The Religiontific Method

[atanu]

We've seen an interesting discussion of the scientific method.
It's more complicated & flexible than is typically proffered by educators.
Is there a method for religion?
Or to phrase it better....what methods do you see?

Note:
I see no debating is allowed here.
This is partly why I chose this forum.

Catch hold of the self, the one that is discontented/fearful/angry/sad etc. etc. That is all there is in Vedanta of my understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well lets see..the scientific method is basically
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

I will skip #4 and 5. Many tests are not possible. Leave them for the future. Conclusions are not possible because we do not have all data.
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Communicate Your Results
5. Refine your hypothesis if new information requires this.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The scientific method is great for the observable, testable, repeatable... the things of technology, medicine, agriculture and those things
are not hinged on secular oriigns theories excluding a creator

Scientific origins investigations are more like historical approaches and detective work and not as certain

But when science wanders into dark matter and energy, claiming the universe is 94% somethign we cannot see and know nothing about ... and what happened before there was time space or matter... well
that would be a religous view picking up a scientific method deck and dealing its philosophical card preferences off the bottom of the deck

Am I wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

The scientific method is great for the observable, testable, repeatable... the things of technology, medicine, agriculture and those things
are not hinged on secular oriigns theories excluding a creator

Scientific origins investigations are more like historical approaches and detective work and not as certain

But when science wanders into dark matter and energy, claiming the universe is 94% somethign we cannot see and know nothing about ... and what happened before there was time space or matter... well
that would be a religous view picking up a scientific method deck and dealing its philosophical card preferences off the bottom of the deck

Am I wrong?

Actually, the only reason for investigating "dark matter" & "dark energy" is that we do know something about both.
Those are the labels given to observable phenomena of gravitational effects which aren't explainable using only
ordinary matter, & to accelerating expansion of the universe. What's fascinating is that these observations were
so unexpected, & that the implications are so bizarre. Yup.....this is science. And I suppose one can read religious
meaning into them too.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A better explanation is adding a term of differential rotation to the laws of relativity whereby
the expansion of space is locally frustrated by a galaxies gravity and turns into a differential rotation

see the theories of Moishe Carmelli
Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva


http://cds.cern.ch/record/394536/files/9907080.pdf

 

[Aupmanyav]

see the theories of Moishe Carmelli
Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva

http://cds.cern.ch/record/394536/files/9907080.pdf

Good, though I can hardly understand it. Needs a Carl Sagan to explain.

 

[DawudTalut]

We've seen an interesting discussion of the scientific method.
It's more complicated & flexible than is typically proffered by educators.
Is there a method for religion?
Or to phrase it better....what methods do you see?

Note:
I see no debating is allowed here.
This is partly why I chose this forum.

Peace be on you.
One can check through:
Claims of a religion about rights of God and people and Hereafter.
Does practice on that religion helps achieve foretold-results.
How it deals with other creeds?
Is teaching safe so far?
Does it comprise all aspects of life?
etc

 

[whirlingmerc]

Jesus suggested a method for weighing religious views "by their fruit you shall know them" and
"a good tree produces good fruit; bad tree bad fruit"

Faith is the root, good works such as being peacemakers and loving God and neighbor is the fruit

 

[VioletVortex]

I think people come to different religions because they use different methods.

People may simply accept the religion instilled upon them by society. In most countries, this is either some form of Abrahamism of Hinduism.

Others may accept the "science" being fed to them by the opposite side of society, and simply believe in the alleged "big bang", which could not happen because there without existence, something physical could not create existence.
These people think they are digging deeper into our existence, but in reality, they are simply settling for the shallowest and thus most easy to believe explanation.

Others rebel and follow the Left Hand Path. Most Satanists have a much stronger Luciferian spirit, and seem to escape any indoctrination relatively unscathed. These people seem to naturally gravitate to the the "scientific" explanation first, as it is the most easily accessible way to separate themselves from religion. They often find LaVeyan Satanism. Some realize that there is a deeper explanation, and move on into Theistic Satanism. This was the case for me.

