Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I feel as though the scientific community needs to catch up with religion

With what? Praying? Myth making? Making unfalsifiable claims? Religion cannot teach science. Nor can it generate knowledge. For that we require empiricism.

It is my hypothesis that scientific developments are usually about 500 years behind what religions teach us now. What do you guys think about this?

That's incorrect. It's the other way around. Religion takes its lead from science, albeit very slowly.

 

[cladking]

With what? Praying? Myth making? Making unfalsifiable claims? Religion cannot teach science. Nor can it generate knowledge. For that we require empiricism.

How about in knowing how and why to live? Perhaps in having an understanding of how everything fits together and our place in the cosmos.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How about in knowing how and why to live?

Learn that from a religion? That's no place to find answers. We use can our senses, our conscience, and our reasoning faculty to learn what is true and what is good and right better than any theology can.

Perhaps in having an understanding of how everything fits together and our place in the cosmos.

Ditto. Why would I go to a holy book or any faith-based ism for that? The implication of your response is that religions have answers. I haven't seen anything I would call wisdom there about either of those topics. Show me a falsifying counterexample if you have one. If you have one, please show me some useful idea that derives from faith rather than reason applied to conscience and evidence.

 

[Valjean]

No! All consciousness seeks to explain, understand and control reality. This not only drives all life and all evolution but it is a defining characteristic of consciousness.

Most living things are content to live their day-to-day lives with no thought of explanation, meaning or a need for control.
Evolution is driven by blind natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, &c. No intent or consciousness necessary.

It is what life does and this applies even to homo omnisciencis. But unlike all other species on earth we have a complex language which we use to pass down learning and use as a medium for learning. Essentially our species has two modes for looking at the big picture; religion and science.

No argument here, though I do question the efficacy of the former.

Of course reductionistic science by definition does a very poor job of seeing the big picture. Religion in many ways in some important areas provides a better understanding of reality than science. But like Caesar science must have the final word everywhere experiment and thought contradict.

Science does a superior job of seeing "the big picture." Religion is content with "Goddidit!", and no proposed mechanism. Plus it discourages inquiry.
Biology, chemistry, geology, physics: all science. Religion had thousands of years to come up with a big picture -- or any picture -- of how the world works, and it failed utterly.

This isn't to say any existing religion presents a clear picture of reality, merely that they all present a picture where science can not.

Picturing reality isn't even religion's bailiwick. Religion's domain is purpose, value, meaning, &c. Describing reality is science's magisterium.

 

[cladking]

Learn that from a religion? That's no place to find answers. We use can our senses, our conscience, and our reasoning faculty to learn what is true and what is good and right better than any theology can.

Ditto. Why would I go to a holy book or any faith-based ism for that? The implication of your response is that religions have answers. I haven't seen anything I would call wisdom there about either of those topics. Show me a falsifying counterexample if you have one. If you have one, please show me some useful idea that derives from faith rather than reason applied to conscience and evidence.

I don't really disagree.

But anyone who thinks science is an answer misunderstands the nature and meaning of science. Religion comes closer.

This isn't to say reason is the only means to truth, merely that many of the answers provided by religion require proper interpretation.

 

[Valjean]

The stern follows the bow. It "knows" sooner what direction the boat will take but unless the boat sinks the stern always follows the bow.

They're entirely different boats, going in entirely different directions.

All progress comes from individuals and all ideas arise from thought. This applies both to cosmologists and theologians.

Religion had thousands of years to achieve "progress." It generated no new ideas or understanding of the world.
Look at the explosion of understanding and progress science achieved in just a couple hundred years, once it took the reins.

Consciousness is logical in every species except homo omnisciencis but even we tend to default to logic and this gives rise to new ideas sometime that are in agreement with the same logic that underlies all of reality.

How is consciousness "logical?" What is your concept of logic?

 

[Valjean]

The stern follows the bow. It "knows" sooner what direction the boat will take but unless the boat sinks the stern always follows the bow.

They're entirely different boats, going in entirely different directions.

All progress comes from individuals and all ideas arise from thought. This applies both to cosmologists and theologians.

Religion had thousands of years to achieve "progress." It generated no new ideas or understanding of the world.
Look at the explosion of understanding and progress science achieved in just a couple hundred years, once it took the reins.

