Science-Religion separation

[Exaltist Ethan]

That's not surprising given that I think you credit too much to religion, and would have enjoyed knowing WHY you disagree with the opinions you reject rather than just THAT you disagree..

Here is how I see the discussion being done so far. I'm going to solve this right now by using my head to predict how this conversation will go. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Me: "Religion has helped man answer why he exists, and for me, it is to be generous. Religions practice generosity because of their faiths."
You: "Science could have done everything that you say religion can, and religion is not needed to build schools or hospitals."
Me: "But religion is why they do things like that. People get inspired to do good because of their religion. This is why hospitals are called after saints and the reason we have parochial schools."
You: "But people could do that without religion. Religion is only meant to feed into man's psychological desire to be more important than he actually is."
Me: "I disagree. Many of these things would not be made if it weren't for the religious establishments and their faith carrying people towards salvation. It is true that there are schools and hospitals that exist without the support of a religion, but many people seek religion to do better in their personal and social lives. There is an underlying benefit to religion that you have not considered."
You: "That underlying benefit is to help people psychologically and by no means those things couldn't exist without religion. If there is a demand for a school or a hospital it can and will be built without faith."
Me: "You fundamentality don't understand why religion exists. Religion exists for many people to give them the reason to build those institutions. It is true that many of these establishments would be built regardless, but that does not impede on the importance of why they are built."
You: "I don't care why they are built. Religion is just a way to psychologically ease people."
Me: "And that psychological easing helps people do things they normally wouldn't be capable of doing before, correct? In order to change something externally you have to change how people think of themselves internally."
You: "But in the end all religion, and faith does, is help people psychologically."

There. I recreated your argument and answered how I thought about it. This conversation is circular and does not interest me at all. Why do people do the things they do? For some people, it is because of God. If they didn't have the psychological motivation to do those things, because of God, things might not be worse, but they would be different, regardless. And, honestly, I think without religion things would overall be worse - something I know we could debate and argue with in circular fashion from now until the end of time.

I am not interested in doing this with you.

 

[Yazata]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

Historically, Natural Theology has been a thing. This is the idea that reasoning from observations of this world can lead one "upwards" towards its hypothetical Source/Creator. (I personally am inclined to take Natural Theology more seriously than many today do.)

Natural theology - Wikipedia

I think that the decline of natural theology can be attributed in some large part to the rise of Protestantism.

First is the influence of Protestant theology. Catholics still believe that man (and the physical universe as well) were created in the image of God. (Its logos, the principles that govern it and the rational coherence that it displays. Plato's Forms.) Hence that divine image still remains and if it is rightly perceived and cognized, can lead man back towards its transcendant Source. Catholics get this idea by way of Aquinas, who got it in turn from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists, as interpreted by the Arabs.

The Protestant reformers, based on their own reading of Paul largely denied this, insisting that the Fall had broken any connection between the natural and the divine, and essentially erased the image of God in man and in nature. Hence this reality is separate and apart, operating on its own fallen principles, and there is no path leading upwards to God to be found here. The only hope for salvation from all this was to trust in God's revelation to man through Christ as recorded in the Bible.

Martin Luther is famous for distinguishing between what he called "Theology of Glory" and "Theology of the Cross". He felt that any suggestion that there was already anything "glorious" in man or our physical world, was not only the very essence of sinful pride, but also a downplaying of the need for Christ's salvation and hence anti-Christian. There is nothing remotely glorious in man until the Holy Spirit touches us and our only path to that is faith in the Cross.

What is cross theology / theology of the cross? | GotQuestions.org

Another way that the Protestant reformation led to the decline of natural theology was the way it accentuated the ancient skepticism rediscovered by the Renaissance humanists. The Protestant reformers promoted popular skepticism about all the aspects of Catholicism that they thought weren't Biblical. Mary and the Saints, and the whole idea that God is active in everything that happens. To the Protestants, the only divine revelation available to us is Bible scripture.

So in a way, the Protestants were kind of the atheists of the 16th century, going around denouncing everything that other people believed that they percieved as superstition. And inevitably, once that skepticism was unleashed, it couldn't be contained. A century later the avant-garde intellectuals were turning that same skepticism towards the Protestants' beloved Bible itself, and towards the whole idea of revealed theology.

