Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

[charlie sc]

See post 57

Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

...and reply to that. I suspect that it might not satisfy but it will at least be a start.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but methodologies are standardised ways of doing things. Sciences has a number of methodologies but they all confirm to the hypothetico-deductive model.
So, I have to ask again, what methodology does religion have for determining reality or measuring reality?

 

[David T]

Is an Artist a craftsman with zero usefulness?

Oh now on rare occasion a gem rises out of this pool of nonsense called RF! THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION STATEMENT! but alas this form of communication doesn't allow for dialog. I think outdoors on a
beach near a river somewhere out with a good beer and guitar then we might have a really Grand time discussing such a topic. I am pretty sure we would conclude we are mad collectively, and stuff happens inspite of us not because of us!!!! And thus this song. Now if the term god rubs you wrong change it to nature .same thing! Ha.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So are we comparing medical advances made by science to medical advances made by religion?

What about the motivation to provide medical care?

Effects of Religious Practice on Charity [Marripedia]

The point of the Dawkins quote is that religious faith has not cured diseases. Only science has. As far as the motivation to do science goes, well that's a different discussion entirely. It's possible that some science was originally motivated by religion. But plenty of it is not, and none of it needs to be in order to be effective.

 

[Native]

Clearly religion needs to update its stories but it simply hasn't and this is a big problem for the viability and credibility of religion.

I agree in this, but it could be very difficult. As cosmological science is based on measurements and observations, the mythical i.e. the cosmological context in myths is based on symbols of the creation.
The difficult part of renewing the religious/mythical stories is to connect the ancient myths to the real astronomical and cosmological which describes the creation.
IMO this can can be done if seriously taking the creation stories as a description of the formation of the Milky Way, which was the ancient world picture.
If done succesfully, this could IMO even supplement the cosmological scientific ideas of the (local) part of the Universe.

 

[charlie sc]

See post 57

Coming To Terms: Religion vs Science

...and reply to that. I suspect that it might not satisfy but it will at least be a start.

And so, with the crickets chirping, we can conclude there are no methodologies in religion for determining or measuring reality. I knew this already. I just wanted to see if you knew. Hence, to my original post, the OP is ill conceived and redundant.

 

[sealchan]

The point of the Dawkins quote is that religious faith has not cured diseases. Only science has. As far as the motivation to do science goes, well that's a different discussion entirely. It's possible that some science was originally motivated by religion. But plenty of it is not, and none of it needs to be in order to be effective.

My point is that diseases arent cured until someone with a motivation to provide that cure does just that. And my link to a statistical study is meant to suggest that in the case where that cure is provided to people unable to afford it, that having a religion increases the likelihood that that individual may be the one to do it.

 

[sealchan]

I agree in this, but it could be very difficult. As cosmological science is based on measurements and observations, the mythical i.e. the cosmological context in myths is based on symbols of the creation.
The difficult part of renewing the religious/mythical stories is to connect the ancient myths to the real astronomical and cosmological which describes the creation.
IMO this can can be done if seriously taking the creation stories as a description of the formation of the Milky Way, which was the ancient world picture.
If done succesfully, this could IMO even supplement the cosmological scientific ideas of the (local) part of the Universe.

Science fiction attempts this often by projecting some past claim of the miraculous onto some advanced technology or technological species.

I am tempted to contemplate the infinity stones as an example to evaluate the level of psychological sophistication in modern science fiction. My first impression is that it is a relatively uninventive one but actually working this out in another thread might be useful.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

My point is that diseases arent cured until someone with a motivation to provide that cure does just that. And my link to a statistical study is meant to suggest that in the case where that cure is provided to people unable to afford it, that having a religion increases the likelihood that that individual may be the one to do it.

A scientific understanding of the ramifications of unchecked spread of infectious disease should be enough motivation to develop cures for diseases, even in selfishly motivated individuals. As far as non-infectious diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are concerned, there is always a possibility that an individual could contract them, and thus always a selfish motivation to develop cures. So, while I think altruism is a great character trait, I think that diseases could still be cured in all of humanity from purely selfish motivations. And in the end, I'm not sure that pure altruism actually exists. A person who helps others usually does so because it makes him/her feel good about themself to assist others.