Consciousness is logical in every species except homo omnisciencis but even we tend to default to logic and this gives rise to new ideas sometime that are in agreement with the same logic that underlies all of reality.

How is consciousness "logical?" What is your concept of logic?

 

[cladking]

Most living things are content to live their day-to-day lives with no thought of explanation, meaning or a need for control.
Evolution is driven by blind natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, &c. No intent or consciousness necessary.

That's easy to say when nobody even knows what consciousness is and "survival of the fittest" seems to explain everything.

No argument here, though I do question the efficacy of the former.

Religion evolves as new science occurs. Neither science nor religion exist in a vacuum.

Science does a superior job of seeing "the big picture."

The "big picture" is a paradigm that changes regularly. The big picture lacks a unified field theory and even an hypothesis for how everything began.

There is no big picture in science that won't change even in a single lifetime.

I believe religion is a confusion of the results of a science that was not reductionistic. This science studied ONLY the big picture.

Picturing reality isn't even religion's bailiwick. Religion's domain is purpose, value, meaning, &c. Describing reality is science's magisterium.

I don't know but just as "science" is an abstraction and doesn't really exist so too is "religion". I believe virtually every individual studying religion is seeking reality and truth just as are those who practice science. I believe logic underlies all of reality and any practice of logic is likely to find reality whether that means "science", "religion", "philosophy", or "baseball". Consciousness is attuned to reality even in our species. Logic is the default position of life even in homo omnisciencis.

 

[Windwalker]

They're entirely different boats, going in entirely different directions.

Are they? Aren't they each looking for finding truth to live by?

Religion had thousands of years to achieve "progress." It generated no new ideas or understanding of the world.

Well, that is complete false. Religion has generated a great deal of progress by helping guide societies away from blood feuds and kinship systems, to more community based and even cosmopolitan societies. Hell, even as primitive as the OT laws may seem to us today, for its day and age, it was a major improvement from what it superceeded. Then you follow the evolution of God within the Bible itself, as just one example, and the shift you see from the tribal deity, to the universal God, to the God of Jesus by the NT times, you see a great deal of progress. So this comment above just simply lacks foundational support. And the same can be true for other religions as well.

I think maybe your complaint is that it has been having a hard time keeping pace with modernity, and that would be true. It moves much more slowly for various reasons. But it does progress. Unless you are talking the broken aspects of it you find in fundamentalism, of course. But they're not really behind the times. They are just messed up.

Look at the explosion of understanding and progress science achieved in just a couple hundred years, once it took the reins.

Yes, and? Science is not doing religion (for the most part). If it were, it wouldn't be moving nearly as fast as it is. Care to hazard a reasonable guess as to why?

 

[Valjean]

Why am I unable to delete repeated posts? "The requested post could not be found." -- what does that mean?

 

[Valjean]

I don't really disagree.

But anyone who thinks science is an answer misunderstands the nature and meaning of science. Religion comes closer.

This isn't to say reason is the only means to truth, merely that many of the answers provided by religion require proper interpretation.

Religion comes closer to what? Not to understanding or describing reality. That's science's job.
Religion deals with purpose, value, meaning, &c.

 

[cladking]

They're entirely different boats, going in entirely different directions.

No.

In a sense the human race is 8 billion different beliefs using 8 billion different languages all pulling in different directions.

In a sense.

But the reality is we are all interconnected and interdependent because of language and a commonweal. We must cooperate to survive and whether we know it or not we all share the exact same interests and have the exact same needs. We must provide water, clothing, shelter, and food to the greatest possible number of existing people. We are all in this together trying to have fun and leaving the world a better place. When we fail to cooperate we have war, pestilence, and starvation. It has always been such.

In this sense we are certainly all in the same boat and must pull together despite our widely divergent beliefs. It is reason that must guide our boat but the engine room has been commandeered by a few for their own nefarious purposes and using "science" and a gullible public's beliefs in science as an excuse.

 

[Valjean]

Are they? Aren't they each looking for finding truth to live by?

No. Science isn't looking for anything to live by. It's not a religion. It's looking for objective. ontological reality, regardless of utility. Science has no such purpose.

Yes, and? Science is not doing religion (for the most part). If it were, it wouldn't be moving nearly as fast as it is. Care to hazard a reasonable guess as to why?