This led to the rise of Deism, which doubted the truth of revelation but still saw no reason to doubt physico-theology like the first-cause or the design arguments. Deism was kind of the high-point of natural theology.

But gradually atheism rose alongside deism, casting skepticism on the arguments of natural theology as well. Much of the motivation for that was the peculiarly European strain of anti-clericalism, opposition to old orders manifested in established churches. That resulted in the kind of hostility towards "religion" as a dark and atavistic force that we see in atheism today. (Very visible in the French revolution.)

The deists nevertheless remained very popular and generally thought that the design argument was pretty much unassailable, particularly in the case of biological organisms which seemed designed much more than the products of chance. Then along came Darwin and natural selection, and deism came crashing down to be replaced by full-frontal atheism. And here we are today.

 

[cladking]

Why have scientists become less religious, less fundamental, and less principal in their faith over the centuries?

Why, over the centuries, have Theists become less scientific and less focused on using the mind?

I believe there is the "law of a second extraordinary talent." Great talents are so rare statistically that a single human cannot hold two excellent skills. This explains why people are becoming significant but narrow specialists.

In my understanding, I am both. I am Scientist in Religion and Religious in Science.
The roots of modern Science are in monasteries. The monk was trying to use logic during the study of Religion.
Monks discovered scientific methods.

Religion doesn't get the credit it deserves for philosophy and the invention and practice of science. Most would have you believe that religion is a dark stain on history and as science has advanced the ignorance that is religion is fading. The lack of religion in science is not directly a weakness but the nonsense in science that reality can be expressed in modern mathematics is a failure of philosophy largely resulting from the loss of religion and the rise of a belief in science.

Science has run off the rails because too few understand that experiment was invented to basis science because all human opinion is nonsense. It's far better to believe in God and most probably far more accurate than to believe in science. The failure of education and philosophy have resulted in a very dangerous world running at remarkably poor efficiency. Most of this is because, as you say, specialization has run amok. Nobody is trained in nexialism or generalism. Nobody trained in philosophy is taken seriously because so much philosophy is the movement of hot air. Theologians are mostly ignored despite the fact that more than anyone they created the modern world from the wreckage of the "tower of babel". Instead we have a small handful of scientists and large numbers of mystics playing around with numbers and different sorts of math.

The layperson has been convinced that all you need to do to know reality is to ask priest (called a "Peer") or to consult Siri who knows everything. We have Tablet Geniuses who believe their own opinion is cast in stone because it looks like the models espoused by Peers or because they can fact check anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow view of very very little.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Me: "But religion is why they do things like that. People get inspired to do good because of their religion.

To me, if you need religion to be moved to good then you probably aren't a good person and have a sense of morality that is lacking. Those without have done just fine without any sort of religion telling them how to behave.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The layperson has been convinced that all you need to do to know reality is to ask priest (called a "Peer") or to consult Siri who knows everything. We have Tablet Geniuses who believe their own opinion is cast in stone because it looks like the models espoused by Peers or because they can fact check anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow view of very very little.

Laymen are not peers to priests or scientists.

 

[cladking]

To me, if you need religion to be moved to good then you probably aren't a good person and have a sense of morality that is lacking. Those without have done just fine without any sort of religion telling them how to behave.

The world is doing great.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The world is doing great.

The West at least is doing much better than it was when the Church had it's grip firmly on society.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

To me, if you need religion to be moved to good then you probably aren't a good person and have a sense of morality that is lacking. Those without have done just fine without any sort of religion telling them how to behave.

I disagree. Morality is morality, regardless if it comes from religion or not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree. Morality is morality, regardless if it comes from religion or not.

If you need to be instructed then you might have some internal issues to work on. Most people are pro-social and generally good by default, no religion needed.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

If you need to be instructed then you might have some internal issues to work on. Most people are pro-social and generally good by default, no religion needed.

Why do you have to press the issue? I said I disagreed. You should respect my disagreement without resorting to a personal attack.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do you have to press the issue? I said I disagreed. You should respect my disagreement without resorting to a personal attack.

Not trying to be personal, but rather highlighting people are good without, they are motivated to good without, and it does seem questionable when someone does good because of religion. Why is it needed? What wasn't there that the person was already good and doing good to begin with?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Not trying to be personal, but rather highlighting people are good without, they are motivated to good without, and it does seem questionable when someone does good because of religion. Why is it needed? What wasn't there that the person was already good and doing good to begin with?

