Religion is like Science

[icehorse]

Religions absolutely include skills! I'm curious where you receive the idea that they do not?

I'm open to hearing what skills are religious, could you give a few examples?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm open to hearing what skills are religious, could you give a few examples?

Technically, anything is "religious" if the individual regards it as part of their religion. Skill sets I've cultivated as part of my path include but are hardly limited to:

• The three "core" practices/skills that are utilized in almost everything else that you do - meditation, energy work, and journeywork
• The two "mystical" practices/skills: divination and spellcraft
• The art of ritual - structuring, developing, and conducting an effective ritual for a wide variety of purposes and functions (including solo and group contexts)
• The bardic arts - reframing information in a way that is meaningful in the context of your religious tradition (this could be song, dance, visual arts, etc.); frequently, the art of ritual and the bardic arts go hand in hand
• Good research skills are not trivial for my path, as nobody is going to spoon feed you answers like there are in revealed religions or dogmatic/creedal religions

Honestly, I'm not sure there are any skills that aren't cultivated in some way through my path or benefit it somehow. Writing skills? Yup, you'll cultivate that when you write incantations for spells, draft out the structure of a ritual, and odes to the gods. Oral presentation skills? Yup, you'll cultivate that when you conduct rituals too (especially if you are leading group rituals). Reading skills? Yup, pretty much mandatory for reading up in the sciences or the old lore... and sometimes we learn second languages to do this. There are skill sets I would not have bothered with if it were not for my path. The art of ritual in particular... if I wasn't a Pagan where there's a strong emphasis on that, I would have never learned that skill.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Technically, anything is "religious" if the individual regards it as part of their religion. Skill sets I've cultivated as part of my path include but are hardly limited to:

• The three "core" practices/skills that are utilized in almost everything else that you do - meditation, energy work, and journeywork
• The two "mystical" practices/skills: divination and spellcraft
• The art of ritual - structuring, developing, and conducting an effective ritual for a wide variety of purposes and functions (including solo and group contexts)
• The bardic arts - reframing information in a way that is meaningful in the context of your religious tradition (this could be song, dance, visual arts, etc.); frequently, the art of ritual and the bardic arts go hand in hand
• Good research skills are not trivial for my path, as nobody is going to spoon feed you answers like there are in revealed religions or dogmatic/creedal religions

Honestly, I'm not sure there are any skills that aren't cultivated in some way through my path or benefit it somehow. Writing skills? Yup, you'll cultivate that when you write incantations for spells, draft out the structure of a ritual, and odes to the gods. Oral presentation skills? Yup, you'll cultivate that when you conduct rituals too (especially if you are leading group rituals). Reading skills? Yup, pretty much mandatory for reading up in the sciences or the old lore... and sometimes we learn second languages to do this. There are skill sets I would not have bothered with if it were not for my path. The art of ritual in particular... if I wasn't a Pagan where there's a strong emphasis on that, I would have never learned that skill.

That's your religion. Your OP referred to "religion" and "religions" in general.

 

[icehorse]

Technically, anything is "religious" if the individual regards it as part of their religion. Skill sets I've cultivated as part of my path include but are hardly limited to:

Those are skills indeed, some on the "soft" side, but ok. But they seem only very loosely associated with common definitions of religion.

 

[Muffled]

I believe I learned both science and religion from a textbook and experimentation. One may actually get heavy objects to float. It is counter intuitive but the experiments bear it out.

 

[Muffled]

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.)

I believe that makes a lot of sense. A lay person is not going to invent the atomic bomb or lay hands on the sick to make them well.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe that is about as perverted a view of religion as I have ever seen.

 

[Valjean]

I believe that is about as perverted a view of religion as I have ever seen.

How so?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An equal amount of time, work, and energy can result in massive differences in the amount of useful work done or how much of a useful skill is developed. One can spend decades reading all of Tolkien's works, learning all the languages and lore, and pulling apart every reference, character, and tale - but, at the end of the day, you've spent a lot of time learning about a fictional world. This seems to be similar to what dedicated study of religion results in. This is how it is different than science.

 

[Quintessence]

That's your religion. Your OP referred to "religion" and "religions" in general.

Um... okay? I specifically said those were examples from my religion, though they are also all found in traditions other than my own. Is there a point to this response or are you just being passive-aggressive?

Those are skills indeed, some on the "soft" side, but ok. But they seem only very loosely associated with common definitions of religion.

I'm not surprised you see it that way. The so-called "common definition" of religion is rather ethnocentric and is essentially "Abrahamic/monotheist definition of religion." As someone who is neither of those things, it stands to reason that when I talk about religion, my "common definition" does not revolve around those traditions.

Though honestly, even when I look at Abrahamic and monotheist traditions, some of the skill sets I listed definitely still apply. Skill in conducting ritual applies across the board for any and all religious traditions a far as I'm aware, though in Abrahamic traditions they tend to constrain that role to clergy. The bardic arts are more open to laypersons - there is certainly quite a lot of Christian literature published every year, or art inspired by these paths. The mystical traditions of the Abrahamic faiths might do some of the first couple things I mentioned. I remember once when I was on a service trip, the Methodist church that was hosting us invited us to all practice morning meditation. It was a distinctly Christian meditation, but I did enjoy it nevertheless.

