co-ordination was due to a lack of artistic practice. Which is even more highly speculative, but still has nothing to do with science.

I used an example. I assume you know what example means.
Who is being black and white here? Not me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you want to decide what is scientific knowledge from a modern viewpoint, and refer to anything else as just knowledge? Be my guest. That's your viewpoint.

My point was that knowledge and science are different. That's not 'my viewpoint'. That's factual, hence my confusion at why you're pushing back.
A simple example is language development, and the creation of new languages. This is obviously a complex knowledge area that develops and changes. But languages aren't created via scientific method.

What IS my viewpoint is to consider modern scientific process only in responding to the OP. It's completely valid to include things based on a broader definition of science. Hence I explained my thoughts and rationale.

Weirdly, you pushed back on that. My original comment was pretty simple, and clearly opinionative...

Hmm...well, there are two ways you could define science. In it's simplest form, the oldest record of scientific process being followed that I'm aware of is Ancient Egypt. There are records of a medical science in a very simple form being followed. Examination, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prognosis. However, I was more talking about modern science, and the modern scientific process, which is more like the 1600's (with the evolution of scientific method largely taking the entire century). People commonly seem to be referring to modern science, rather than a much looser definition, when talking about it, and it was in that sense that I suggested science as 'unnecessary' in the truest sense. You can pick the older definition if you like, it remains true that humans were able to live (if not prosper) without science. Not to say it is preferable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I used an example. I assume you know what example means.
Who is being black and white here? Not me.

You can safely assume I understand what an example is. But you did say I should laugh more, so perhaps you're trying to make me chuckle?

The things you linked were interesting, but they weren't examples of science. At all.
If you want to explain how they were, be my guest, but I saw no evidence of that when I read through them. I'm somewhat confused what you think they're examples OF at this point.

 

[joelr]

Right. Thanks for describing the results of bad religion, and science's role in causality.

Well you have proven my point. I said it's neither bad or good.
By insisting the sects who did those things were "bad" that means you don't agree with their interpretations. To ISIS their interpretation is good religion. The witch killers considered themselves good Christians. Now if the religious people who did the murder and hate actually called themselves "bad religion" that might be something.
But they think they are doing the correct interpretation. They are doing Gods will. Which is a permanent flaw, impossible to fix. If one of these groups becomes the most powerful then it's a big problem. Right now today the entire country of Afghanistan is ruled by ISIS. We have no idea of the countless murders and terrible punishments happening.

You can find similar scenes during the Crusades. There were early Crusades of several types. Then - In 1199, Pope Innocent III began the practice of proclaiming crusades against Christian heretics. In the 13th century, crusading was used against the Cathars in Languedoc and against Bosnia; this practice continued against the Waldensians in Savoy and the Hussites in Bohemia in the 15th century and against Protestants in the 16th. From the mid-14th century, crusading rhetoric was used in response to the rise of the Ottoman Empire, and ended around 1699 with the War of the Holy League.

When the church had full power there was no problem with killing and taking land from heretics who dared to exercise freedom of religion. They didn't say they were "bad religion"? I can't find where any Pope says that anywhere? You are just one person so your opinion is 1 out of billions. Of course God can come down any time and clear it all up and take questions as they arise. It's like he's not there?
Yet a wrestling match with Jacob was so important to show up for.

Re-interpreting history and telling people false stories is also unethical. apologetics that leaves out mountains of counter-evidence to build false narratives, unethical.


I don't understand what "science's role in causality." means? As opposed to science in just one moment? How would religion or science out of causality be a thing? Of course you look at the cumulative effects?

 

[samtonga43]

a bunch of amateur apologetics and theologians J. P. Moreland is an American philosopher, theologian, and apologist. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Philosophy . So he's again not a historian but an apologist. Crank.

You know, joel, when I read something like this, I realize why I cannot take you, or your C/Ps, seriously. Your mind seems to be full of little boxes. Philosophers in one, apologists in another, historians in a third, and so on and so on… But I have to tell you that real-life academia just doesn’t work like this. The word apologetics itself stems from the Greek word apologia, which means simply an answer given in reply.
Among Moreland’s credentials are:--
Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry
Academic Excellence Award, International School of Theology
Winner of the Outstanding Professor of the Year Award, Lakin School of Religion, Liberty University.
Member of the executive committee for the Society of Christian Philosophers.

And joel’s opinion, dear reader?
Moreland is a crank.