For some people, they do good because it is a reflection of the good works of their prophet. I do not criticize people for doing good, no matter where that good comes from. The outcome is more important than the reason why someone does something. If it would similar if I told you that I only play one video game, and you told me I wasn't a gamer because i only play one game. Some people play one game, others play many games. But it doesn't matter because anyone who plays games to me is a gamer.

I don't often find that there is some "hidden motive" of religious people that make them worse than the rest of us. They are just impassioned by their world views. If someone basis their actions on that, who is it for you to judge them accordingly? Some people need justification for the things they do; you obviously do not. But I don't judge who do good things (and avoid bad things) because they are religious. A non-smoking, non-drinking Baha'i is just as non-smoking and non-drinking as a non-smoking and non-drinking atheist.

Who are you to judge them because they've developed a different world view than your own?

 

[Secret Chief]

Food for thought:

"The systematic study of science and religion started in the 1960s, with authors such as Ian Barbour (1966) and Thomas F. Torrance (1969) who challenged the prevailing view that science and religion were either at war or indifferent to each other. Barbour’s Issues in Science and Religion (1966) set out several enduring themes of the field, including a comparison of methodology and theory in both fields. Zygon, the first specialist journal on science and religion, was also founded in 1966. While the early study of science and religion focused on methodological issues, authors from the late 1980s to the 2000s developed contextual approaches, including detailed historical examinations of the relationship between science and religion (e.g., Brooke 1991)."
- Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744/free-sample

 

[Yazata]

Religion doesn't get the credit it deserves for philosophy and the invention and practice of science.

In a sense religion, philosophy and science are all one and the same thing, human beings seeking and probing into the unknown, perhaps ultimately the transcendent, and finding emotional inspiration there.

In another sense, philosophy is totally different than religion and science.

Philosophy asks questions and advances by asking deeper and more subtle questions. It exposes where the unknown still lurks and what the issues are. While both science and religion purport to provide answers to the questions.

Religion finds its answers in purported revelation, in ancient tradition and perhaps in subjective religious experience. Science finds its answers by limiting its scope to what is observable by the physical senses and their instrumental extensions, describing those observations and finding correlations between them.

Most would have you believe that religion is a dark stain on history and as science has advanced the ignorance that is religion is fading.

Many/most atheists seem to believe that idea very forcefully (while they shriek that they have no beliefs that they need to defend). I see it as arising in European anti-clericalism, the idea that established churches (and by extension their beliefs) were are dark and atavistic force in opposition to "enlightenment" as they saw it. The French Revolution is long gone, but its intellectual echoes still reverberate.

The lack of religion in science is not directly a weakness

I'm not convinced that science is really free of "religion" in a broad sense of having to appeal to transcendent principles (which need not be personalized and might not correspond to any ancient tradition). Science (especially physics) wears its faith in mathematics on its sleeve along with the belief that reality is ultimately rational and logical. Science (again physics most notably) appeal to "laws of nature" seemingly without awareness of where that idea of "law" originally came from.

but the nonsense in science that reality can be expressed in modern mathematics is a failure of philosophy largely resulting from the loss of religion and the rise of a belief in science.

I agree. But that being said, I don't want to dismiss the idea of structural realism in the philosophy if science.

The weakness as I see it is to treat observed correlations (expressed in mathematical form) between observable phenomena as if those formulae were somehow ultimate explanations, and not something fundamentally in need of explanation themselves.

Science has run off the rails because too few understand that experiment was invented to basis science because all human opinion is nonsense. It's far better to believe in God and most probably far more accurate than to believe in science.

Only if our concept of "God" is "some unknown Source of reality" or something like that. I don't think that the God(s) of Judaism, Christianity or Islam have much resemblance to the truth, whatever it is. They are almost entirely figures of myth in my opinion.

Perhaps the more apophatic threads of Christian, Islamic and Hindu tradition are the best place to look in the religious traditions. To look not for answers exactly, but more to look for the directions in which answers might ultimately be found.

The failure of education and philosophy have resulted in a very dangerous world running at remarkably poor efficiency. Most of this is because, as you say, specialization has run amok. Nobody is trained in nexialism or generalism. Nobody trained in philosophy is taken seriously because so much philosophy is the movement of hot air.

