Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[charlie sc]

sciences appearing in their modern form either.

Indeed, but do you think it will vastly differ? Science evolves to better understand reality, therefore, I cannot see it deviate much from what it is today. If the better model fits the data, then use the better model. This is by no way similar to some guy said this and there's no way to replicate it, verify it or falsify it.

 

[Augustus]

Which parts of the concept do you refer to?
If it can even be referred to as one concept.

I agree it's not really one concept, was oversimplifying for brevity.

If you look at most historical societies then they had very little interest in much of what we would now call science. This includes very successful and technologically advanced civilisations who simply saw no value in knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Technology with practical applications has always been valued, but there is no specific reason why an animal species like our own must donate precious time and resources in developing knowledge that has no direct, tangible benefit.

When modern experimental science was in its infancy it was widely mocked for being pointless, ivory tower nonsense. Jonathan Swift even created one of the lands in Gulliver's Travels to satirise contemporary scientific research. Other's mocked 'the weighing of air' and other 'follies'.

Modern science required numerous social precursors to develop: a belief in a law driven universe, a belief these laws could be discovered, a social legitimacy for 'pointless' research with no practical application so that people would actually fund it, sufficient economic surplus to fund it, an idea of cumulative knowledge, a belief that reason alone cannot identify truths, an understanding of the links between mathematics and science, etc.

Many of these things seem incredibly obvious with hindsight, but the fact remains that it was not at all common for all these precursors to exist in the same society. If these were so straightforward, it wouldn't have taken over 100,000 years of human history for science as we know it to emerge.

 

[Quintessence]

Overlooking the utter impossibility of this hypothetical scenario... this will not get anyone a demonstration of gods existing because that's not the bloody point. Something is a deity if a person or culture labels it a deity. That is all. It's a title applied to something. People do not apply a title to something that to them does not exist, so demonstrating the gods existing is rather pointless once that person has engaged in the act of deification. Granting that title to things is a way of making meaning and defining relationships. In the modern day, people can and do engage in deification of various aspects of reality without couching themselves in pre-established religious traditions. This is pretty normal for Pagans, actually, since we're often deifying things in our local area for which there is no longer any established worship practice for.

 

[Augustus]

Indeed, but do you think it will vastly differ? Science evolves to better understand reality, therefore, I cannot see it deviate much from what it is today. If the better model fits the data, then use the better model. This is by no way similar to some guy said this and there's no way to replicate it, verify it or falsify it.

Do you believe that as soon as the human species evolved this made the development of the modern concept of science inevitable?

 

[Audie]

I agree it's not really one concept, was oversimplifying for brevity.

If you look at most historical societies then they had very little interest in much of what we would now call science. This includes very successful and technologically advanced civilisations who simply saw no value in knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Technology with practical applications has always been valued, but there is no specific reason why an animal species like our own must donate precious time and resources in developing knowledge that has no direct, tangible benefit.

When modern experimental science was in its infancy it was widely mocked for being pointless, ivory tower nonsense. Jonathan Swift even created one of the lands in Gulliver's Travels to satirise contemporary scientific research. Other's mocked 'the weighing of air' and other 'follies'.

Modern science required numerous social precursors to develop: a belief in a law driven universe, a belief these laws could be discovered, a social legitimacy for 'pointless' research with no practical application so that people would actually fund it, sufficient economic surplus to fund it, an idea of cumulative knowledge, a belief that reason alone cannot identify truths, an understanding of the links between mathematics and science, etc.

Many of these things seem incredibly obvious with hindsight, but the fact remains that it was not at all common for all these precursors to exist in the same society. If these were so straightforward, it wouldn't have taken over 100,000 years of human history for science as we know it to emerge.

Ok, thanks for the time you took to make it unbrrief.

Mark Twain wrote something making fun of 19th
century science. I have read enough from then
to see that some of it was wide open to well deserved
satire.

The discovery of primordial ooze is one of my favourites.

 

[Audie]

Do you believe that as soon as the human species evolved this made the development of the modern concept of science inevitable?

Left up to the natives of Tasmania, it might still be
a while coming! Apparently they were still in the
paleolitihic when Europeans arrived.

 

[MJFlores]

You're saying the conclusion to this dialogue would be the inception of a deity ?

I need you to consider carefully what you're saying.

Son: "Wow, you have a religion and have faith even though you have not seen the primordial soup which was a long time ago."
Dad: "Son, you gotta have faith."

I have set aside everything sacred in your alternate world without religion.
It is natural for people to ask, where they came from
then supplant Darwinism on the dialogue between father and son.
No deities here. Just the primordial soup and the strong absolute faith in Darwinism.
I think that is the picture of how things would be.

 

[Fool]

To my shame, I have not read Bacon even though he's on my list. However, I think many people will disagree with you here. The scientific method is always evolving. For instance, Karl Popper hugely changed how science is conducted. You must remember, science is just a word, how we do it is more important. If I check Wiki, this is what is says "Although his practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method, did not have a long-lasting influence, the general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method." Therefore, you're just plain wrong to say that one person invented science, nor do I think science is an invention lol.