And there we have it.

 

[samtonga43]

Good question.
The one whom worship alone belongs to, determines that.
Only the true God, deserves to be worshipped. All other gods are either useless, or not worthy of worship.
(Revelation 4:11)

But my question was, "Who determines which religion is bad and which is good?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But my question was, "Who determines which religion is bad and which is good?

..and he said "God" .. as do I.

He will judge between us all on judgement day.
He knows who is sincere and who is not.
..regardless of professed creed.

 

[samtonga43]

apologist -
Adonis
Adonis was not resurrected. Walter Burket (a professor of classics at the University of Zurich) writes, “The evidence of resurrection is late and tenuous in the case of Adonis.”[30] Sappho (7th century BC) wrote a poem about Adonis, containing his death, but not his resurrection.[31] Lucian of Samosata (2nd century AD) writes,

They assert that the legend about Adonis and the wild boar is true, and that the facts occurred in their country, and in memory of this calamity they beat their breasts and wail every year, and perform their secret ritual amid signs of mourning through the whole countryside. When they have finished their mourning and wailing, they sacrifice in the first place to Adonis, as to one who has departed this life: after this they allege that he is alive again, and exhibit his effigy to the sky. They proceed to shave their heads, too, like the Egyptians on the loss of their Apis.[32]

Lucian goes on to say that “a human head comes every year from Egypt to Byblos, floating on its seven days’ journey.” He also notes that the River Adonis is stained with blood “every year” to commemorate Adonis’ death once again.[33] Theocritus (a 3rd century AD poet) explains that Adonis is revived once a year at the turn of the seasons. As you can see, Adonis’ “resurrected” coincided with the seasonal cycles—not resurrection from the dead in the biblical sense.

Scholar

Adonis was the title of at least one if not several resurrected saviors by the time Christianity began, sometimes equated with Tammuz, or possibly only confused with Tammuz, but either way certainly a resurrected god. Tryggve Mettinger’s detailed study The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (2001) includes discussion of the pre-Christian manuscript of a private letter in which a man likens his ability to survive several deadly uprisings to Tammuz’s ability to always return from the dead (p. 201), which would certainly suggest Tammuz had by then become the center of his own resurrection cult. This is the same god for whose death even women in Jerusalem mourned (Ezekiel 8:14-15). There is no evidence he remained dead; that letter alone attests it was commonly known he returned to life.

In the 3rd century A.D. the Christian scholar Origen says in his Comments on Ezekiel (explaining the very same passage) that Tammuz was still worshiped in his own day under the title of Adonis, and as such “certain rites of initiation are conducted” for him, “first, that they weep for him, since he has died; second, that they rejoice for him because he has risen from the dead” (apo nekrôn anastanti). This is confirmed a century later by Jerome (Commentary on Ezekiel 3.8.14). Recent pre-Christian finds attest that indeed a period of rejoicing followed mourning the death of Tammuz, which matches Origen’s description (see Benjamin Foster’s discussion of this new evidence in “Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld,” Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature [3rd ed., 2005], pp. 498-505). And we have this similarly described by a pagan author (either Lucian or someone else of the second century A.D.), who describes national ceremonies of mourning for Adonis’s death that are followed the next day by celebrations of his returning to life and ascending into outer space. Killed by a beast, he becomes “a dead person,” then he is buried and mourned, and the next day “they proclaim he lives” and he ascends (On the Syrian Goddess 6-8).

It’s far more likely the resurrection of this Adonis had been celebrated long before Christianity began than that it would be a recent innovation. Surely Origen would have known if it were, and made obvious sport of the fact. It would likewise be incredible that even at this early stage major pagan cults celebrated by entire nations would have fundamentally changed their entire religion in emulation of Christianity, which was a little known, wholly uninfluential cult that was rarely liked even when anyone had heard of it. This conclusion is pretty solid when combined with the pre-Christian evidence linking Tammuz to the same returning to life; and other evidence, such as the pre-Christian poem of Theocritus (Idyll 15), which discusses an Adonis celebration in Egypt, in which the death of Adonis is mourned, but then anticipates his return, concluding, “Goodbye, Adonis darling; and I only trust you may find us all thriving when you come next year!”


apologist
Mithras
Mithras was not resurrected. Edward Winston (of the Skeptic Project) writes, “There is no evidence of a resurrection or that Mithra has ever died. Roman Mithraic evidence dates to at least a century after the time of the New Testament.” Even critical scholar Bart Ehrman writes, “We do not have Mithraic texts that explain it all to us, let alone texts that indicate that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 and that he died to atone for sins only to be raised on a Sunday.”[42]


scholar

Mithras
Not all these savior gods were dying-and-rising gods. That was a sub-mytheme. Indeed, dying-and-rising gods (and mere men) were a broader mytheme; because examples abounded even outside the context of known savior cults (I’ll give you a nearly complete list below). But within the savior cults, a particular brand of dying-and-rising god arose. And Jesus most closely corresponds to that mythotype.

Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods.





each, like Jesus, just as unique as the next: from Dionysus to Osiris, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Dolichenus, and Adonis (not to mention Romulus, Hercules, and Asclepius).

It simply cannot be claimed that the Jewish authors of the idea of their own miraculously born, dying-and-rising savior, were in no way aware of nor at all influenced by the widespread instantiation of exactly that kind of savior all around them, in practically every culture they knew. That’s simply absurd. The coincidence is impossible. Which is why even ancient Christian apologists were not so foolish as to claim this—or even more absurdly, that no such dying-and-rising savior model even existed. Of course it existed. And they well knew it. They chose to blame it on the Devil. Plagiarizing the idea in advance, to try and set up a culture that would then dismiss the Jesus story as just another myth akin to the others the Devil conjured. This is a ridiculous defense, akin to claiming evolution is obviously false because the Devil “planted all the fossils.”

No. The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had; it was so popular and influential, so fashionable and effective, it was inevitable the idea would seep into some Jewish consciousness, and erupt onto the scene of “inspired” revolutionizing of a perceived-to-be-corrupted faith. They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing.

PLEASE provide links.

 

[samtonga43]

..and he said "God" .. as do I.

He will judge between us all on judgement day.
He knows who is sincere and who is not.
..regardless of professed creed.

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that by 'who' I meant who among the people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that by 'who' I meant who among the people.

I would have thought it was a personal thing i.e. creed

 

[nPeace]

My point was that knowledge and science are different. That's not 'my viewpoint'. That's factual, hence my confusion at why you're pushing back.
A simple example is language development, and the creation of new languages. This is obviously a complex knowledge area that develops and changes. But languages aren't created via scientific method.

What IS my viewpoint is to consider modern scientific process only in responding to the OP. It's completely valid to include things based on a broader definition of science. Hence I explained my thoughts and rationale.

Weirdly, you pushed back on that. My original comment was pretty simple, and clearly opinionative...

I can understand why you don't understand.
Let me try to make it clear.

Is it not your viewpoint that scientific knowledge did not exist until the 1600s... or have I totally misunderstood you?

I am saying to you, that is your viewpoint, where you want to determine what scientific knowledge is, from a modernized point of view.

I refered to how technology is defined.
What is technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.

Technology in the ancient world
The beginnings—Stone Age technology (to c. 3000 BCE)

It is not possible to apply scientific knowledge, if it doesn't exist. It did... before the 1600s.

Do I seem to be pushing back?
Maybe that's because you seem to be pushing the box atheist live in, and in some cases, scientists... and no. your original comment clearly was not opinionative. Simple yes. I saw that, but not clearly opinionative.

However, if you are clarifying that it was opinionative... thank you. I did not see that.

You can safely assume I understand what an example is. But you did say I should laugh more, so perhaps you're trying to make me chuckle?

Are you chuckling? Good.

The things you linked were interesting, but they weren't examples of science. At all.

So it was not your opinion then?
I hope you see why one would be confused here.

It seems to be a common thing with atheist here though.
However, let me try not to make this an issue, since this is not about atheists.

Perhaps you lost track of the conversation... at least that's what it looks like.
I'll therefore repeat myself, for clarity.

I said...
I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

I then said... Some scientists seem to think so.
Followed by examples where survival depended on certain knowledge, including combating diseases.

Is this knowledge just simply knowledge, or scientific knowledge?
Chipping a stone is a science in itself that requires many years of experience and experimentation

Is art a science?
This was answer by a Professor of Biology and Neuroscience - Dave Featherstone, on the Quora forums:
Science = art. They are the same thing.
Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. The subjects and methods have different traditions, and the intended audiences are different, but I think the motivations and goals are fundamentally the same.
Read further, from source.

