Scientific Method is useless in religion?

[McBell]

an awful lot of wide *** brushes being used up in this thread

 

[Thief]

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

experiments don't always yield a result anticipated
and then back to the drawing board you go

and religion will not provide a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or a repeatable experiment

but the discipline of thought must remain
because all you can do is
think about it

 

[Thief]

How do you feel about the fact that science has shown that the universe would still be the same if there was no deity?

would there be a creation....without a Creator?

substance is not 'self' starting

 

[psychoslice]

Much of religion is like testicles on a cow.

 

[Thief]

poor analogy

 

[Aupmanyav]

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” - Dalai Lama

That is truely Buddhism and according to Kalama Sutta. Hindu 'Nyaya' also is not different, though it was corrupted by theists later.

That is true Hinduism also. Lord Rama said:

"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyena nasti param padam."

(Truth is God in the universe, in truth 'dharma' finds good refuge;
all have their base in truth, there is no station higher than truth.)

When applied, it helps people become atheists.

It is not necessary that atheists should abandon religion ('dharma'). One can happily be very scientific and very 'dharmic'.

A person of science will easily see why it is necessary for some people to believe in Gods and angels, or heaven and hell.

 

[Sunstone]

Science certainly has a lot to say about certain, specific religious notions, such as the notion that there was once a god built bridge between India and Sri Lanka, or a world wide flood.

 

[Revoltingest]

And it's helped me as a believer because it illuminates the beauty and precision of God's world.

Sounds like it helps everyone...even dogs!

 

[sun rise]

Science certainly has a lot to say about certain, specific religious notions, such as the notion that there was once a god built bridge between India and Sri Lanka, or a world wide flood.

I'm not sure I'd call those religious notions - they're not central teaching of various religions. When today we have people denying moon landings etc, who knows what mythology might have grown up about certain events.

I was bemused and interested to read a bit ago about evidence that there could have been a crossing of the "reed" sea as is in the Bible for the 'red' sea. https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/new...modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route.

Rather than ask whether or not some event literally happened as written today, I find it interesting to ask what event might have happened that seemed divine, was modified through story telling and wound up in someone's scripture.

There is a teaching/morality story that illustrates this. I've read and been told versions of this story with different protagonists but the same moral: a holy man who had taken a vow of absolute honesty was sitting by a road when a young woman ran up and begged him to help her avoid being raped. He advised her to hide and moved to the other side of the road. The rapists ran up to him after that and asked if he had seen her. He answered "not while I was sitting here" thus keeping his vow of literal honesty while saving the woman.

The entire point is not whether to story actually happened or has been written in scripture, but the teaching of what constitutes moral action.

 

[McBell]

I'm not sure I'd call those religious notions - they're not central teaching of various religions. When today we have people denying moon landings etc, who knows what mythology might have grown up about certain events.

I was bemused and interested to read a bit ago about evidence that there could have been a crossing of the "reed" sea as is in the Bible for the 'red' sea. https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/new...modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route.

Rather than ask whether or not some event literally happened as written today, I find it interesting to ask what event might have happened that seemed divine, was modified through story telling and wound up in someone's scripture.

There is a teaching/morality story that illustrates this. I've read and been told versions of this story with different protagonists but the same moral: a holy man who had taken a vow of absolute honesty was sitting by a road when a young woman ran up and begged him to help her avoid being raped. He advised her to hide and moved to the other side of the road. The rapists ran up to him after that and asked if he had seen her. He answered "not while I was sitting here" thus keeping his vow of literal honesty while saving the woman.

The entire point is not whether to story actually happened or has been written in scripture, but the teaching of what constitutes moral action.

And it is that type of moral loophole that makes religion so popular....

 

[Laika]

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

Science can only speak about religion in the basis of materialism, when we treat beliefs as products of the brain as a form of matter, that can itself be studied and observed. In this way, scientific materialism can attribute the cause of religious belief to man and study them as the product of human experience and social relations.

