Religion is like Science

[Quintessence]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I can agree to your bulleted list, for sure.
I'm not religious, even in the sense of a naturalistic religion. But being in and studying nature is definitely a hobby of mine. I hike/explore, I garden, I fish, I like bushcrafting. So studying the sciences as they relate to natural science gives me a fondness and appreciation and contentedness some from a different background might a religious. But I'm a lay person, both to theology and to science (though my academic study for my profession was geared towards anatomy, physiology and kinesiology.)

 

[suncowiam]

Comparing science to religion is like comparing science to business or religion to business. Or business to art?

Sure, there are various types of businesses, arts and traditions.

Sure, there are specializations in business and art.

Sure, mastery of business or art is time consuming and intensive.

Sure, there are many comparisons, but in the end, religion is not science, it is not business, it is not art.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am a layperson in both, however I have encountered experts in both. Yes, people have limited attention span and much to do. Most people should not expect mastery of anything without severe personal losses. We all have approximately the same sized brains, with approximately the same mental capabilities, and there is a cost. Learning is an energy and time intensive activity. For example consider Rainman. He gains superb counting ability in exchange for a loss of social ability. Also true: his brain damage in one area results in super powers in another area. You might say that because the energy in his brain cannot be expressed sociologically, it finds other venues of expression: Mathematical ones. Consider a person with high language ability. They will rarely excel in other areas, and this is indicated by experiments. You can look at it biologically, too. A brain has only so much energy per second; and as it ages it becomes used to using particular pathways of thought. It takes energy to change those patterns just as it takes energy to change the flow of a river.

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging.

I think research in the Sciences is too personally demanding. I think that graduate work is the most that people should usually attempt. I also think that lay people are generally unaware of how 'Uneducated' we are.

 

[Skwim]

Your three points are good, although it would be a mistake for anyone to conclude they're exclusive to science and religion.

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging.

A reasonable observation if one feels it's necessarily an either-or situation. For the most part I do not. I think we choose what we do and don't do according to our needs, and adjust our involvement accordingly. If we have a rational/scientific bent we may simply let religion into our lives where it happens to fit; giving science vastly more time and concern while perhaps giving religion only perfunctory lip-service. I don't think very many people try to balance out the two equally, or necessarily any other division of concern. I can't recall ever meeting anyone whose obligation to master one was impeded by a desire to master the other---if they did they never let on to it.

This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

I think any looming jugging act would be pretty well settled by the time one chose their path. Looked at in simple terms, one becomes a scientist because it better explains our world than does religion, which pushes science concerns to the forefront and pushes religious concerns to the back. The same goes for those more in tune with religion. That said, I do see an issue for those few brought up as very religious while also in love with scientific pursuits that challenge their religious beliefs. For them it would indeed be quandary of sorts. which I think most deal with by compartmentalizing their conflicts and only letting one out at a time. Not very admirable, but what's a guy to do?

.


.

 

[sayak83]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

You could have made the same points while comparing religion and cooking or religion and painting, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think research in the Sciences is too personally demanding. I think that graduate work is the most that people should usually attempt. I also think that lay people are generally unaware of how 'Uneducated' we are.

The irony is that admittance of one's own ignorance paradoxically reduces your ignorance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

The title made me blanch, the bulleted points made me nod.
But, as has been pointed out, the same bulleted list could apply for any broad grouping of disciplines containing a body of knowledge. Consider 'The Arts'...or philosophy...or history...or language.

That's not to denigrate your point, I just don't think the combination of religion and science is unique in this sense, and linking them might suggest some commonality that I don't see (personally). It is more an organisational similarity in dealing with a large and diverse body of knowledge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

I actually see psychology and psychiatry disregarded not taken into consideration when comparing it to religion. Yes, physical sciences have many commonalities; and, so does religions and the sciences in mental health.

For example, and I'm really simplifying this since I'm not an expert just a patient of experience, when one comes into a psychologist office and they may talk about their depression. Skipping the clinical symptoms, they may also have trouble finding their purpose, finding better interactions with other people, and being interested in things they were interested in before. They somewhat or in most like myself, loose their passion.

