Religion as a science

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

I think that it can not be considered as a science as the word science is to be understood. It can and should be a field of study. It should be examined by adherents and theologians and students of comparative religion and as a social study and for seekers to gain enlightenment.
But at this time there are no religious paradigms that have measurable value to be studied like we have in science

TJ73 said:

I think that it can not be considered as a science as the word science is to be understood. It can and should be a field of study. It should be examined by adherents and theologians and students of comparative religion and as a social study and for seekers to gain enlightenment.
But at this time there are no religious paradigms that have measurable value to be studied like we have in science

Click to expand...

I once read a piece describing religion as a subjective science which I think is a good description. Not science in the sense of being able to measure with scientific instruments but a science in the way that the concept of religion is approached. Promoting inner unity and awareness which can indeed be measured, at least to an extent, within oneself with various experiments.

I think subjective and science are contradictory. For it to be science it must be objective. It doesn't function any other way. Faith, however, is almost completely subjective. It does not take away from either one, the fact that they are different in nature. I think when we try to mix them together we dilute the effectiveness of either practice.If we are all respectful to the nature of each respective tradition then they can flurish and best provide the practitioner with the greatest results.
I think people that refer to their preferred method of investigation feel sometimes attacked and try to mix them in order to justify their convictions and it isn't necessary. They are both worthy of study but not in the same manner.

TJ73 said:

I think subjective and science are contradictory. For it to be science it must be objective. It doesn't function any other way. Faith, however, is almost completely subjective. It does not take away from either one, the fact that they are different in nature. I think when we try to mix them together we dilute the effectiveness of either practice.If we are all respectful to the nature of each respective tradition then they can flurish and best provide the practitioner with the greatest results.
I think people that refer to their preferred method of investigation feel sometimes attacked and try to mix them in order to justify their convictions and it isn't necessary. They are both worthy of study but not in the same manner.

Click to expand...

Depends on how you define science and faith I guess. I was speaking of science along the lines of the occult understanding of alchemy (Internal Alchemy.)

TJ73 said:

I think subjective and science are contradictory. For it to be science it must be objective. It doesn't function any other way.

Click to expand...

So far as I understand it, it is more accurate to say science is intersubjectively verifiable than it is to say it is objective. Each individual scientist has but one point of view to bring to the discussion -- a subjective point of view. No scientist has an objective view to bring. So how can science be truly described as "objective"?

ericoh2 said:

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

Click to expand...

Science is falsifiable and intersubjectively verifiable, among other things. Is faith?

ericoh2 said:

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

Click to expand...

Actually this sounds like the Freudian Id explained in psychology.

Sunstone said:

Science is falsifiable and intersubjectively verifiable, among other things. Is faith?

Click to expand...

Faith can take on many different meanings. "Faith" in one sense is one phenomenon and to another is something of a completely different character.

I think you are misusing the term science in order to give religion some credibility as a means of knowing.

No Good Boyo said:

Science is a method of explaining and making sense of the world around us by testable methods. It relies heavily on proof and evidence . Religion is a series of ancient (or in some cases – modern) texts which make suppositions to a creator, but none of these suppositions can be proven or tested. A more reasonable study of religion would be historic rather than scientific.

Click to expand...

If you look at religion from this view, in my opinion, it acts as historical reference that gave science its birth to theories, eventually leading to facts. What science has told us at times were impossibilities have now become undeniable fact. Look at CERN, and the recreation of the big bang. Do you think that a scientist did not have the imagination to make his thoughts tangible. With religion, tangibility goes out the window.

ericoh2 said:

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

Click to expand...

How very Thelemic of you!

horizon_mj1 said:

If you look at religion from this view, in my opinion, it acts as historical reference that gave science its birth to theories, eventually leading to facts. What science has told us at times were impossibilities have now become undeniable fact. Look at CERN, and the recreation of the big bang. Do you think that a scientist did not have the imagination to make his thoughts tangible. With religion, tangibility goes out the window.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be an historical reference, but facts would prove hard to come by. Second hand witness statements are not the best corner stones of a good theory. You could probably postulate as to the origins of monotheism and why one god became 3, but the facts of the matter would be hard to substantiate. The best you could hope for would be reasonable doubt.

ericoh2 said:

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

Click to expand...

