Religious Thinking vs Scientific Thinking

[Enoughie]

“Seek, and ye shall find”

Humans are pattern-seeking animals by nature. Yet, we are often mislead by the patterns we perceive. Try to find the pattern in the following: three, five, seven, nine.
You probably think you already recognize the pattern. Just to be sure let’s see if two more items are in this pattern. We would probably want to check if, say, thirteen and seventeen are also part of the pattern - They are!
This means that the pattern must be: odd numbers. But that is in fact not the case!
The actual pattern is: words that contain the letter e. We failed to recognize the real pattern because we tried to affirm our initial impression instead of refuting it.
Instead of checking thirteen or seventeen we should have checked words like eight or cheese. Then we would have realized that our initial impression was false, and moved a step closer to recognizing the true pattern.

This is essentially the difference between religious thinking and scientific thinking.
The religious person in doubt is asked to affirm his belief - to study the Bible more and pray. This is akin to a person who tries to find the “true pattern” (“The Truth”) by checking if the words eleven, thirteen, fifteen, and so on are part of “The Truth.” They are! But this cannot possibly lead a person to discover a greater truth about the world. Instead, it makes us misled and deluded.
Scientific thinking, on the other hand, asks us to refute our ideas about the world around us. The more data we gather to “refute” our assumptions about nature, the more refined our theories become. This type of thinking allows us to get closer to discovering the laws of nature and the greater truths about the world.

Taken from: 5 Things You Need to Do to Be More Successful @ geopolitics.us

 

[ChristineES]

Here we go again. Welcome to the RF.

When I think of science I use scientific thinking and when I think of religion/faith I use religious thinking. I am pretty good at separating the two. They are not a "versus" but two separate entities that can co-exist in one person, even.
I don't believe for one second that just because someone is a scientist that he/she is also an atheist. And I don't believe that just because someone follows a religion/faith strongly, that he can't also be a scientist.

 

[Enoughie]

Here we go again. Welcome to the RF.

When I think of science I use scientific thinking and when I think of religion/faith I use religious thinking. I am pretty good at separating the two. They are not a "versus" but two separate entities that can co-exist in one person, even.
I don't believe for one second that just because someone is a scientist that he/she is also an atheist. And I don't believe that just because someone follows a religion/faith strongly, that he can't also be a scientist.

Well, the point is that the "religious" approach does not lead to any greater enlightenment or understanding of the world - merely delusion.

Oh, and the opposite of "being religious" is: "not being religious." It has nothing to do with "atheism" or a belief in God (although some people would like you to believe that).

 

[Kerr]

We humans are masters of making what seems to be incompatible to something compatible. Religious and scientific thinking is no exception.

 

[Thief]

From another recent thread....I quote myself...

"I grew up loving science.
Science affirms God.

Everything scientific.....God did it.
Science unravels 'how'."

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I think people can think on both levels. But it would be a mistake on their part to think science and religion are compatible.

 

[Erebus]

The religious person in doubt is asked to affirm his belief - to study the Bible more and pray.

Interesting. My religion expects you to question your beliefs and I don't even own a Bible...

Am I going about this the wrong way?

 

[Breathe]

Oh for goodness' sake, yet another thread that's of the "religious people are idiots!!!!!1" substance.

Is there a professor using this forum in his lectures somewhere?

Enoughie, first and foremost, welcome to Religious Forums.

Secondly, religion and science are not necessarily opponents. The ultra-religious literalists and the militant anti-theists seem to make that assumption, but when everything is black-or-white like that it's no wonder that people come to such conclusions. Science is an opponent of religion if you take everything as literal and historical, which many do not.

Not every religious person is a Christian like the article seems to imply. If I were asked to read the Bible and pray (pray to the Biblical God) by someone of my faith, I'd ask why I want to read the Bible and pray to the concept of the divine of the Christians, Jews or Muslims.

Well, the point is that the "religious" approach does not lead to any greater enlightenment or understanding of the world - merely delusion.

Heh.

(although some people would like you to believe that).

Don't think you know what ChristineEs thinks. You've been here, what, a day or two? That's very ignorant of you.

 

[ChristineES]

Well, the point is that the "religious" approach does not lead to any greater enlightenment or understanding of the world - merely delusion.

