can we have a scientific religion?

[blazeofglory]

Religion and science are indeed two different directions. science is rooted in reason and religion in faith. Faith is questioned and proved false as history evidences it. Right from Copernicus to Darwin there have been arguments and clashed between these two ways.

Indeed it is religion that has to surrender. Now few religionists believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Some religionists even believe in the theory of evolution respecting creation.

I often wish for a scientific religion not for a religious science. Christian science is often used in the US. Religious theories can be modified and acclimated to scientific theories.

Indeed we need a superstition / dogma free religion and this can be arrived at only through amalgamation of scientific theories and religious attributes?

[byquist]

You bring up an important issue, viewed by some as a battleground. "The Tao of Physics" by F. Kapra elaborates on the science-mystical/religious connection with professionalism; to him it doesn't have to all be opposition.

You mention Christian Science whereby Eddy, although in passing mentions Darwin a tad, favors another guy: "Jesus of Nazareth was the most scientific man that ever trod the globe." Most traditional Christian approaches do not consider Jesus as a master scientist. Yet his aim and act of normalizing the lives of the ten lepers is akin to hordes of scientists active in the medical profession.

As in the Old Test. when the three youths are thrown in the fire and don't burn, and say it actually happened and is not just a mythical illustration, then obviously there is a reality that natural science is not privy to.

I suppose whenever in experience a supposed limitation or physical law is routed, say perhaps by the man recently falling from the skyscraper in NYC and surviving, the existence of an alternate reality distinct from matter and slime has been vindicated. But, natural scientists are going about the analysis whereby physics might explain his survival. Still, it's an interesting event, and such events are not so rare as some people claim.

[crazefest456]

Religion and science are indeed two different directions. science is rooted in reason and religion in faith. Faith is questioned and proved false as history evidences it. Right from Copernicus to Darwin there have been arguments and clashed between these two ways.

Indeed it is religion that has to surrender. Now few religionists believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Some religionists even believe in the theory of evolution respecting creation.

I often wish for a scientific religion not for a religious science. Christian science is often used in the US. Religious theories can be modified and acclimated to scientific theories.

Indeed we need a superstition / dogma free religion and this can be arrived at only through amalgamation of scientific theories and religious attributes?

I agree that the idea of a religious science really is really flawed. But a scientific religion? I don't understand how that really changes things? Don't religions' followers (not neccesarily the religion in its original form) have the tendency to make everything dogmatic...even the use of science? I love this question, blaze.

[mayneverhave]

I'd say no. The concept of faith (central to religion) is, by its very nature, beyond logic, reason, and proof. Any attempt to reconcile differences between religion and science is impossible.

I have always found it funny how religious organizations have attempted to rectify scientific flaws in their religion.

Step-one:
Religious organization completely rejects a new scientific theory (possibly burning or killing innovators as a result)
Step-two:
Religious organization begrungingly admits the theory is correct (or at least tolerates it)
Step-three:
Religious organization claims such acceptance of the theory, that they claim it as their own, saying that the principles of the theory have always been part of the religion.

I've noticed this trend currently occuring with evolution. Christians, noticing they cannot concievably win the evolution debate (since faith is not based on logic), have now been attempting to come to a compromise with evolution, claiming it is part of God's plan (see Youth-Earth movement).

I have no problem with religions belief based on faith. I can tolerate those beliefs, but it's rather comical how religion attempts to find grounds in science and logic, when they, as beliefs - by very defiinition - rely on obscurity and mystery.

[amanda_isabel]

i don't see why we can't have a scientific religion. religion is pretty much seen in the lifestyle of a person, so yeah, if a person looks at all things scientifically, if that is indeed the kind of perspective and outlook he has on life, well, isn't that a scientific religion?

[JCamilo]

No, because that is not what religion is. Religion is the union of dogmas and culture used to preserve a system of belief based upon faith. Not how you live your life.

[RichardHresko]

The Roman concept of religio was ritual done to appease or court favor with recognized divinities, and had therefore a political aspect, since these deities could inflict punishment on the state. This explains why some Romans who were openly doubtful of the existence of gods would still offer the sacrifices.

The union of religion and religious practice with doctrine was made by St. Augustine in de vera religione and in some parts of de civitate dei.

While there is no one definition for religion in the modern world, a not unreasonable way to describe religion that would be neutral in its judgement would be that religion is the acceptance of some form of revelation that reveals to the believer the true nature of the universe and the believer's place within it. This revelation often will, on the basis of this explanation of the believer's place in the universe, prescribe certain behaviors and proscribe others. This code of behavior often matches in many details a social moral code (though a distinction between "sin" or "impurity" on the one hand and "immoral" on the other should be borne in mind).

Science is the organized rational enterprise of figuring out how the universe works. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, it describes how things are and does not make any statements about how things ought to be. Nor is science capable of answering ontological questions since it is based on studying phenomena, not looking at the fundamental questions of what reality is, and why there is something rather than nothing, and so on.

It would appear that the two fields are pointed towards dealing with two different sets of questions. It may not make sense to look for a fundamental unity anymore than it would make sense to ask for a musical painting.

[Dark Star]

You mention Christian Science whereby Eddy, although in passing mentions Darwin a tad, favors another guy: "Jesus of Nazareth was the most scientific man that ever trod the globe." Most traditional Christian approaches do not consider Jesus as a master scientist. Yet his aim and act of normalizing the lives of the ten lepers is akin to hordes of scientists active in the medical profession.

As in the Old Test. when the three youths are thrown in the fire and don't burn, and say it actually happened and is not just a mythical illustration, then obviously there is a reality that natural science is not privy to.

It seems to me that you're overlooking a rather obvious possibility here:

These events didn't actually happen so there was nothing 'scientific' about them.



As for a scientific religion: Well, I'd say some variations of Buddhism apply. I've met Buddhists that are atheistic, do not believe in rebirth (not in the 'reincarnation' sense at least), and view the tales about gods in the Tripitaka as metaphorical. They also tend to have a great respect for science.

[Bakiryu]

I'm not as well informed as the persons who have posted before me but I believe we cannot. Science is based on proof, on proving things. And religion is based mostly in faith and ritual. The only way we could have a scientific religion would be if we could scientifically prove that there is or isn't a god or goddess.

Science will always be truer than religion which is based in myth.

[Whifflingpin]

"I have always found it funny how religious organizations have attempted to rectify scientific flaws in their religion.

Step-one:
Religious organization completely rejects a new scientific theory (possibly burning or killing innovators as a result)
Step-two:
Religious organization begrungingly admits the theory is correct (or at least tolerates it)
Step-three:
Religious organization claims such acceptance of the theory, that they claim it as their own, saying that the principles of the theory have always been part of the religion."

Amazing! That's exactly how scientists greet new advances in science!

[JCamilo]

Only in Smurf's lands. It is not accepting a theory, it is not what is accepted (that is why Chopra and his attempt to make it all the same is mistaken), it is how. Science, this moderm science, is different because the method, not the discoveries (they are just consequences). Even when religion and science agree about one subject (or art), the difference is how they achived and accepted this conclusion.