I'm not convinced that philosophy can be taught. You either have the drive to question ever deeper or you don't. The latter people become satisfied with some set of answers, whether scientific or religious, and halt their questioning there. The Bible or the Quran are divine revelation and that's it. Or the "laws of physics" and the principle of mathematics are givens and must be accepted. It's the philosophical mind that asks how one knows these things (assuming that we do) and what explains them.

The layperson has been convinced that all you need to do to know reality is to ask priest (called a "Peer") or to consult Siri who knows everything. We have Tablet Geniuses who believe their own opinion is cast in stone because it looks like the models espoused by Peers or because they can fact check anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow view of very very little.

Yes, there has always been a strong element of authoritarianism in much of religion, especially the revealed sorts. And in the 21'st century science is evolving in the same authoritarian direction. Laypeople are just supposed to believe anything they are told in the name of science, or else be condemned as "anti-science" or "deniers", today's equivalent of history's "heathen" or "heretic".

 

[Yazata]

Laymen are not peers to priests or scientists.

So what should the relationship of laypeople to priests and scientists be?

Should laypeople be free to decide for themselves what they believe?

Or should the priests and scientists be in the position to dictate and control other people's beliefs?

 

[paarsurrey]

questfortruth said: ↑
You "know" that Jesus Christ is a "fraud", but do not know what happened to me? Why I am smart and religious.

Can't one give one's argument in a reasonable way instead of hurling accusation and or playing with " Jesus Christ" , Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never gave such a teachings, please? Right?
Regards

(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah never spoke against Science, did he ever, please?
Did one ever use the qualifying adjective "fraud" against the Hellenist Paul, please? Right?
If yes, then kindly quote and or give its reference link, if one likes, please. Right?

Regards

 

[cladking]

I'm not convinced that science is really free of "religion" in a broad sense of having to appeal to transcendent principles (which need not be personalized and might not correspond to any ancient tradition). Science (especially physics) wears its faith in mathematics on its sleeve along with the belief that reality is ultimately rational and logical. Science (again physics most notably) appeal to "laws of nature" seemingly without awareness of where that idea of "law" originally came from.

Oh, I agree.

There is huge overlap between science and religion in many many ways and levels. But nobody must understand religion or have religious precepts to express their interpretations of experiment. Of course there is still religious "beliefs" even here because the assumptions and axioms of science are in real ways related to religion. Even the languages in which we discuss science are heavily influenced by religion. You can no more separate the two than you can shield gravity to study it.

I believe there are even deeper ties than this and that even the way we think is heavily influenced by ancient precepts because Ancient Language lent its vocabulary to the modern languages.

The weakness as I see it is to treat observed correlations (expressed in mathematical form) between observable phenomena as if those formulae were somehow ultimate explanations, and not something fundamentally in need of explanation themselves.

This is what much of "science" has degenerated into. It's not even really math and barely statistics. It's computer programming that starts with garbage and ends with garbage. GIGO. It's similar to homo circulus ratiocinatio except there's no reasoning at all, merely number crunching, any relationship to reality will usually be coincidental.

Even the real math often involves the usage of a contrived constant. If we really understood the processes involved we'd be able to generate (understand) the constant.

Only if our concept of "God" is "some unknown Source of reality" or something like that. I don't think that the God(s) of Judaism, Christianity or Islam have much resemblance to the truth, whatever it is. They are almost entirely figures of myth in my opinion.

I once believed this.

But I have since learned that religions are just derived from ancient sources that are confused explanations of ancient science. Of course this sounds strange and unknowable but actually it is quite well evidenced and very logical. Science has this strange belief that languages arose suddenly from almost nothing 4000 years ago and that agriculture was invented through trial and error. they believe ignorance and superstition made ancient people strong and wise. They believe science works on intelligence and there's only one way to think. They believe they can reduce reality to experiment without missing EVERY single thing that can not be defined or reduced such as "consciousness'. They believe they can ignore half of reality that is chaos and understand the rest that is harmonic. They have numerous such mystical beliefs and then they wonder why cosmology is bogged down in the 1920's and math says there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Then when challenged on any point they get more mystical and refer to Peers and other High Priests.

