• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Differences between research reports and religious scriptures?

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Sometimes when I post about people misusing research reports in the same harmful ways that they use religious scriptures, people promoting and defending science beliefs respond by pointing out differences between science and religion, which I don’t see as relevant to what I’m saying. I’ve started wondering though, about how much and what kinds of differences there actually are, between research reports and religious scriptures. Here are some differences that I see:
- Imagining any aim or purpose behind anything that happens is is stigmatized in the sciences.
- Maybe as a consequence of that, research reports mostly use mechanistic models and metaphors, and sometimes get tangled up in trying to explain how things could happen randomly and accidentally.
- There usually isn’t any doubt about who are the authors of a research report, although actually there have been false claims sometimes.
- Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.

It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sometimes when I post about people misusing research reports in the same harmful ways that they use religious scriptures, people promoting and defending science beliefs respond by pointing out differences between science and religion, which I don’t see as relevant to what I’m saying. I’ve started wondering though, about how much and what kinds of differences there actually are, between research reports and religious scriptures. Here are some differences that I see:
- Imagining any aim or purpose behind anything that happens is is stigmatized in the sciences.
- Maybe as a consequence of that, research reports mostly use mechanistic models and metaphors, and sometimes get tangled up in trying to explain how things could happen randomly and accidentally.
- There usually isn’t any doubt about who are the authors of a research report, although actually there have been false claims sometimes.
- Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.

It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.
A good research report gets put foreward to be brutally ripped to shreds through the crucible of peer review.

The Bible won't survive that process.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
A good research report gets put foreward to be brutally ripped to shreds through the crucible of peer review.

The Bible won't survive that process.
Actually, the same thing happens sometimes with religious scriptures when they first appear, except that sometimes it isn’t only the scriptures that get brutally ripped to shreds, it’s also the people who promote them.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
A good research report gets put foreward to be brutally ripped to shreds through the crucible of peer review.

The Bible won't survive that process.
Actually it did survive a process much more brutal than that. It was not only the words of Jesus that were brutally ripped to shreds. Sometimes the people promoting them were brutally ripped to shreds. You might not think that actually happened, but I don’t think there’s any controversy about what has happened with Baha’i scriptures. They, and sometimes the people promoting them, have been brutally ripped to shreds, and those scriptures have survived and thrived.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Another difference that I see is that most people will never have the training and the resources that they would need, to validate what research reports are saying, about how things work. Anyone in any circumstances can verify for themselves how well it works to try to understand and apply what religious scriptures are saying about the best way to live our lives.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A good research report gets put foreward to be brutally ripped to shreds through the crucible of peer review.

The Bible won't survive that process.

Not really, see global warming -- opps, I mean -- climate change, lol.

See also: The tilted weirdness with reclassifying gender dysphoria and other mental conditions as "ok" or normal in psychology. :D

Sometimes, a small cadre of ***-hats gets together and just makes some stuff up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
See also: The tilted weirdness with reclassifying gender dysphoria and other mental conditions as "ok" or normal in psychology. :D
They left some loopholes though, for people to get the help they really need if they want to.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
I’ve started wondering though, about how much and what kinds of differences there actually are, between research reports and religious scriptures.
There are no similarities. Scientific research has nothing to do with religion and scripture has nothing to do with science. There is no justification to even talk about them in the same context (beyond actual religious studies of course).

