Religion is like Science

[Quintessence]

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

Indeed, and that is not the point of the opening post.

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

Yes, I agree. I suppose I like this comparison in particular because all too often these two things are spoken of in opposition to each other or as if there is no common ground. Most of us loosely understand how much time and dedication it takes to master one of the sciences, but think that a similar effort is not required for something like the arts or humanities (of which religion would fall under).

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.

Interesting. For those that this does apply to, I don't wager it would be spoken of much... in part because we have these odd social taboos about doing both. I suppose I was thinking of graduate programs in particular when writing some of that stuff above - if you want to do a graduate program, you gotta pick one focus. Well, you don't have to, but each program takes 2-3 years and non-trivial monetary investment.

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.

I don't think so. The driving motivation for all the students I speak with is some combination of curiosity, wanting to put bread on the table, and find their life path just in general. I've never had any of them tell me what you suggest here. I have had one or two students remark they were majoring in biology to do "God's work" - they were interested in human medicine or medical research. I get to meet all sorts of interesting people doing my day job.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oak trees are like elephants in that they both have trunks, are large, and both drink water.

 

[viole]

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 don't think that there is logical warrant for that.

If X and Y both satisfy the following properties:

1) they both have sub fields
2) it requires specialization to master one or more of those fields
3) this process is very time consuming

That does not suffice to infer that X is like Y.

For instance, sport seems to satisfy all those properties. But it would be funny to say that science and religion are like sport.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sunstone]

I think a key difference between the sciences and the religions is that the sciences are founded on intersubjective verification while religions usually are not, with a few exceptions.

 

[suncowiam]

Indeed, and that is not the point of the opening post.



Yes, I agree. I suppose I like this comparison in particular because all too often these two things are spoken of in opposition to each other or as if there is no common ground. Most of us loosely understand how much time and dedication it takes to master one of the sciences, but think that a similar effort is not required for something like the arts or humanities (of which religion would fall under).



Interesting. For those that this does apply to, I don't wager it would be spoken of much... in part because we have these odd social taboos about doing both. I suppose I was thinking of graduate programs in particular when writing some of that stuff above - if you want to do a graduate program, you gotta pick one focus. Well, you don't have to, but each program takes 2-3 years and non-trivial monetary investment.



I don't think so. The driving motivation for all the students I speak with is some combination of curiosity, wanting to put bread on the table, and find their life path just in general. I've never had any of them tell me what you suggest here. I have had one or two students remark they were majoring in biology to do "God's work" - they were interested in human medicine or medical research. I get to meet all sorts of interesting people doing my day job.

No, not in the conclusion of your post, but unfortunately your thread title does it no better in distinguishing this. Given your simple title and the many comparisons between science and religion, and then only to specify your true intentions in your final sentences will only confuse further readers.

For those that might truly believe "religion is like science", then I've already countered.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

That is a really good point! It makes for different comparisons than what I was thinking about here, but certainly worth exploring. I like your points about how religions shape how we see the world and can frame things into a more positive fashion to keep us from getting down in the dumps. This is certainly a role that my path plays in my life - it's hard for me to be down in the dumps when I notice all of the amazing stuff all around me that I call my gods. Nature is so cool!

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.

Enjoyed reading your post, as always! Do feel free to kick up a topic about this sometime - it's something I find interesting to explore too.

 

[Quintessence]

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...

Just wanted to say that these are some wise words there. We do have a tendency to use terms like 'ignorance' as a value judgement. It is almost as if we expect everyone to be a know-it-all in our culture.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it's rather interesting that scientific evidence seems to support different religious concepts.

Heretic!

I kid, I kid. I tend to think along these lines quite often myself, probably because my religious path deliberately incorporates the sciences into its framework. It actually helped me study when I was in college to relate what I was learning about in my science classes to my religious path - to think about how these things correlated to the Four Elements and such. The parallels at times were pretty uncanny.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Heretic!

I kid, I kid. I tend to think along these lines quite often myself, probably because my religious path deliberately incorporates the sciences into its framework. It actually helped me study when I was in college to relate what I was learning about in my science classes to my religious path - to think about how these things correlated to the Four Elements and such. The parallels at times were pretty uncanny.

Some of my favorite books are actually written by a Wiccan who uses quantum physics and theory to explain why the hermetic principles work in magic. The parallels are pretty interesting and it was something I actually enjoyed reading. Although I'm not so sure about vibrations automatically matching up since they tend to cancel out. Still, I think it's beneficial to understand science in order to understand religion.

 

[eldios]

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

It may be a fairy tale to you but this is what our Creator had me type into a word document and stored in a website.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, 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.

An interesting proposal, although I hope you that you will agree that the differences are at least as significant as the similarities.

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.

I see a significant contrast here. The natural sciences, at the very least, are inherently bound to each other in ways that do not have a real parallel in religious traditions.