 

[icehorse]

Though honestly, even when I look at Abrahamic and monotheist traditions, some of the skill sets I listed definitely still apply. Skill in conducting ritual applies across the board for any and all religious traditions a far as I'm aware, though in Abrahamic traditions they tend to constrain that role to clergy.

I must admit to bias here. An aspect of my job is to study expertise. I think of skills as they relate (or don't), to expertise. Taking nothing away from rituals, I'd say they tend to be shallow from a skills perspective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um... okay? I specifically said those were examples from my religion, though they are also all found in traditions other than my own. Is there a point to this response or are you just being passive-aggressive?

My point is that nothing you've said about "religion" in this thread is actually true about religion in general.

There's a difference between "religion is like science" and "religion can be approached in a science-like way." Any time people have asked you to explain or support the first claim, you give something focused on the second.

 

[Quintessence]

My point is that nothing you've said about "religion" in this thread is actually true about religion in general.

Obviously, I do not agree.

There's a difference between "religion is like science" and "religion can be approached in a science-like way." Any time people have asked you to explain or support the first claim, you give something focused on the second.

People who take the time read the opening post's first paragraph might grasp that "religion is like science" is not what this thread is about and is not what I was talking about in the first place. Regardless, considering the second is an aspect of the first, I don't get what your issue is.

 

[thinwhiteduke]

lots of assumptions here. For all you know, govt invented or manipulated both religion and science to make you say and believe things to begin with. It is a fact for both through the course of history

 

[Valjean]

But some of the assumptions are well founded, others... not so much. One methodology is fruitful, the other -- not even a methodology.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I agree, especially with regard to religions; and with regard to Science there are limits to how much certainty you can have in certain fields. There is a range from soft Sciences, which are mostly trial and error practice like Medicine and Psychology to Physics and Maths.

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.

Mostly I agree, however there are many, many religionists without any level of professionalism whatsoever. Religions can be very easy to follow, requiring nearly no discipline, learning or practice. They can be like tiny aquariums where nothing ever changes.

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.

Often, yes; but it is possible in religion to find oneself in a cult where the pursuit of knowledge is a bit like walking on a treadmill or living in an Escher painting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously, I do not agree.

Care to give an example?

People who take the time read the opening post's first paragraph might grasp that "religion is like science" is not what this thread is about and is not what I was talking about in the first place.

I read the OP. Weird that you'd have a problem with me using "religion is like science" as a shorthand for what you're saying after doing it yourself.

Regardless, your OP does not apply to religion in general. I'm not disputing that it applies to some religions, but - for instance - enough large religions don't require their adherents to achieve "mastery" that I don't think it's correct to say that it's true for religion in general.

Regardless, considering the second is an aspect of the first, I don't get what your issue is.

Well no, they aren't. The first speaks to a general trend; the second speaks to specific cases that may or may not be part of the overall trend. All of your examples focused on you alone; a single example does not demonstrate a general trend.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree, especially with regard to religions; and with regard to Science there are limits to how much certainty you can have in certain fields. There is a range from soft Sciences, which are mostly trial and error practice like Medicine and Psychology to Physics and Maths.

That's an interesting consideration. Might there be some sort of parallel amongst world religions or particular religious traditions too? Perhaps in some way this can be compared to the continuum of non-creedal to dogmatic religions - that some religious traditions are more "trial and error, use what works for you" and others "we have this figured out and you will obey this way." That may be a bit of a reach, though.

Mostly I agree, however there are many, many religionists without any level of professionalism whatsoever. Religions can be very easy to follow, requiring nearly no discipline, learning or practice. They can be like tiny aquariums where nothing ever changes.

That's very true, and that's an idea that might be worth adding in to the spirit of the opening post. To make a comparison, just as there is "lay person" interest level in various religions, this is also the case for the sciences. There's a distinction between being professional about one's religion in a way that can be compared to that of the sciences. Both take tremendous amounts of dedication. I suppose I tend to lean towards the professional level for both, so I don't make anything easy. Easy becomes far too boring.

Often, yes; but it is possible in religion to find oneself in a cult where the pursuit of knowledge is a bit like walking on a treadmill or living in an Escher painting.

To clarify your intended meaning here, you mean to say that there is an illusion of progress or advancement? Is progress/advancement necessarily important? If so, when?

 

[Orionis]

They aren't comparable at all. They are totally opposite things.
Science is logical and can be proved, religion on the other hand is just plain faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's very true, and that's an idea that might be worth adding in to the spirit of the opening post. To make a comparison, just as there is "lay person" interest level in various religions, this is also the case for the sciences. There's a distinction between being professional about one's religion in a way that can be compared to that of the sciences. Both take tremendous amounts of dedication. I suppose I tend to lean towards the professional level for both, so I don't make anything easy. Easy becomes far too boring.

Of course, the difference is that a "lay person" in religion is actually doing the religion while a "lay person" in the sciences is not actually doing science.

In many religious traditions, there's no expectation that the average member will be anything other than a lay person. In fact, becoming a member of the clergy is often actively discouraged for anyone who doesn't have a "calling".