Both religion and psychological therapy do treat this. Religion (or however named) treats how one sees the world. What perspective should they frame the world or more than one perspective. If there is no frame, what are the patterns and what things matter to them so they can be more positive, inquisitive, and less likely to feed sadness or other emotions they dislike. Mental health therapy does the same thing though talk. People in religion are devoted, pray, spend time with god, and so forth. People treated for mental health are given exercises to practice (say affirmation talk), conversation with the therapist or self-talk, spending time reflecting and breathing, and so forth.

Sociology sciences are similar to religion as well. Especially, in regards to culture and cultural sciences. You can understand why and how people believe what they do (and how, for example, a creator came about) when you see what people want and need in their life as well as how people support each other or self as a community or self-driven need for inner and outer success.

You have the science of human biology and with psychiatry, you learn about the brain. For example, the temporal lobe (as read since I have temporal lobe seizures) is a good source where "spiritual" experiences come from. It controls awareness (hence that altered state in prayer), memory (I had an OBE. Was it real? Yes? or is my memory off and we just put the pieces together by other things we hold true?), and emotions.

Study of treating dead bodies (can't think of the term) helps probably let one see how life actually ends. Compared to how we think it would be. Also, the study of energy and how our bodies conduct heat etc and how that is connected to everything and everyone shows that we don't die after death but taking the supernaturalness out of it, we survive through the energy of our environment and the people who still remember us (again, neurons keeping information about our loved ones etc).

Botony is another science related to religion. It lets us see life outside of just ourselves. Astronomy is another one. That is actually a huge science, astronomy because as we are expanding our view of how far the universe is, I'd hope and assume our perspective of our "being special" will decrease.

Religion has a lot of similarities with sciences. Some sciences as I mentioned above aren't really taken into consideration when understanding religion and vis versa.

That is one topic I would love to talk about some time. How religion and beliefs came about through the sciences rather than randomly by supernatural means.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The irony is that admittance of one's own ignorance paradoxically reduces your ignorance.

Ain't it grand, though? My spirituality spiked when I figured out how ignorant I was.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ain't it grand, though? My spirituality spiked when I figured out how ignorant I was.

Makes sense to me. It's quite liberating, I think. I'm completely at peace with my own ignorance. I am occasionally frustrated that some people seem to think 'ignorance' is a value judgement (like calling someone stupid), or that having any answer is better than admittance of not knowing.
These both seem like ***-clownery to me...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Makes sense to me. It's quite liberating, I think. I'm completely at peace with my own ignorance. I am occasionally frustrated that some people seem to think 'ignorance' is a value judgement (like calling someone stupid), or that having any answer is better than admittance of not knowing.
These both seem like ***-clownery to me...

So true. I do have to admit I have trouble with saying the actual phrase "I don't know." It comes out sooner or later if no one interrogates me as a liar for not answering fast enough (de ja vu)

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I think it's rather interesting that scientific evidence seems to support different religious concepts. Animism, for example, can be supported by the scientific fact that all atoms, even ones in solid objects, are constantly vibrating. We tend to associate movement with being alive, since things that are biologically alive move. Hence, if everything is moving, animists perhaps notice this, and thus conclude all is spiritually alive. Similarly, the idea of the universe being designed can be supported by the fact that our brain's neurons, the stars in space and the connections on the internet all follow a similar pattern. Obviously, there is something that works, perhaps it designed itself, or maybe something designed it for us, who knows? Still, it's interesting to me to compare scientific facts to religious concepts.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

The Sun is like a snowball, they are both somewhat of a sphere.

Oil is like water they are both liquids.

My cat is like a fire they both put off heat.

My vacuum is like my bills they both suck.

I could do this all day long. . . .

 

[Valjean]

Religion's a pretty Broad category, so I'll speak to the Abrahamic faiths I think most here are most familiar with.
I see religion and science pretty much as polar opposites in both goals and methodology -- apples and air conditioners.

Science is an investigative methodology. It seeks to understand how the world works and the mechanisms underlying it. It begins with observations, forms theorems, tests them, draws conclusions and submits them for criticism and further testing. Its theories are always provisional and axioms mathematical. It's data set is constantly growing. It does not work with the supernatural or concern itself with religion or propriety.