Ancient science didn't believe "Gods" was the source of reality but that they were the observable parts of reality. They didn't even have a word for "belief". They were literally no more mystical than a sparrow.

I'm not convinced that philosophy can be taught. You either have the drive to question ever deeper or you don't. The latter people become satisfied with some set of answers, whether scientific or religious, and halt their questioning there. The Bible or the Quran are divine revelation and that's it. Or the "laws of physics" and the principle of mathematics are givens and must be accepted. It's the philosophical mind that asks how one knows these things (assuming that we do) and what explains them.

We seem to be wired about the same.

I only ever wanted to have no false beliefs. I've come to believe this is equivalent to having no beliefs just like the ancient scientists we believe were "prophets".

Every other consciousness including man before the "tower of babel" was wired like all those like him. Now we "wire" ourselves by means of choosing our beliefs and then experience reality in terms of those beliefs. We do this "wiring" through modern abstract, analog, and symbolic language and we carry this wiring wherever we go.

Yes, there has always been a strong element of authoritarianism in much of religion, especially the revealed sorts. And in the 21'st century science is evolving in the same authoritarian direction. Laypeople are just supposed to believe anything they are told in the name of science, or else be condemned as "anti-science" or "deniers", today's equivalent of history's "heathen" or "heretic".

EXACTLY!!! And this is killing us individually and collectively. Partly because "science" is now available to the highest bidder just like Congress and partly because "science" is not a proper way to live a life. We are fallible human beings not computer programs with the same needs and abilities. When a human makes an error he dies but when science makes an error we all die.

Now we allow lobbyists under the pay of the few to write laws that are rushed through Congress. We don't get representation we get rubber stamps on whatever the beltway claimns is "science". We're in deep trouble and tower of babel 2.0 looms. Pidgin language was the back up then but we have no back up today.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what should the relationship of laypeople to priests and scientists be?

Should laypeople be free to decide for themselves what they believe?

Or should the priests and scientists be in the position to dictate and control other people's beliefs?

Normally laypeople turn to those such as physicians, scientists, clergy, mechanics, philosophers, and other such types who have more knowledge and experience in a given subject when it is wanted or needed. People can believe what they want, but ultimately we all must time to time turn to those better than us and more knowledge than us in a given field.

 

[gnostic]

Since when is a humanist philosopher a scientist?

It isn’t.

Being a scientist is a job.

Humanist isn’t a job position.

As to humanism, that’s a philosophy, not science.

Humanism is a philosophy concern with reaching the fullest potential of being “human” mentally and socially, and being “human” creatively and logically, whether that be in writings (or literature), in arts, in sciences, in politics, in morals & ethics, and in other spheres. Humanism is about what benefits “human” as a whole.

Humanism isn’t focused in one sphere.

There is one thing do Humanism specify, focused more on natural reality of human endeavors and needs, and less on supernatural phenomena and supernatural causes and supernatural agencies.

It doesn’t mean a humanist cannot be a religious person. There were many humanists who were also religious, like in the Italian Renaissance.

All those authors, artists, architects, engineers, mathematicians, natural philosophers (before there were scientists), etc, during the Renaissance, were religious people, they were Christians, but they were also philosophically, “humanist”.

Humanism isn’t a religion and it isn’t a science...it is a philosophy.

 

[DNB]

It isn’t.

Being a scientist is a job.

Humanist isn’t a job position.

As to humanism, that’s a philosophy, not science.

Humanism is a philosophy concern with reaching the fullest potential of being “human” mentally and socially, and being “human” creatively and logically, whether that be in writings (or literature), in arts, in sciences, in politics, in morals & ethics, and in other spheres. Humanism is about what benefits “human” as a whole.

Humanism isn’t focused in one sphere.

There is one thing do Humanism specify, focused more on natural reality of human needs, and less on supernatural phenomena and supernatural causes and supernatural agencies.

It doesn’t mean a humanist cannot be a religious person. There were many humanists who were also religious, like in the Italian Renaissance.

All those authors, artists, architects, engineers, mathematicians, natural philosophers (before there were scientists), etc, during the Renaissance, were religious people, they were Christians, but they were also philosophically, “humanist”.

Humanism isn’t a religion and it isn’t a science...it is a philosophy.

Yes, I agree - but I'm not the one who considered it a science - you should be attempting to explain this to the person that did.