(There is also the matter of how significant or even necessary the traditions are to religion, but that is perhaps best elaborated at a later time).

• 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.

That really depends on what is understood by religion.

For what it is worth, I hope that to be generally true.

• 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.

I am not sure myself that religion works best when it can be clearly separated from everyday life.

In that sense, sure, it is unavoidably time-intensive because life itself is time-intensive as well.

I don't know about demanding, although I do sympathise with the idea.

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 feel more inclined to emphasize and value the contrasts between religion and science. Perhaps to a large extent because I have seen both being devalued to frequently by the existence of movements such as "Creationism" and the like.

That said, there is certainly a degree of convergence in both, at least in that both suffer from wild misrepresentation and both need a healthy amount of skepticism (although, again, here we have to decide what is meant exactly by "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. 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. )

While I see your point to a degree, I think a far more relevant factor in that claim is the simple fact that Abrahamic Theism is wildly frequent and suffers from a serious lack of self-correcting mechanisms, which made them quite, well, unhinged.

A lot of religion is unfairly mistaken for variations of the Abrahamics, that have self-inflicted a lot of abuse. Another part of religion, for various reasons, attempts to emulate those mistakes of the Abrahamics, to no one's benefit.

We all should call a spade a spade and insist no longer on commiting and repeating those mistakes.

 

[Valjean]

Religion rabidly defends a revealed worldview and treats opposing propositions as threats. It is not a research modality.
Science is a research modality, and rabidly attacks its own, evidence-based worldview, encourages peer review and criticism, and ignores opposing, supernatural propositions.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Valjean , how do you compare and contrast religion and Dharma?

 

[Fool]

I think a key difference between the sciences and the religions is that the sciences are founded on intersubjective verification while religions usually are not, with a few exceptions.

some things about consciousness are not verifiable because belief is not controllable

case in point the belief that there was possibly another particle influencing the mass of fundamental particle. you can't discover what doesn't exist, or what you don't believe exists.


Choosing to Believe?

 

[icehorse]

I would make a distinction between domains that are almost purely fact based, e.g. religion, and domains that include skills, e.g. science. Scientists can be skilled and knowledgable, a religious expert can really only be knowledgable.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would not call theology "fact based", though.

 

[Quintessence]

I see a significant contrast here. The natural sciences, at the very least, are inherently bound to each other in ways that do not have a real parallel in religious traditions.

That does seem to be the case. One wonders if a case can be made for the alternative, however. Perennialists certainly take that approach, as an example. That said, I'm not sure what your perspective os on "inherently bound" or what precisely you mean by that.

(There is also the matter of how significant or even necessary the traditions are to religion, but that is perhaps best elaborated at a later time).

FYI, the intended meaning of "tradition" there was as a synonym for "religion" or "sect" or "denomination" or "path." Not sure if that changes your thoughts there or not.

I feel more inclined to emphasize and value the contrasts between religion and science. Perhaps to a large extent because I have seen both being devalued to frequently by the existence of movements such as "Creationism" and the like.

That's fair. I just ignore them, so these groups have little impact on my perspective on the topic. Besides, there is plenty of chatter about contrasts already and I don't feel the need to pound on an already beaten drum. I'd end up needing to deconstruct those arguments anyway, as those I see typically fall apart when applied to a path like my own, for instance. Neither here nor there...

While I see your point to a degree, I think a far more relevant factor in that claim is the simple fact that Abrahamic Theism is wildly frequent and suffers from a serious lack of self-correcting mechanisms, which made them quite, well, unhinged.

A lot of religion is unfairly mistaken for variations of the Abrahamics, that have self-inflicted a lot of abuse. Another part of religion, for various reasons, attempts to emulate those mistakes of the Abrahamics, to no one's benefit.

I suppose I'm a little gentler in my appraisal of these paths because I've had some exposure to progressive varieties. America seems to breed these newer traditions fairly often, though they don't get much "screen time" in conversation. I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread discussing the Unity Church, for example. Or a news article about them.

 

[Quintessence]

I would make a distinction between domains that are almost purely fact based, e.g. religion, and domains that include skills, e.g. science. Scientists can be skilled and knowledgable, a religious expert can really only be knowledgable.

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I agree with your first point.

For your second point, as long as we're talking about study [of religion or science and not engaging in religion or science. It takes quite a bit of knowledge, training and discipline to do science properly. OTOH, how easy or hard it is to "do religion" depends entirely on the parameters of that specific religion. Some religions don't take much effort at all.

On point 3: again, this is very religion-dependent. Some don't take much at all to "master"; in some, the idea of "mastering" the religion wouldn't be a coherent concept.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have had one or two students remark they were majoring in biology to do "God's work" - they were interested in human medicine or medical research. I get to meet all sorts of interesting people doing my day job.

In a similar spirit, you might like the inscription in the ceiling of the rotunda at the Royal Ontario Museum:

Mosaic Ceiling – Rotunda | Royal Ontario Museum