Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Science of Religion (Original Post) MineralMan Jun 2019 OP
The study of religion does though... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #1
Not using the scientific method, though. MineralMan Jun 2019 #2
Well, there IS anthropology, sociology of religion. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #3
I was thinking more along these lines uriel1972 Jun 2019 #4
Theology, apologetics, creationism, Historical Jesus advocacy, pretend to be very rational Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #5
Those are very soft sciences that often produce MineralMan Jun 2019 #6
Yes. Though more scientific examination of faith-healing claims, etc., could be less problematic. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #7
You know the "hard sciences" aren't much better in that regard. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #12
I have no brief against the social sciences, actually. MineralMan Jun 2019 #13
I'm just saying I think the term "science" still applies. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #14
OK. It's a rich area of discussion. MineralMan Jun 2019 #15
Hey, whatabout scientology? Major Nikon Jun 2019 #8
There have been many pseudoscientific religious movements Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #9
There's all sorts of examples in the bible that destroy Christianity Major Nikon Jun 2019 #10
Yes, faith is the problem. With its attacks on Reason. But? Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #11
They already pick and chose which parts to ignore anyway Major Nikon Jun 2019 #16
Yeah Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #18
I'm all for anything that works, I just don't see the tactic as being all that effective Major Nikon Jun 2019 #19
I encourage both methods, and then some. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #20
Or worse... NeoGreen Jun 2019 #17
This should be in the unintentionally humorous Group. eom guillaumeb Jun 2019 #21
And yet, here it is in the Religion Group, since it is about religion. MineralMan Jun 2019 #22
No, it is about your unprovable opinion about an unprovable subject. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #23

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
3. Well, there IS anthropology, sociology of religion.
Sun Jun 23, 2019, 04:34 AM
Jun 2019

Which sometimes note bad things in religion.

But especially we COULD scientifically test many religious promises of physical miracles ... and quickly prove they are false.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
4. I was thinking more along these lines
Sun Jun 23, 2019, 05:23 AM
Jun 2019

than *cough* Theology. History, anthropology and the like use methods that are more in line with the scientific method than that.

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
5. Theology, apologetics, creationism, Historical Jesus advocacy, pretend to be very rational
Sun Jun 23, 2019, 08:09 AM
Jun 2019

But they are nowhere near as rational and evidence-based as even the behavioral sciences, of course.

Amazingly, the Bible itself at times seemed to support science, experimental method (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40). But then religious writers obviously abandoned that, for "faith."

MineralMan

(147,591 posts)
6. Those are very soft sciences that often produce
Sun Jun 23, 2019, 08:53 AM
Jun 2019

non-reproduceable conclusions and partially correct results. Some people question whether they are actually sciences. I am one of those people.

Where human beings are involved, there are always exceptions to any statement made by anthropologists and sociologists.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
12. You know the "hard sciences" aren't much better in that regard.
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 07:51 AM
Jun 2019

The social sciences have standards appropriate to their limitations. I can't observe causality in the human brain, but I can observe correlation.

MineralMan

(147,591 posts)
13. I have no brief against the social sciences, actually.
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 08:11 AM
Jun 2019

They offer valuable insights into human behavior. Achieving reproducable results, however, will probably never happen, simply because human beings have inherently too many variables. It's impossible to create a truly controlled experiment, due to that.

Still, dealing with probabilities instead of absolutes isn't all bad.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
14. I'm just saying I think the term "science" still applies.
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 08:40 AM
Jun 2019

The social sciences are limited in what they can tell us, but they still use the same observational, hypothesis-driven, empirical method.

MineralMan

(147,591 posts)
15. OK. It's a rich area of discussion.
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 08:45 AM
Jun 2019

I have a fairly strict definition of what is a "science." Others look at it with more flexibility.

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
9. There have been many pseudoscientific religious movements
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 03:06 AM
Jun 2019

Though? Over the last 100 years, the behavioral sciences have improved SOMEWHAT.

In any case, I'm professionally interested in the many neglected moments where even the Bible itself seems to describe and advocate the application of the experimental method to religion and God. Especially Dan. 1.4-15 KJE, and 1 Kings 18.20-40.

Obviously Christians did not take those parts of the Bible very seriously. But what if they had? Then, some hint, Christianity would usefully implode.

More than a decade ago, there was an article on this in "Skeptic"; an atheist magazine.