Oh, and the opposite of "being religious" is: "not being religious." It has nothing to do with "atheism" or a belief in God (although some people would like you to believe that).

There is more than one way to look at the world. If you only look at it scientifically, then you may miss some of the beauty of it. I can look at the world in a scientific sense one day and the next look at it religiously. And there are other ways to look at it, too. Hunters may see the world in one way and farmers in another way.

Looking at the world in a different way sometimes doesn't mean that we are stupid, irrational, etc. It means we are multifaceted.

 

[Meow Mix]

Hi Enoughie, welcome to the boards. I liked the analogy of the pattern.

Also to those who said "OMG another anti-religious post that assumes all religions fail to accomodate scientific thinking, etc.," keep in mind that newcomers haven't had the chance to play in that snowball fight yet

 

[Enoughie]

From another recent thread....I quote myself...

"I grew up loving science.
Science affirms God.

Everything scientific.....God did it.
Science unravels 'how'."

Perhaps your interpretation of science affirms God, I have nothing against that view. Although you can interpret the same data - equally well - to suggest that there is no god.

But certainly science does not affirm the sort of God we find in the Bible - a God that considered it moral to stone disobedient children to death (Deut 21:18-21), or claimed that men should rule over women (Genesis 3:16)

 

[Enoughie]

Oh for goodness' sake, yet another thread that's of the "religious people are idiots!!!!!1" substance.

Is there a professor using this forum in his lectures somewhere?

Enoughie, first and foremost, welcome to Religious Forums.

Thanks for the greetings! (that goes to everyone)

Now, I never claimed that religious people are idiots. But I do think that "religious thinking" as I defined it is harmful.

Of course, you can apply "religious thinking" in any context, and it would still show its flaws.

For example, you could apply "religious thinking" to your taste in movies. If you watch four thrillers and like them all, and then decide that you only like thrillers (without trying any other genre), then you'd be deluding yourself about your taste in movies.

Secondly, religion and science are not necessarily opponents. The ultra-religious literalists and the militant anti-theists seem to make that assumption, but when everything is black-or-white like that it's no wonder that people come to such conclusions. Science is an opponent of religion if you take everything as literal and historical, which many do not.

Not every religious person is a Christian like the article seems to imply. If I were asked to read the Bible and pray (pray to the Biblical God) by someone of my faith, I'd ask why I want to read the Bible and pray to the concept of the divine of the Christians, Jews or Muslims.

The article uses Christianity as an example, it doesn't mean that every religious person is a Christian. Also, the subject of the article is not religion vs. science per se. Rather it is about the kinds of thinking that we apply in our lives. If we are able to infuse "scientific thinking" into our "spiritual" life then we are enriching our life. But if we are purposefully limiting ourselves to the "literal" interpretation, and ignoring everything else, then we are implicitly deluding ourselves.

Heh.

Don't think you know what ChristineEs thinks. You've been here, what, a day or two? That's very ignorant of you.

How was my response ignorant exactly? I was directly responding to the following: "I don't believe for one second that just because someone is a scientist that he/she is also an atheist"

I never said or implied that there is any relation between atheism and scientific thinking. Which means that ChristineES inferred that association on her own. That's why I said that there's no reason to have that association.

 

[Enoughie]

There is more than one way to look at the world. If you only look at it scientifically, then you may miss some of the beauty of it. I can look at the world in a scientific sense one day and the next look at it religiously. And there are other ways to look at it, too. Hunters may see the world in one way and farmers in another way.

Looking at the world in a different way sometimes doesn't mean that we are stupid, irrational, etc. It means we are multifaceted.

I agree that there are many ways of looking at the world, and we are all capable of shifting our perspective. But that doesn't mean that all perspectives were created equal. Is the perspective of the addict comparable to that of the sober one? Of course not. Some views may be constructive, while others destructive. Therefore, there's a need to distinguish between the former and the latter.

 

[Breathe]

Thanks for the greetings! (that goes to everyone)

Welcome.

Now, I never claimed that religious people are idiots. But I do think that "religious thinking" as I defined it is harmful.

Of course, you can apply "religious thinking" in any context, and it would still show its flaws.

For example, you could apply "religious thinking" to your taste in movies. If you watch four thrillers and like them all, and then decide that you only like thrillers (without trying any other genre), then you'd be deluding yourself about your taste in movies.