Art As A Science

If one takes a look at most if not all ancient civilizations, major artistic and cultural landmarks were tied to a practical purpose.​

This overspecialization that seeks to elevate science, in addition to being self-detrimental, has often widened the schism between art and science. As an individual or field becomes ever more focused on one idea or investigation, every other issue is thrown to the curb.​

- Source (Interesting reading)

This author says both studies are attempting to understand the universe. You probably disagree.

Using plants as a cure for disease is a science. I hope you don't dispute this.

Obviously you differ in your opinion, and scientists all do.
The question I have though, is, are you saying dogmatically, 'No. Science is only defined the way I see it, and it does not matter who disagrees. Full stop?' Or are you saying here, this is your opinion - how you see it?

So nothing I presented were examples of science?
That's your opinion. Clear now?

If you want to explain how they were, be my guest, but I saw no evidence of that when I read through them. I'm somewhat confused what you think they're examples OF at this point.

I lost you, apparently.. Or you just got lost.

I'll try to clarify this, as well.
You said...
So...you're going to need to explain that VERY carefully, I would suggest. Exactly which moral law do you think was broken, and how does that relate to ANY modern situation?

My response was to that question... only.
The examples I gave, pertained to that question... only.
You are free to reread the answer, and this time, put it in the right context, and not in a science box.

Although the facts are scientifically proven as stated in the article.
Quote
A high number of sexual partners in a person's life usually means they are at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections and life-threatening cancers. These costs largely pertain to the dramatic consequences to physical and mental health. The physical health risks mainly consist of the sexually transmitted disease risks, such as HIV and AIDS, that increase as individuals have develop sexual partners over their lifetime. The mental health risks typically associated with promiscuous individuals are mood, and personality disorders, often resulting in substance use disorders and, or permanent illness. These effects typically translate into several other long-term issues in people's lives and in their relationships, especially in the case of adolescents or those with previous pathological illnesses, disorders, or factors such as family dysfunction and social stress.
Unquote

Did any of that help clarify things, or are you still confused?

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that by 'who' I meant who among the people.

Sometimes it's important to be specific, since reading minds is not a human ability.
Using the word "who" applys to anyone who counts as someone.
I don't know if you consider God to be someone, but you probably can see how persons who know that God is, and accepts that he has personality, sees him as the greatest someone, rather than being a mere something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can understand why you don't understand.
Let me try to make it clear.
Is it not your viewpoint that scientific knowledge did not exist until the 1600s... or have I totally misunderstood you?

I am saying to you, that is your viewpoint, where you want to determine what scientific knowledge is, from a modernized point of view.

What I'm saying is that modern scientific process didn't exist until about 400 years ago. Early forms of 'science' were not much like modern science, but if you want to include them (and many people would) then science has been around for about 4000 years. Scientific knowledge is simply knowledge we have gained via application of the scientific method. Again, I would tend to think of this as largely not existing before about 400 years ago, but some would include knowledge from earlier times, gained by protoscientific processes.

I refered to how technology is defined.
What is technology?
Technology is the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.

Technology in the ancient world
The beginnings—Stone Age technology (to c. 3000 BCE)

It is not possible to apply scientific knowledge, if it doesn't exist. It did... before the 1600s.

You think stone age men developed their tools via application of the scientific method? I'm unaware of any evidence of that.
Our ancestors also developed language...which was also not scientific. Science is a more efficient way of building knowledge than mere trial and error, but it's not the only way to build knowledge.

Do I seem to be pushing back?
Maybe that's because you seem to be pushing the box atheist live in, and in some cases, scientists... and no. your original comment clearly was not opinionative. Simple yes. I saw that, but not clearly opinionative.

'The box atheist live in'. You might need to enlighten me as to what you mean by that pejorative. The point I've been trying to make in this thread is that science isn't required to live. Not a 'common' atheist point at all.

However, if you are clarifying that it was opinionative... thank you. I did not see that.

Science has been around about 400 years if you only count modern science, which is what I was doing. That's a subjective choice. It's entirely valid to include protosciences as well, in which case science is about 4000 years old.

So it was not your opinion then?
I hope you see why one would be confused here.

It seems to be a common thing with atheist here though.
However, let me try not to make this an issue, since this is not about atheists.

I have no idea why my atheism is pertinent to a conversation about whether science is required to live. But the articles you linked to...and the points you extrapolated from them...were mismatched. For example, you said the following;

"Our research suggests that diseases may have played a more important role in the extinction of the Neanderthals than previously thought. They may even be the main reason why modern humans are now the only human group left on the planet," said Greenbaum, who is the first author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in Stanford's Department of Biology.

