Religious Thinking vs Scientific Thinking

[Enoughie]

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

You can certainly try. But I'm notorious for passing hazing ceremonies unscathed..

 

[Smoke]

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

"I grew up loving science.
Science affirms God.

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

That reminds me of my grandmother. She used to say that she believed God created humans, and evolution was how he did it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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

Again you are putting all religious people in the same boat.

It has been shown that many Buddhist and Hindu meditation Techniques add to mental and physical health.

I would say that Gandhi's "religious approach to nonviolence" (Ahimsa) added greatly to enlightenment all over the world.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

You can certainly try. But I'm notorious for passing hazing ceremonies unscathed..

What hazing ceremonies ? You just can't back up your points.

 

[Breathe]

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.

Oh right, I see.

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).

Ditto (I agree with everything you posted above, and there's nothing I could add to it so I omitted it).

There's a quote on the net that I'm sure you are probably aware of:

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
​

- Albert Einstein

(I'm not entirely sure if it's authentic or not though, but I think it's a good quote nonetheless)

For one, I think that people doing things only out of an expectant reward or aversion are actually selfish acts.

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.

It depends on who you ask. There are some who are of the opinion that Hinduism is just an umbrella term for various faiths, or others who think they are just different takes on the one large and varied religion of Hinduism. I'd say I'm in the middle, if I take an attempt at placing myself.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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.

This statement is false. Many of the Buddhists on RF are Atheists. They became Buddhist to engage in Buddhist practices to understand the nature of suffering and their own minds.

I engage in Hindu spiritual practice to become a better person. Much like a person who goes to a therapist.

 

[Walkntune]

“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&#8221 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

First its not that we are pattern driven.It is that we hold on to things consciously and don't let go.
This has nothing to do with religious thinking. This has to do with holding on to conscious thoughts.Holding on to conscious thoughts blind you to the truth no matter whether it is scientific or religious.
Religious thinking is surrendering over the fleshly ego to convictions which come through intuition and instinct.
Scientific thinking and religious thinking are two complete different parts of awareness.

By the way, those who learn to release thoughts in the consciousness and subconsciousness have a greater awareness and are much less pattern driven then those who rely on conscious control for reality.
They are what you call free and as the bible speaks of faith like a child, they wake up to life being an adventure instead of patterns and ruts.

 

[Enoughie]

This statement is false. Many of the Buddhists on RF are Atheists. They became Buddhist to engage in Buddhist practices to understand the nature of suffering and their own minds.

I engage in Hindu spiritual practice to become a better person. Much like a person who goes to a therapist.

You know, you can't really say that a statement is false and then proceed to explain why it's actually true. You need to refute the statement not affirm it.

What you've just described confirms my statement. People engage in Buddhism or Hinduism not because they recognize the divinity of the Buddha or Hindu deities, but because they find meaning in the practices.

Also, I don't consider Buddhism as a religion like Christianity or Islam, rather as a philosophy of life. And I think that the Buddhist conception of self, consciousness, and outlook are far closer to the nature of reality than anything Western religions ever came up with.

 

[Breathe]

Also, I don't consider Buddhism as a religion like Christianity or Islam, rather as a philosophy of life.

When do philosophies turn into religions?

 

[Enoughie]

Again you are putting all religious people in the same boat.


It has been shown that many Buddhist and Hindu meditation Techniques add to mental and physical health.

I defined "religious thinking" as a very specific way of thinking, and explained why it is delusional, and not enlightening.

That doesn't mean that all religious practices are delusional and harmful. If a religion teaches people to be generous, that doesn't make generosity delusional, harmful, and unenlightening (on the other hand, if a religion teaches people to be generous so they get a greater reward in the afterlife than it is harmful - because that takes away from the intrinsic value of generosity)

So your example is irrelevant to the point I was making.

I would say that Gandhi's "religious approach to nonviolence" (Ahimsa) added greatly to enlightenment all over the world.

Gandhi thought that Churchill and Roosevelt are just as criminal as Hitler, and that Jews during WWII should commit mass-suicide to win the sympathy of the West. I don't think these teachings could have any practical implication. It is fine to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience when you know that your oppressor has some humanity in it (like the British Empire), but it's completely self-defeating when your oppressor is a genocidal Nazi regime.

He tried to convince Muslims that nonviolence is rooted in Islam - instead the independence of India directly led to war with Pakistan.

 

[Smoke]

This statement is false. Many of the Buddhists on RF are Atheists. They became Buddhist to engage in Buddhist practices to understand the nature of suffering and their own minds.

Exactly. The things that interest me about Buddhism are mostly the things that seem to have a factual basis. I sometimes find my actual encounters with Buddhist communities a little unnerving. I'm trying to get past that, but I'm not at all interested in getting to the point where I just accept something because a geshe or bhikku says it.

 

[Smoke]

Also, I don't consider Buddhism as a religion like Christianity or Islam, rather as a philosophy of life.

A lot of Buddhists see it that way, too. I see it as both a religion and a philosophy, but one very different from the monotheistic religions.