Huh? This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

people are evolving.i meant to say that no person invented the scientific methord, or didn't invent it.

i stated that some people discovered what people were doing naturally and assigned a name to it.

assigning a name to thing, or process, isn't inventing it. people don't invent things from nothing. they only discover what was always possible.

 

[charlie sc]

Do you believe that as soon as the human species evolved this made the development of the modern concept of science inevitable?

I don’t know, but I do believe it’s much easier to develop good methodologies for evaluating reality when studying observable and continuous phenomena, rather than one time events or fabricated ideas that are not.

 

[charlie sc]

No deities here. Just the primordial soup and the strong absolute faith in Darwinism.
I think that is the picture of how things would be.

Too bad, I was hoping for some sort of deity coming from Darwinism in your example.

 

[charlie sc]

Your post was elegant and nice to read, but I have some questions.

People do not apply a title to something that to them does not exist

I see what you're trying to say here, but I can name some activities where this is not the case. How about D&D?

In the modern day, people can and do engage in deification of various aspects of reality without couching themselves in pre-established religious traditions

Indeed.

This is pretty normal for Pagans, actually, since we're often deifying things in our local area for which there is no longer any established worship practice for.

I see. Do you think these deities are real?

 

[MJFlores]

Too bad, I was hoping for some sort of deity coming from Darwinism in your example.

Darwin's Origin of Species becomes a best seller instead of the Bible in your alternate world without religion.

 

[Quintessence]

I see what you're trying to say here, but I can name some activities where this is not the case. How about D&D?

Hey... I'll have you know I participate in tabletop RPGs including but not limited to Dungeons and Dragons. Sure, outsiders think we gamers don't exist, but I can assure you, we're definitely a thing (as are the several dozen rulesets for such games).

I see. Do you think these deities are real?

Well, if I didn't, I would need to check myself in to long-term psychiatric care. I'd be a danger to myself and others because I would be walking around questioning whether or not the ground I walk on is really there, denying that I am really breathing air, claiming that learning and creativity never happen, and babbling on about how the tallgrass prairie restoration in my yard doesn't exist.

Sorry, if that sounded like a joke... it isn't. The gods of polytheistic traditions are various aspects of reality. That they exist is kind of a... 'well, duh!' That they are gods is not. Not everyone deifies the same things, nor should they. That only makes for false gods.

 

[Earthling]

Scientific theories form the basis for why we are able to communicate here. Without science there would be no internet, no computers, or even The Bohemian Rhapsody.

You fully understand, and being a reasonably intelligent person, even anticipate the fact that all I have to do is say without the Creator, Jehovah God none of that would be possible?

 

[Earthling]

Without quantum mechanics (science), materials engineering (science), software engineering (science), control of electrical signals (science) both locally in your computer and wider, by the internet you would still be banging on drums to send messages

How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?

We know how trees developed and grew, evolution
We know how mountains developed, plate tectonics
We know how canyons formed, erosion
And we know how life developed, abiogenesis

Ah, I see! We know these things. That means their explanation will never change, correct?

 

[ChristineM]

Ah, I see! We know these things. That means their explanation will never change, correct?

You didnt answer my questions, why should answer yours?

 

[Earthling]

You didnt answer my questions, why should answer yours?

Nobody ever answers my questions here. Questioning is most of what I do, but I get no answers.

Are you talking about these?

How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?

They work through the magic god of science? The same as the toaster oven, wankel rotary engine, cotton press, printing press, thermonuclear and chemical warfare . . .

But you don't have to answer my question. Most of the questions I ask I already know the answer to, I'm just trying to see what you say the answer is. I'm mapping, if you will, your line of thought . . . as it were.

[Psssttt] Don't tell anyone but I use a variation of the magic god of science's methodology!

If you can see through my humor you would see that I don't hate science just because I question it. I question everything. Even the real God, Jehovah, without whom there would be no science.

 

[ChristineM]

Nobody ever answers my questions here. Questioning is most of what I do, but I get no answers.

Are you talking about these?

How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?

They work through the magic god of science? The same as the toaster oven, wankel rotary engine, cotton press, printing press, thermonuclear and chemical warfare . . .

But you don't have to answer my question. Most of the questions I ask I already know the answer to, I'm just trying to see what you say the answer is. I'm mapping, if you will, your line of thought . . . as it were.

[Psssttt] Don't tell anyone but I use a variation of the magic god of science's methodology!

If you can see through my humor you would see that I don't hate science just because I question it. I question everything. Even the real God, Jehovah, without whom there would be no science.

You appear to not know how the toaster oven, wankel rotary engine, cotton press, printing press, thermonuclear and chemical warfare work so i can assume the same about the quantum engineering required for a semiconductor.

No need to question nothing

 

[Earthling]

You appear to not know how the toaster oven, wankel rotary engine, cotton press, printing press, thermonuclear and chemical warfare work so i can assume the same about the quantum engineering required for a semiconductor.

No need to question nothing

No need to question nothing . . . no need to question nothing . . .

Does not compute, does not compute.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Meet computer, the science god that allowed you to post that message

Can you imagine what a caveman or cavewoman would think if he or she saw the stuff we have today?