Religion's more interested in agency than mechanism, and It's main focus is on behavior, propriety and maintaining the current social order.
It begins with a traditional, revealed, a priori set of mythology-based axioms. It actively discourages criticism. It encourages faith over critical analysis. It sometimes views science as inimical, and seeks to bolster it's mythology by undermining it, relying on a false dichotomy: if science is wrong, we're right -- by default.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Religion's a pretty Broad category, so I'll speak to the Abrahamic faiths I think most here are most familiar with.
I see religion and science pretty much as polar opposites in both goals and methodology -- apples and air conditioners.

Science is an investigative methodology. It seeks to understand how the world works and the mechanisms underlying it. It begins with observations, forms theorems, tests them, draws conclusions and submits them for criticism and further testing. It's theories are always provisional and axioms mathematical. It's data set is constantly growing. It does not work with the supernatural or concern itself with religion or propriety.

Religion's more interested in agency than mechanism, and It's main focus is on behavior, propriety and maintaining the current social order.
It begins with a traditional, revealed, a priori set of mythology-based axioms. It actively discourages criticism. It encourages faith over critical analysis. It sometimes views science as inimical, and seeks to bolster it's mythology by undermining it, relying on a false dichotomy: if science is wrong, we're right -- by default.

I'd agree with all of that. As someone with a science degree (but who isn't a professional scientist) and who was once religious, I'd consider science and religion two very different animals. With the wisdom of years I'd say religion has become boring to me, "amazing" religious claims are a thousand a penny, and religious beliefs are a million a penny, none of them can ever be substantiated with evidence. I expect tomorrow, in some part of the world, somebody will jump up with a new religious claim or belief. Who cares? Just throw them on the massive pile over there with the rest of them.
Science, on the other hand, is never endingly exciting - it is evidence led and we just don't know where the evidence will lead. It may reveal something about our environment, ourselves, about existence we never knew before. Religion will not and cannot do that. Supernatural world? Pff, who cares, the material world is much more interesting and exciting!

 

[Milton Platt]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

None of those things you listed make the two things similar in nature.

 

[eldios]

There are many comparisons that could be made between the sciences and religions. What I would like to focus on specifically is how study and knowledge of these areas is similar. Apologies for the somewhat click-bait title, as this thread might not be quite what you were expecting it to be. Let us consider the following ideas:

• Science and religion are better understood in the plural. There is considerable diversity within science, even though we typically refer to it in the singular ("science" rather than "sciences"). The same is true of religion. Science encompasses a wide variety of fields, and religion encompasses a wide variety of traditions.
• Science and religion are disciplines that require specialization. Nobody is an expert in science, just as nobody is an expert in religion. We can have a basic understanding of core sciences or of major world religions, but mastering content in either requires extensive study and therefore focusing in a particular science or a particular religion.
• Mastery of a science or a religion is demanding and time-intensive. So much so that we might be skeptical that there is such a thing as mastery. The journey is ongoing, as there are always new things to learn and explore. Only a few make the decision to devote most of their lives to one of these paths.

The above is what I have observed in my own experience of studying the sciences and religions, at any rate.
What has your experience been like in studying the sciences and religious traditions? Is there anything you might add to the list I made? Was your experience different?

I am reminded of the claim that is sometimes made about scientists not being religiously inclined. I can't help but think of that as being symptomatic of the nature of the fields - that they demand specialization and require great time investment to master. You are almost forced to pick between one or the other, and those of us who juggle both will find it challenging. This juggling act was perhaps somewhat less challenging for the path that I chose, where studying natural science is in of itself a religious act. But for some other tradition, where sciences and the religion are more divorced? I have trouble imagining being strongly committed to both. How would you find the time? And how do you pick?

(I see this more as a discussion topic, but I went ahead and put this in the debate area for those of you think such comparisons are blasphemy. )

All religions and science came from the same source known as the beast. Read about the beast here; What is the Beast and the Antichrist?

 

[Valjean]

All religions and science came from the same source known as the beast. Read about the beast here; What is the Beast and the Antichrist?

I hope you realize this is all just a fairy tale.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I hope you realize this is all just a fairy tale.

That is why religion is not like science! No science in those fairy tales!