I can understand your opinion here, I guess, but are you of the view that religious people are not ones who have tried other religions or viewpoints, or that they simply are stuck in their own view and do not attempt to learn, or both, or neither?

The article uses Christianity as an example, it doesn't mean that every religious person is a Christian. Also, the subject of the article is not religion vs. science per se. Rather it is about the kinds of thinking that we apply in our lives. If we are able to infuse "scientific thinking" into our "spiritual" life then we are enriching our life. But if we are purposefully limiting ourselves to the "literal" interpretation, and ignoring everything else, then we are implicitly deluding ourselves.

I don't consider what is spoken of in this case then to be something one can define as "religious thinking". I would consider it as "superstition" or "closed-minded opinions", since as you pointed out one is still able to have "scientific thinking".

How was my response ignorant exactly? I was directly responding to the following: "I don't believe for one second that just because someone is a scientist that he/she is also an atheist"

It's how you said "some people like you would believe" when you're still young on the forum, it came across quite judgmentally and aggressively.

I never said or implied that there is any relation between atheism and scientific thinking. Which means that ChristineES inferred that association on her own. That's why I said that there's no reason to have that association.

I don't see where ChristineEs is making that association in her message at all, personally - from my perspective she is simply pointing out, science and religion are not opponents of one another. There is a member on this forum, whom I am sure you will meet if you stick around long enough, who is both a scientist and religious.

 

[Enoughie]

Welcome.


I can understand your opinion here, I guess, but are you of the view that religious people are not ones who have tried other religions or viewpoints, or that they simply are stuck in their own view and do not attempt to learn, or both, or neither?

I think for the most part religions have a monopoly over our consciousness - specifically in the areas of morality and belief in God. That leads many people to follow one religion or another, because they feel that without religion there could be no morality (or that without God there could be no morality), and that not being religious is somehow antithetical to a belief in God (it isn't).

Now, I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without religion. I disagree with the idea that you have to be religious to believe in God. And, I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without a belief in God.

With that said, I think that whatever religion a person decides to follow, this decision was not based on a sensible evaluation of the factual basis for the veracity of that religion, but rather on the consideration of the values, meaning, and community that the religion provides.

If we want to evaluate the factual basis for any religion we probably wouldn't choose to follow any religion. After all, what evidence do we have that Jesus is God? Or that Muhammad is indeed God's prophet? At best we have some anecdotal evidence here and there. Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no religion provides anything of that sort.

I don't consider what is spoken of in this case then to be something one can define as "religious thinking". I would consider it as "superstition" or "closed-minded opinions", since as you pointed out one is still able to have "scientific thinking".


It's how you said "some people like you would believe" when you're still young on the forum, it came across quite judgmentally and aggressively.

You misread my post. I said: "some people would like you to believe" not: "some people like you would believe"

 

[Breathe]

I think for the most part religions have a monopoly over our consciousness - specifically in the areas of morality and belief in God. That leads many people to follow one religion or another, because they feel that without religion there could be no morality (or that without God there could be no morality), and that not being religious is somehow antithetical to a belief in God (it isn't).

I understand what you mean, and I agree.

Now, I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without religion. I disagree with the idea that you have to be religious to believe in God. And, I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without a belief in God.

Agreed.

With that said, I think that whatever religion a person decides to follow, this decision was not based on a sensible evaluation of the factual basis for the veracity of that religion, but rather on the consideration of the values, meaning, and community that the religion provides.

To some extent this is definitely the case.

What do you define as "sensible evaluation of the factual basis for the veracity of the religion"? Do you mean whether its opinions on say, evidence on the belief afterlife and such hold up, whether the religious books have been tampered with, whether there are contradictions, or something else entirely?

I'm curious as to this, as I came to Hinduism recently.

Community is definitely an important part of religion, in my opinion, whether we like it or not; but I don't consider it important for one's inner spirituality, but I do think it is for religion, of which I consider to be the mundane way and the group one identifies with.

Can you define what you mean by "values" and "meaning"?

If we want to evaluate the factual basis for any religion we probably wouldn't choose to follow any religion. After all, what evidence do we have that Jesus is God? Or that Muhammad is indeed God's prophet? At best we have some anecdotal evidence here and there. Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no religion provides anything of that sort.

I can understand what you mean.