Because religion is not science's domain. Science deals only with objective fact, not purpose, values, or meaning.
Different boats.

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Windwalker]

Religion comes closer to what? Not to understanding or describing reality. That's science's job.
Religion deals with purpose, value, meaning, &c.

You don't think questions of purpose, meaning, and values has any bearing on reality to humans?

 

[Windwalker]

No. Science isn't looking for anything to live by. It's not a religion. It's looking for objective. ontological reality, regardless of utility. Science has no such purpose.

Because religion is not science's domain. Science deals only with objective fact, not purpose, values, or meaning.
Different boats.

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both deal with reality. As I just asked in the post before this one, you don't think questions of purpose and maning have any bearing on reality to human beings? I'd venture to say they are central to it. "Why do I exist? What is this all about".

BTW, I don't believe these are non-overlapping domains. Of course they are, because it's us humans who are concerned about both. The two domains converge in us as humans in the middle. We may focus on them as separate in the pursuit of knowledge, but in reality, they overlap because we overlap.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But anyone who thinks science is an answer misunderstands the nature and meaning of science.

Empiricism is the only path to what can justifiably be called knowledge. Hopes, dreams, guesses, and intuitions should not be called knowledge.

Religion comes closer.

Belief in the supernatural generates no knowledge.

This isn't to say reason is the only means to truth

Combined with the evidence of the senses, yes it is, if the word is to have more meaning than a fervently held and cherished belief.

many of the answers provided by religion require proper interpretation.

Now we have to look at the word answer. If it is to mean more than a guess or an unfalsifiable claim, that is, if it is to be a statement that demonstrably corresponds with sensible realty, then religions generate no answers.

Religion evolves as new science occurs. Neither science nor religion exist in a vacuum.

Science learns nothing from religion. The religions have to decide how much contradictory science to assimilate and how to explain that it wasn't ever wrong using motivated (tendentious) reasoning.

I don't know but just as "science" is an abstraction and doesn't really exist so too is "religion"

That's where the similarity ends. Both are abstractions, but one is abstracted from reality, the other is a creation of the imagination.

 

[cladking]

How is consciousness "logical?" What is your concept of logic?

Just remember none of this applies to our species, merely all other species.

Consciousness is life. All life is conscious and this is what drives evolution and every biological niche. Consciousness is a reflection of the behavior of individuals and chiefly the wiring of the brain. This wiring is logical because reality is logical and it unfolds inutero according to the logic of the genetic template that drives it. It is a mathematical logic that creates the brain and a mathematical logic that is reflected in and as consciousness.

his is because reality itself is logical. We don't understand any of the logic that composes it except for a few simple equations but it is wholly and completely logical and infinitely complex. Our hubris knows no bounds. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

Empiricism is the only path to what can justifiably be called knowledge. Hopes, dreams, guesses, and intuitions should not be called knowledge.

I don't disagree but one man's empiricism is another man's occult.

Belief in the supernatural generates no knowledge.

Belief is superstition and the scourge of homo omnisciencis. Everything for us is about belief. Most individuals who think they understand science are actually believers in science.

Combined with the evidence of the senses, yes it is, if the word is to have more meaning than a fervently held and cherished belief.

I hate to break this to you but most of your beliefs were learned on your parents' knees and has never been tested. Most of what we call "reason" is a hand me down whether it's based in science, religion, or superstition.

Science learns nothing from religion.

They are inextricably entwined by language.

That's where the similarity ends. Both are abstractions, but one is abstracted from reality, the other is a creation of the imagination.

To the degree science is properly practiced and understood I tend to agree except I still believe religion is derived from natural science.

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

there is no such thing as “ghost science”?

do you mean the “parapsychology” research?

that have been deemed to be pseudoscience garbage.

parapsychology doesn’t fall under the Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

but even in Social Sciences, the scientists in these groups, have rejected parapsychology and paranormal phenomena.

Ghost science has been around since the 1450's. That was about 570 years ago. Parapsychology is totally different.

 

[Valjean]

You don't think questions of purpose, meaning, and values has any bearing on reality to humans?

They may have bearing, but they're not the magisterium of science, nor does science claim they are.
Religion, on the other hand, is only too happy to trespass into the domain of science and make assertions about reality and scientific fact.

Different boats.