Religion to me is basically as far away from being a science as one can possibly get. It would be fair to even claim that Religion is often times the very Antithesis of Science.

It will never be confused with a science, except by maybe the religiously-deluded. Like those guys over at the absurd "answers-in-genesis.com" website. But we all saw what happened to Ken Hamm when he debated with Bill Nye. LOL--it wasn't pretty. Even 70% of CHIRISTIANS who watched that video (available on youtube) admitted that Nye wiped the floor with Ham.

That in a nutshell is what will happen EVERY time religion dares stick its ugly head into a scientific arena. It will be shown to be the silly and antiquated superstition that is is, always has been, and always will be. And one day in the not too distant future Religion will be relegated to the corner of the Collective Room on Reason and Knowledge, with things like Pink unicorns and Greek Mythology and the Easter Bunny.

If religion CAN cause a positive inner transformation is somebody, well, good for them. More power to them. I hate to say it but my experience has shown that this is a rare thing. Or at least a change that rarely "takes" or endures. More religious zealots "burn out" (or more accurately, come around! LOL) than do sustain in their Faith.

Just know that religion is in no way needed in order to affect positive inner change. Or spiritual progress. Big difference between being religious and being Spiritual. Some of (most?) of the most spiritual people I know are agnostic are atheist. And many of the cruelest and most obtuse, most unpleasant people are self-proclaimed Christians. Of course, not all: I know some Christians who are fine people.

As far as incorporating true and lasting;y effective positive self-change, it is pretty obvious that the Eastern Religions offer more than do the monotheistic Christianity; Judaism; or Islam.

But they are not nearly as popular, especially here in America, where the growing "obsession with self-celebrity" flies in the face of Eastern thought. So it's a lot easier for somebody to be a Theist and have the comfort of knowing, "The creator of the Known Universe LIKES Me! He really Likes me! So all I have to do is worship and believe in Him! So why try to improve myself and work hard at self-analysis and improvement?"

We call this the psychological equivalent to taking the path of least resistance. LOL

ericoh2 said:

Your thoughts on the idea that if religion is going to have any real effect it has to be treated as the science of inner transformation. Beliefs only have value to the degree that they either sustain beneficial qualities that a man is born with or encourages the awakening of what is asleep in him.

Click to expand...

Christianity converts the equivalent number of people as the population of Nevada every year. It has flourished under the tyranny of the nation it was born in and converted the greatest empire on earth when it tried to wipe them out. I don't think God needs to adapt his revelations since they are the only ones that have a significant amount of influence in every nation on earth. When 3 short years of ministry by one man in a Roman backwater have had more influence on mankind than any other event and has converted at least 1 out of every 3 people on earth and is still growing needs any advice.

However I will agree with you on one point because I am currently involved in doing it. I have a scientific background and live in a city with more PhD's per Capita than you could possibly believe. I think evangelism in an environment like mine or in places like college towns or silicon valley should be trained in scientific apologetics. Of all branches I think science makes the best case for God and anywhere there is a large educated community it will be the common ground on which a discussion can be had. I am working towards training up a group of evangelists that will be able to give intelligent answers to hard scientific challenges because where I live (The city where Van Braun worked on the rockets that got us to the moon) science is a basis by which evangelism can take place and both sides can appreciate the problems and answers. I also teach them that if they do not know the answer to a question to say they don't know but will find out.


Looking back I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying evangelism needs to be strictly scientific to relevant today, however I think you were something totally different. Sorry. I am so used to the science pitted against faith that as soon as I see science I think I am in one of those all too common and all too false dichotomy.

Religion is already a science.
Religion means union, to reunite.

To become whole is a science.
The use of the hermetic principles are the method.