In short, I believe that there are many "religiontific methods" that all lead somewhere different. I think which method one uses has to do with the strength of their Luciferian spirit, and how much they think about things.

 

[Tumah]

I would guess that the two are totally different from each other.
The scientific method is a way to deduce new information about something. The starting point is information that is unavailable and science is the tool to gain it.
Religions generally believe that information was already made available through [ie.] revelation of some sort and only requires study (and perhaps deduction in the case of encrypted information or personal application). The starting point is available information and it only requires assimilation through study.

Inb4 @Quintessence

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not so simple Tumnah. The scientific method is a methodology but in practice will take
unsaid philosophical assumptions along with like '... we cannot let a divine foot in the door..." with regard to origins . Those assumptions are not inherent to the scientific method but loudly asserted and wrongly asserted as such.

In reality the origins of the scientific method were form the Theistic Christian world view of Sir Francis Bacon
et al Isaac Newton who is closer to Eastern Orthodox and often portrayed as Deist, wrote over a million lines of commentary on the Bilbe

In modern times it's commonplace for secular evolutionists to assert the high ground of scientific methodology while dealing cards off the bottom of the deck from hidden or not so hidden atheist philosophical assumptions

 

[whirlingmerc]

note the heavy philosophy here

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/lewontin.html

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We've seen an interesting discussion of the scientific method.
It's more complicated & flexible than is typically proffered by educators.
Is there a method for religion?
Or to phrase it better....what methods do you see?

Note:
I see no debating is allowed here.
This is partly why I chose this forum.

I'd say that religion favors science; the ol' fashioned method, as opposed to science the academic opinion. Religion does not deny the acknowledgement of personal faith, it favors direct personal observation over 2nd hand opinion, authority of mere consensus. Religious perspectives were not afraid to push past the atheist barriers, that sought to halt scientific progress at the most superficial observations- static universes, classical physics, Darwinism.

In short; religion has been more free to follow wherever the scientific evidence points.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say that religion favors science; the ol' fashioned method, as opposed to science the academic opinion. Religion does not deny the acknowledgement of personal faith, it favors direct personal observation over 2nd hand opinion, authority of mere consensus. Religious perspectives were not afraid to push past the atheist barriers, that sought to halt scientific progress at the most superficial observations- static universes, classical physics, Darwinism.

In short; religion has been more free to follow wherever the scientific evidence points.

You're one of me favorite comedians here!
Pirate too.
Arrggh!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're one of me favorite comedians here!
Pirate too.
Arrggh!

Likewise!
Scotsman too.
Ochht!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sounds like this thread is rated Arrggh !

 

[DennisTate]

We've seen an interesting discussion of the scientific method.
It's more complicated & flexible than is typically proffered by educators.
Is there a method for religion?
Or to phrase it better....what methods do you see?

Note:
I see no debating is allowed here.
This is partly why I chose this forum.

Since 1990 I have came to use near death experience accounts to understand the Christian and Jewish scriptures in a whole new light.

I really got a shock when I read:

Christian Andreason's Near-Death Experience

11. What about sexually diverse people?

If this world was to ever find out just a small amount of what sexually diverse (gay) people are here to do on this planet, there would never be one single wisecrack or hurtful remark made ever again. Instead there would be great respect! People who speak disrespectful things about people of this orientation ... enact judgment, and do so from a place of unenlightenment, insecurity, ego and socially induced prejudice. Some may use mistranslated scriptures taught to them, not by the Holy Spirit ... but by fear-filled human beings. Many will choose to sustain a Divinely unsupported satanic hate-based rage against these children of God, rather than using Love to bring understanding and healing between both peoples. Christ said, THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT IS THAT WE ARE TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER! When people sling condemnation, judgment and bitterness at others, they are not practicing the great commandment. They are allowing their Souls to fall into darkness.

That is certainly not quite the way that Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong explained such things to me back when I was a teenager, but....... it sure does remind me of the tone and flavour of the Sermon on the Mount.