It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.
There is nothing ironic about that because one is an abstract metaphor while the other is presented as literal truth. Your attempt to support your religious beliefs by discrediting science is transparent.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
- Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.
So you're saying they're non-overlapping magisteria? Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia
If different magisteria, why do you keep insinuating religion into the objective reality described by science?
It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.
Why ironic? One is reasonable and evidence based. The other built on sand; a product of ignorance and personal incredulity.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.
So you're saying they're non-overlapping magisteria?
No.
It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.
Why ironic?
Because the machines that the analogy is based on are all created by people, with specific purposes in mind. If it’s useful to imagine the universe as being like a giant machine, then why not take the analogy to its logical conclusion, and imagine that the machine was created and is being operated with some specific purposes in some mind?
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Bible won't survive that process.
Neither Ketáb-e Íqán or Qu'an.
.. and those scriptures have survived and thrived.
Shredding of people is not humane even if they keep quoting their books on internet. It is irritating but it could be somebody's livelihood. If an untruth is spoken a thousand times, it becomes truth. There are enough fools in the world.
Another difference that I see is that most people will never have the training and the resources that they would need, to validate what research reports are saying, about how things work. .. what religious scriptures are saying about the best way to live our lives.
Sure, People would accept peer-review only from the experts in that field. The problem with scriptures is that they plagiarize. Nothing new is said but what is said is claimed as something unique and world-changingly new.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Sometimes when I post about people misusing research reports in the same harmful ways that they use religious scriptures, people promoting and defending science beliefs respond by pointing out differences between science and religion, which I don’t see as relevant to what I’m saying. I’ve started wondering though, about how much and what kinds of differences there actually are, between research reports and religious scriptures. Here are some differences that I see:

- Imagining any aim or purpose behind anything that happens is is stigmatized in the sciences.

Because science aims to be impartial and to reflect reality - such that drawing a conclusion before examining the facts is frowned upon?
- Maybe as a consequence of that, research reports mostly use mechanistic models and metaphors, and sometimes get tangled up in trying to explain how things could happen randomly and accidentally.

Because evidently that is a possibility, unless one believes that every earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, etc., has some cause other than being a natural event and part of our existence on this planet. And the same applies all too often to events caused or experienced by us as humans.
- There usually isn’t any doubt about who are the authors of a research report, although actually there have been false claims sometimes.
Humans mess up all the time - so what's new?
- Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.

You mean they are about different things. Well, who would have guessed.
It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine, and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.

No evidence for any designer (a rational one, at least) so why would we?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Scientific research has nothing to do with religion and scripture has nothing to do with science.
I do not think that is correct, HonestJoe, there are religious views that go hand-in-hand with science.Perhaps you have not come across them.
If it’s useful to imagine the universe as being like a giant machine, then why not take the analogy to its logical conclusion, and imagine that the machine was created and is being operated with some specific purposes in some mind?
Universe is a product of 'chaos', 'randomness', 'uncertainty', probability'. It has no purpose.
But they did survive that process. Not only that process, but also the process of many people being tortured and killed for promoting them.
I have already said that there are enough fools in the world who accept the existence of ghosts and spirits, or in Loch Ness monster or visiting aliens. If people got tortured and killed, it was their choice to do what they could have avoided in their environment.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because the machines that the analogy is based on are all created by people, with specific purposes in mind.
Just because machine complexity arises from intentional design doesn't mean complex "design" can't arise unintentionally, by the natural, unguided mechanisms science has been describing for a hundred years or more. Again, you're arguing from incredulity.

Your proposal: Goddidit, isn't an explanation. It doesn't propose a mechanism, much less test it. It's an untestable assertion of agency. You're comparing apples and oranges.

What evidence do you have that complexity can't arise naturally? Science has volumes of observed examples of this, with testable, falsifiable, explanations of the mechanisms involved. Where do you find fault in these?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Another difference that I see is that most people will never have the training and the resources that they would need, to validate what research reports are saying, about how things work. Anyone in any circumstances can verify for themselves how well it works to try to understand and apply what religious scriptures are saying about the best way to live our lives.

But can they verify the provenance, authenticity, and surety that nothing has been added/struck out over time from such sources that relate to their authority - apart from this, we might just assume it is the opinion of any particular writer(s).
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I’m not saying that complexity can’t arise naturally. I think that everything that happens, happens naturally.
Ah! I know this line. Muslims also say that. Everything happened naturally but at the prodding of Allah.
 
Top