If there were no advances in knowledge of combating diseases, man would not have survived... Thanks to ancient science.

There is no suggestion in the article that YOU LINKED that it was advances in the knowledge of combatting disease that led to our ancestors surviving, and neanderthals failing to survive.
The first evidence of 'ancient science' in the medical field I'm aware of is in Egypt. Not the stone age. And it's efficacy is pretty severely doubted based on scientific analysis of documented records.

Egyptian drug therapy can be regarded as having evolved from a system rooted in magic to one of empiric observation applied within a central ideology of health and disease. That is to say that drugs used in specific therapies were first chosen based on perceived magical potential, and those that were continued were chosen based on empirical observation. Fewer than one third of the identified remedies for any given disorder contain an ingredient which can be perceived to have had activity towards the ailment being treated. However, of the therapies lacking a potentially “active ingredient” many did produce effects which in the context of the Egyptian model of health and disease were rationalized to be driving out the illness.
Source :
Wayback Machine (archive.org)
(Chapter 2 - The Proceedings of the 10th Annual HISTORY OF MEDICINE DAYS FACULTY OF MEDICINE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY)

Perhaps you lost track of the conversation... at least that's what it looks like.
I'll therefore repeat myself, for clarity.

I said...
I believe that had it not been for science, and religion - of the past (millennia ago), none of us would be alive.
For one thing, man would not have been able to survive the threats to his life, nor learned how to combat these threats, without certain knowledge.

I then said... Some scientists seem to think so.
Followed by examples where survival depended on certain knowledge, including combating diseases.

Is this knowledge just simply knowledge, or scientific knowledge?
Chipping a stone is a science in itself that requires many years of experience and experimentation

The example you gave about disease didn't suggest anything about humans 'combatting diseases', but regardless...
It's a science if it followed scientific method. Are you suggesting it did?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

[cont-]

Is art a science?
This was answer by a Professor of Biology and Neuroscience - Dave Featherstone, on the Quora forums:
Science = art. They are the same thing.
Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. The subjects and methods have different traditions, and the intended audiences are different, but I think the motivations and goals are fundamentally the same.
Read further, from source.

Art As A Science

If one takes a look at most if not all ancient civilizations, major artistic and cultural landmarks were tied to a practical purpose.​

This overspecialization that seeks to elevate science, in addition to being self-detrimental, has often widened the schism between art and science. As an individual or field becomes ever more focused on one idea or investigation, every other issue is thrown to the curb.​

- Source (Interesting reading)

They're not the same. Frankly that's kind of a nonsense statement which he seems to be throwing out for effect. Both are vitally important, both can be highly focused on the world around us, and making sense of it, and there are intersections of the two in particular moments. But they're not 'the same'. And you appear to have my worldview approximately 180 degrees wrong. I haven't been promoting the primary of science...quite the opposite. And I have explicity pushed back on binary thought. You copied comment here about hyperspecialization (in any field) makes sense to me. I'm not a fan of reductionism of any sort, as I think it's akin to thinking you understand a jigsaw by looking at the individual pieces.

It a slight tangent, but my career is based on looking at complex business issues in a holistic sense. I commonly have to work with domain specialists in this role, and stitch together their various (sometimes closeted) views into some level of overall coherence.

This author says both studies are attempting to understand the universe. You probably disagree.

They can be, certainly. Why on earth would I disagree with that?

Using plants as a cure for disease is a science. I hope you don't dispute this.

It would depend on whether they've used science to determine which plants to use, and what for...
Because that's what 'science' is. Science is limited. It's not just 'all the stuff we know'.

Consider the following example from Ancient Egypt...a cure for baldness.

An alternate cure for baldness, which was supposedly used by the swnw of Cleopatra to re-grow the hair of her lover Julius Caesar, included the following; toasted domestic mouse, toasted vine, rag and toasted horses teeth, combined with equal proportions of bear’s grease, deer’s marrow and reed bark all pounded together mixed with honey and applied topically.
Source :
Wayback Machine (archive.org)
(Chapter 2 - The Proceedings of the 10th Annual HISTORY OF MEDICINE DAYS FACULTY OF MEDICINE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY)

Do you see that as science?

Obviously you differ in your opinion, and scientists all do.

I'm not a scientist. My professional background was teaching. Closest I got to science was that I majored in psychology, which included some basic education on scientific method.