Personally I do not believe Jesus is God (any more so than I myself am a part of Her) and I do not believe Muhammad is a prophet. I'm actually pretty open about my opinion on the Abrahamic gods in that I regard them as asuras (asuras are sort of like, "antigods": jealous, aggressive, warmongering and so on) as opposed to "gods", let alone the God. I do not regard Her as the same as the deities of the Abrahamic religious scriptures due to characteristic differences, but that's my own view.

You misread my post. I said: "some people would like you to believe" not: "some people like you would believe"

Oh, my apologies.

 

[Thief]

Perhaps your interpretation of science affirms God, I have nothing against that view. Although you can interpret the same data - equally well - to suggest that there is no god.

But certainly science does not affirm the sort of God we find in the Bible - a God that considered it moral to stone disobedient children to death (Deut 21:18-21), or claimed that men should rule over women (Genesis 3:16)

Yeah well....assumptions are a slippery slop....
Note...I am a rogue theologian.
I have no congregation to follow and no one chasing after me.
I like it that way.

I dropped religious dogma a long time ago.
But when I say I believe in God...the typical knee jerk is....
'I don't like your God.'

God is still the Almighty...and Creator.
Science follows after Him.

 

[tomato1236]

6 posts, huh? Is there some way I can haze you? Lock you outside in your proverbial underwear or something?

 

[Enoughie]

To some extent this is definitely the case.

What do you define as "sensible evaluation of the factual basis for the veracity of the religion"? Do you mean whether its opinions on say, evidence on the belief afterlife and such hold up, whether the religious books have been tampered with, whether there are contradictions, or something else entirely?

I'm curious as to this, as I came to Hinduism recently.

I was actually referring to the factual foundation of the religion itself, not about its claims about the world and life. The claims about life that these religions make are only an extension.

Christianity, for example, is founded on the assertion that Jesus is God, and therefore everything he said is the Word of God and we should follow that. Similarly, Islam is founded on the assertion that Muhammad is God's messenger and therefore everything he claims must be the Word of God. So the question is - what is the factual basis to the claims that Muhammad is indeed God's messenger, or that Jesus is God? It is not enough to say that what these men said is "good" or helpful. They also require us to "believe" in them - in other words, accept their claims without being given the evidence to support these claims.

Community is definitely an important part of religion, in my opinion, whether we like it or not; but I don't consider it important for one's inner spirituality, but I do think it is for religion, of which I consider to be the mundane way and the group one identifies with.

Can you define what you mean by "values" and "meaning"?

Well, I'm sure you know, for example, what the main Christian values are (faith in God, renunciation of worldly pleasures, marriage and fidelity, forgiveness of sin, etc.), so I don't think I need to explain that.

Meaning and purpose, on the other hand, is something religions are very good at providing - "live according the the tenets of the religion and you'll go to heaven."
This is not something a secular outlook can provide (although I don't think there is anything moral about doing something only to get a reward and avoid punishment).

I can understand what you mean.

Personally I do not believe Jesus is God (any more so than I myself am a part of Her) and I do not believe Muhammad is a prophet. I'm actually pretty open about my opinion on the Abrahamic gods in that I regard them as asuras (asuras are sort of like, "antigods": jealous, aggressive, warmongering and so on) as opposed to "gods", let alone the God. I do not regard Her as the same as the deities of the Abrahamic religious scriptures due to characteristic differences, but that's my own view.

Well, I can't say I know much about Hinduism. I'm not even sure that Hinduism is really one religion, I was under the impression that it is many different worldviews that were given one name for convenience.

 

[Enoughie]

Yeah well....assumptions are a slippery slop....
Note...I am a rogue theologian.
I have no congregation to follow and no one chasing after me.
I like it that way.

I dropped religious dogma a long time ago.
But when I say I believe in God...the typical knee jerk is....
'I don't like your God.'

God is still the Almighty...and Creator.
Science follows after Him.

Well, I'm an apathetic agnostic.

I think claiming either that God exists or that God doesn't exist is presumptuous, since we simply do not have any evidence for or against the claim, and we can frame the evidence we have both in a way that supports the existence of God, or rejects the existence of God.

Not only that, I don't think there is anything moral about "being good" only because someone is supervising over you. I think people should do the right thing regardless of a supervisor - which means that it's really irrelevant whether God exists or not.