However, whilst this definition of science was popular in the 19th century, in the western world by the late 20th century people stopped talking about the "science of religion" or "scientific atheism". This was part of a broader re-evaluation of the capabilities of science which had both philosophical, science and political motivations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Much of religion is like testicles on a cow.

 

[DawudTalut]

No its not.

Anyone can say they received the words of a deity.

Yes, then divine support decides whether claim was right or wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure I'd call those religious notions - they're not central teaching of various religions.

I do believe, however, that they are central -- or at least essential -- to the religiosity of a great many people. One can argue that not every Christian, for instance, considers the literal truth of Noah's Flood or the Genesis Myth to be essential to their faith, but I would find it difficult to argue that only insignificant numbers of Christians do.

 

[Segev Moran]

The historical Buddha and early Buddhism is basically all about the scientific method applied to mental and conscious states.

Interesting.
Can you provide an Example?
This is something I am not highly educated about and would love to learn some more.

 

[buddhist]

Interesting.
Can you provide an Example?
This is something I am not highly educated about and would love to learn some more.

Personal, direct observation was what the Buddha taught; for example:

• "When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'" AN 3.65
• "The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." AN 3.70

As commonly claimed in other religions, the "word of a god" is revealed to special prophets in history which non-prophets must believe on blind faith. We have no way of directly knowing or verifying these utterances for ourselves, as these revelations are fixed in space and time, and given only to a special people group (e.g. prophets, priests, ethnic people group, hierarchies, etc.)

On the other hand, early Buddhism is based on universal, timeless truths which the Buddha himself observed and realized, the same truths which he calls his disciples to observe and realize for ourselves as well. Whatever the Awakened One observed, he calls us to observe and awaken to the very same things in the "here & now", the Laws of Reality which are "timeless" and invites "verification", to be "realized" and "known" by the "wise for themselves".

In his search and struggle for enlightenment and freedom from dukkha/suffering (the core problem which drives all the activities of humanity - the search for gods, saviors, food, sex, entertainment, etc.), the Buddha made Observations regarding various physical and mental states, developed testable predictions regarding various ascetic practices, and then subjected himself to those practices. He eliminated the practices which did not bring him to nibbana (total unbinding, freedom from dukkha), and presented his "General Theory" - the Dhamma - which he taught to his disciples. The same Dhamma which he realized, he invites us to test and realize for ourselves, to reach the same level of enlightenment and freedom which he himself did. In such a way, he practiced the scientific method.

(Note that many forms of late "Buddhisms" which developed centuries later have essentially morphed into religions which depend on blind-faith in various celestial-"savior" Buddhas or Bodhisattvas with established hierarchies, so I think an important distinguishing must be made between late and early Buddhism).

 

[Shad]

I'm not sure I'd call those religious notions - they're not central teaching of various religions. When today we have people denying moon landings etc, who knows what mythology might have grown up about certain events.

I was bemused and interested to read a bit ago about evidence that there could have been a crossing of the "reed" sea as is in the Bible for the 'red' sea. https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/new...modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route.

Rather than ask whether or not some event literally happened as written today, I find it interesting to ask what event might have happened that seemed divine, was modified through story telling and wound up in someone's scripture.

There is a teaching/morality story that illustrates this. I've read and been told versions of this story with different protagonists but the same moral: a holy man who had taken a vow of absolute honesty was sitting by a road when a young woman ran up and begged him to help her avoid being raped. He advised her to hide and moved to the other side of the road. The rapists ran up to him after that and asked if he had seen her. He answered "not while I was sitting here" thus keeping his vow of literal honesty while saving the woman.

The entire point is not whether to story actually happened or has been written in scripture, but the teaching of what constitutes moral action.

Morality such as killing all first born males of Egypt for the acts of it's ruler. Great morals lesson there.....

 

[viole]

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

It is not useless in religious matters. It is actually very useful.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ENTP Logician]

would there be a creation....without a Creator?

substance is not 'self' starting

You see that would work if you could prove that the universe was a creation.

Also BTW I could say that a deity cannot be either.

 

[ENTP Logician]

Yes, then divine support decides whether claim was right or wrong.

And what is divine support?