In the very interesting Bible examples above, it was claimed that science had, in several cases, scientifically proved that Judaism and Christianity can control great physical powers, miracles. But? Modern science demands that we periodically re-do old experiments, to see if they were accurate. To see if we can "replicate" them, and confirm them ...or not.

And of course, if we do that, then we quickly show that the old promises of physical miracles were flatly false.

So? I find it very useful to quote those two examples above, and others, to Christians. To show them that Christianity eventually ... demolishes itself.

Ultimately, the Bible didn't finally support faith: it ultimately demanded that we question, examine all the claims of Christianity, with real, genuine experimental method. And if Christianity today fails those experiments? Then, amazingly, the Bible itself demands that Christians acknowledge the failure of their religion.

In Dan. 1.4-15 KJE. And 1Kings 18.20-40, especially.

Maybe we aren't supposed to "test" - or better translated, "tempt" - fate, by very rash deeds. But amazingly, the Bible itself did allow and even command believers to begin the careful scientific testing of Christian assertions, promises of miracles, spirits.

"Put me to the test" says God; "test everything," added St. Paul. And in that way, discover your old religion, Christianity, is "false." A false prophet; a "false Christ."

In the end, the Bible usefully cancels itself.

So some atheists have decided to write some articles and books on this.

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
10. There's all sorts of examples in the bible that destroy Christianity
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 04:58 AM
Jun 2019

Jesus’ messianic claim fails on virtually every measure. The genealogy to King David listed in two different gospels are contradictory and both are disqualifying anyway. The qualifying prophecies weren’t fulfilled either. Not to mention if Jesus were actually a god as most Christians claim, then he couldn’t be the messiah to begin with.

You also have the only mention of the trinity in the synoptic gospels was found to be a forgery. Imagine the implosion of mainstream Christianity if they were to discover there’s no reference to their god actually being a god in the core of their gospels.

The problem with all of this is it assumes religionists are bound to reason. The whole idea of faith requires the suspension of reason. When faced with things they can’t explain, they will simply fall back to the position of faith. At that point reason is as useful as man nipples.

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
11. Yes, faith is the problem. With its attacks on Reason. But?
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 06:06 AM
Jun 2019

But? If Christians won't listen to Reason, many however do have faith in ... The Bible. Its authority. And far more often than churches know, the Bible supports science.

So when I talk to Christians, preachers, I try to use lots of quotes from one of the few things they claim to listen to: the Bible.

Since I was forced to go to Sunday School and then church, for years, I happen to know Bibles, sermoms, all too well. And I just quote the parts that Christians neglected or misread. Giving them a better reading.

Much of the Bible for instance, seems at first to explicitly attack "test"ing. But then? I quote the other parts. Much of the Bible seens to attack the "mind," for instance, too But then there is supposed to be a "mind" in Christ (1 Corin. 2.16; 14.14-19).

So yes, faith destroys much of their reason. But as long as they have some faith in, say, the Bible? Then there's at least a partial opening to reason, and science, even there. Though it is hard to find.

And that opening, I think? Finally ...dissolves the Bible and Christianity. From the inside.

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
16. They already pick and chose which parts to ignore anyway
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 09:41 AM
Jun 2019

And if they don't like the rest of it, they just claim the true meaning is "metaphorical" and it doesn't mean what it says anyway.

Even pope Frank just got through editing one of the parts they chant most every day just because he thought it should mean something different than what it says.

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
18. Yeah
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 12:49 PM
Jun 2019

But I'm trying to show that the Bible also even has arguments against spiritual metaphoricalization. E.g. "twisting" the meaning of terms; countless references to the importance if "observ"ing material proofs; warning about false spirits; etc..

Granted, believers ignore almost anything they want. But I think some if the more intellectual ones do pay attention to biblical problems.

After all, atheist numbers - and defections from Christianity - are increasing. So some things must be working, albeit gradually.

Major Nikon

(36,900 posts)
19. I'm all for anything that works, I just don't see the tactic as being all that effective
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 01:06 PM
Jun 2019

And personally I don't give two shits what hocus pocus someone subscribes to so long as it isn't being used to negatively affect other people. I think it's more effective to appeal to whatever sense of empathy they may retain. I see the most effective approach as simply pointing out how their organized religion is used for hate and asking them why they would want to be part of that.

MineralMan

(147,591 posts)
22. And yet, here it is in the Religion Group, since it is about religion.
Tue Jun 25, 2019, 12:44 PM
Jun 2019

But, thanks for your comment. Egregious though it is, it is on-topic.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Science of Religion