The question I have though, is, are you saying dogmatically, 'No. Science is only defined the way I see it, and it does not matter who disagrees. Full stop?' Or are you saying here, this is your opinion - how you see it?

Somewhere in the middle. My definition of science isn't bulletproof by any means. That's why I spelled out that my intent related to modern science. Not to say that's the 'objective truth', but merely to state how I'd arrived at my opinion.

So nothing I presented were examples of science?
That's your opinion. Clear now?

Sure. As I said, if you want to equate science and all knowledge people have ever gathered, then you do you.
But saying that 'we can't live without science' is reduced to a truism in that case. People can't possibly avoid having knowledge in some form or another.

I lost you, apparently.. Or you just got lost.

I'll try to clarify this, as well.
You said...
So...you're going to need to explain that VERY carefully, I would suggest. Exactly which moral law do you think was broken, and how does that relate to ANY modern situation?

My response was to that question... only.
The examples I gave, pertained to that question... only.
You are free to reread the answer, and this time, put it in the right context, and not in a science box.

I wasn't putting it in a 'science box', I was considering it from the point of view of a moralistic lesson. You had linked to an article specifically discussing the impact of interspecies sex between neanderthals and humans, and the role this possibly played in the neanderthal populations dying out due to disease. If your intent was not to draw moralistic conclusions from that particular article, I apologise.

Although the facts are scientifically proven as stated in the article.

Are they though? In any case, if your point is that limiting sexual partners leads to less STDs, and limiting premarital sex reduces pregnancies, than I have no issue with it.
I would suggest that tying the rise of 'religion' with limiting sexual partners and premarital sex is talking not about religion (per se) but specific religions and specific cultural practices. But that's all kinda beside the point in terms of what we've been discussing, I guess.

Did any of that help clarify things, or are you still confused?

I was not confused at any point. As I said, I thought you were making some moralistic point in linking the article discussing the death of neanderthals being potentially the result of cross-species breeding. If you weren't, I apologise.
And am a little confused why you linked that article at all.

 

[nPeace]

What I'm saying is that modern scientific process didn't exist until about 400 years ago. Early forms of 'science' were not much like modern science, but if you want to include them (and many people would) then science has been around for about 4000 years. Scientific knowledge is simply knowledge we have gained via application of the scientific method. Again, I would tend to think of this as largely not existing before about 400 years ago, but some would include knowledge from earlier times, gained by protoscientific processes.



You think stone age men developed their tools via application of the scientific method? I'm unaware of any evidence of that.
Our ancestors also developed language...which was also not scientific. Science is a more efficient way of building knowledge than mere trial and error, but it's not the only way to build knowledge.



'The box atheist live in'. You might need to enlighten me as to what you mean by that pejorative. The point I've been trying to make in this thread is that science isn't required to live. Not a 'common' atheist point at all.



Science has been around about 400 years if you only count modern science, which is what I was doing. That's a subjective choice. It's entirely valid to include protosciences as well, in which case science is about 4000 years old.



I have no idea why my atheism is pertinent to a conversation about whether science is required to live. But the articles you linked to...and the points you extrapolated from them...were mismatched. For example, you said the following;



There is no suggestion in the article that YOU LINKED that it was advances in the knowledge of combatting disease that led to our ancestors surviving, and neanderthals failing to survive.
The first evidence of 'ancient science' in the medical field I'm aware of is in Egypt. Not the stone age. And it's efficacy is pretty severely doubted based on scientific analysis of documented records.

Egyptian drug therapy can be regarded as having evolved from a system rooted in magic to one of empiric observation applied within a central ideology of health and disease. That is to say that drugs used in specific therapies were first chosen based on perceived magical potential, and those that were continued were chosen based on empirical observation. Fewer than one third of the identified remedies for any given disorder contain an ingredient which can be perceived to have had activity towards the ailment being treated. However, of the therapies lacking a potentially “active ingredient” many did produce effects which in the context of the Egyptian model of health and disease were rationalized to be driving out the illness.
Source :
Wayback Machine (archive.org)
(Chapter 2 - The Proceedings of the 10th Annual HISTORY OF MEDICINE DAYS FACULTY OF MEDICINE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY)



The example you gave about disease didn't suggest anything about humans 'combatting diseases', but regardless...
It's a science if it followed scientific method. Are you suggesting it did?

Wait. One question. Were we talking about science, or the scientific method?