If can borrow some terminology from the grammarians, I see Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith -- and to a lesser extent Judaism -- as prescriptive, and Buddhism as descriptive.

 

[Thief]

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.

Your last paragraph shows that quality God seeks....
good for the sake of good.

Too bad it's wasted on a non-believer.

 

[Walkntune]

No]t 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.

People should do the right thing out of love and not out of laws. A true Christian walks in the love of Christ and is not bound by religious laws but operates in love.
Same as, would you rather your child be obedient to you for the sake of your rules or because they love and respect you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your last paragraph shows that quality God seeks....
good for the sake of good.

Too bad it's wasted on a non-believer.

So, even if a non-believer possesses the "qualities that God seeks", it's "wasted" just because they're a non-believer?

If so, then your God is pathetically petty.

People should do the right thing out of love and not out of laws. A true Christian walks in the love of Christ and is not bound by religious laws but operates in love.
Same as, would you rather your child be obedient to you for the sake of your rules or because they love and respect you?

But does that mean that if your child isn't obedient to you they deserve to die and subsequently be tortured for all eternity?

 

[Kerr]

Your last paragraph shows that quality God seeks....
good for the sake of good.

Too bad it's wasted on a non-believer.

What difference does it make? If someone is a genuine good person then that is all that matters. Not their faith.

 

[Thief]

So, even if a non-believer possesses the "qualities that God seeks", it's "wasted" just because they're a non-believer?

If so, then your God is pathetically petty.



But does that mean that if your child isn't obedient to you they deserve to die and subsequently be tortured for all eternity?

Too much dogma...too much assumption.


Doing good...is all fine and good.
But following someone else may require their permission.

Would you want a follower at your back...who performs for your attention?
performs for reward?....performs for his own exaltation?
Could you trust his performance when you are not around?

 

[Thief]

What difference does it make? If someone is a genuine good person then that is all that matters. Not their faith.

Agreed.....
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The angels will not ignore such performance.
They will do unto you as you did unto others....regardless of faith.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Too much dogma...too much assumption.


Doing good...is all fine and good.
But following someone else may require their permission.

Would you want a follower at your back...who performs for your attention?
performs for reward?....performs for his own exaltation?
Could you trust his performance when you are not around?

What are you on about? At what point are you going to start making sense?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I defined "religious thinking" as a very specific way of thinking, and explained why it is delusional, and not enlightening.

If a religion teaches people to be generous, that doesn't make generosity delusional, harmful, and unenlightening (on the other hand, if a religion teaches people to be generous so they get a greater reward in the afterlife than it is harmful - because that takes away from the intrinsic value of generosity)

So your example is irrelevant to the point I was making.

We are having a misunderstanding. Most sects of the Dharma religions Buddhism, Jainism and many sects of Hinduism. Do not teach don't do something because you will go to hell. It teaches don't do something because you will become a person who does that thing. It is a process of changing your personality. In Hinduism we have a spiritual practice called neti neti (not this, not this, in sanskrit). With this practice you analyze thoughts and actions and get rid of them if they don't make you a better person. Even the Idea of pleasing God to get to heaven must be rejected because it has no intrinsic value on its own. The idea is to become free of all attachment to become full of love. To love for loves sake, have knowledge for the sake of truth are the highest Ideals in Hinduism.

Gandhi thought that Churchill and Roosevelt are just as criminal as Hitler,

I have read Gandhi and for a while tried to add his beliefs in my personal life. This is a very simplistic view of his belief system. He did see a difference between Churchill and Hitler. In fact he had a personal meeting with Benito Mussolini he talked in great detail on how he was much like a predatory animal. He never said anything close to that when it came to the English.

You must also understand with the many forced famines with the deaths of millions of Indians, the massacre of Amritsar (over a 1000 men women and children shot), and the cutting of the thumbs of all males in some villages to destroy the local textile industry. I am sure the Indians have a much different view of British colonialism they you have.

and that Jews during WWII should commit mass-suicide to win the sympathy of the West.

Gandhi's beliefs on satyagraha, or "truth force," a philosophy and practice of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi was against all forms of suicide. He believed that it was the duty of every human to not tolerate evil. To Gandhi this was the intrinsic value of being nonviolent to be living in the Truth. In many places Gandhi said it is better to strike back and strike back hard the just put up with injustice out of fear. Gandhi just saw complete nonviolence as a higher stage of human development.

I don't think these teachings could have any practical implication. It is fine to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience when you know that your oppressor has some humanity in it (like the British Empire), but it's completely self-defeating when your oppressor is a genocidal Nazi regime.

1st this statement contradicts it self. You say no practical implication then you define it's practical use with some people.

Its practical use has worked all over the world in the last 60 years. Both MLK and Bishop Tutu applied it to help others to great success. Other times it failed but how often has violence for a just cause ended in defeat in human history.

He tried to convince Muslims that nonviolence is rooted in Islam - instead the independence of India directly led to war with Pakistan.

Even this worked at times Read about Badshah Khan. Again this view is so simplistic that it leads to not understand the reality of the situation.