Science is Religion (for the rest of us)

[Quintessence]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

 

[cladking]

Of course science is a religion and it becomes more of a religion with each passing year. It is true in every branch of science but nowhere more than in Egyptology. In this field the high priests are called "peers" and no reality exists until they have signed off on it. Indeed, data are now being withheld from these priests by a leader who won't release it because it doesn't conform to existing beliefs. Nobody seems to care in or out of Egyptology.

Across the board experiment is being jettisoned in favor of consensus and mathematics. "Reality" no longer is determined and observed through well crafted experiment but has become an artefact of math and a caprice of priests.

This is the reality at the beginning of the third millennium. Since I believe religion derives from ancient science nothing can be more ironic. Calling this "irony on a Biblical scale" is the grossest of understatements.

 

[Altfish]

Of course science is a religion and it becomes more of a religion with each passing year. It is true in every branch of science but nowhere more than in Egyptology. In this field the high priests are called "peers" and no reality exists until they have signed off on it. Indeed, data are now being withheld from these priests by a leader who won't release it because it doesn't conform to existing beliefs. Nobody seems to care in or out of Egyptology.

Across the board experiment is being jettisoned in favor of consensus and mathematics. "Reality" no longer is determined and observed through well crafted experiment but has become an artefact of math and a caprice of priests.

This is the reality at the beginning of the third millennium. Since I believe religion derives from ancient science nothing can be more ironic. Calling this "irony on a Biblical scale" is the grossest of understatements.

Don't agree.
I don't know what is happening in Egyptology, not a field I know anything about, but you seem to know a lot about it. Why don't you publish a paper refuting the 'Peers'

 

[David T]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

"acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice"

There is a bright group for ya!!!! I am sure there is nothing wrong with that understanding. Why that culture has demo strated nothing but pround deep insights into the reality of reality of realty infintum. And they have calculated that the size be 500 to the google. Thats rather large. If you doubt me google it. Yes with google and a reality of 500 to the google what possibly can be wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

I find this a very mature and insightful depiction of the role of religion.

It seems to me clear, from how you define religion, that science has little in common with it, indeed is almost orthogonal to it. I use this mathematical term because I do not see science and religion as antagonistic. They deal with different dimensions of human experience.

Science is all about understanding nature, the physical world around us. It is not about providing meaning and purpose, or a guide for living, or sense of community, or any of things you mention in relation to religion.

Science does not deal in "stories". It deals in models of nature that predict its behaviour in objectively testable ways. The value of a model is judged by the degree to which it has been tested and found to work, by different people using different methods.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. ... To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion.

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

@Quintessence, your OP initiates an intriguing-to-me thread. By modifying your OP as I did above, my attention is focused on your final questions. Seems to me that your first question: "In what ways to the sciences dovetail withe above, or complement it?" asks if rapprochement between "religion" (as you characterize it) and "the sciences" (as you have not defined it) is possible and to what extent, no? If that is NOT a fair assessment of your primary interest, then just tell me so, and I'll walk away now. If, however, my assessment of your primary interest is a fair one, then allow me to begin to define "the sciences" in the absence of a definition by you. I approach a definition of "the sciences" by laying out one possible taxonomy offered at https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc/PGA_044522 as follows:

LIFE SCIENCES
Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology

Biochemistry
Biogeochemistry
Biophysics
Molecular Biology
Structural Biology
Cell and Developmental Biology

Anatomy
Cell Biology
Developmental Biology
Cancer Biology
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Behavior and Ethology
Biogeochemistry
Botany
Evolution
Population Biology
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
Public Health

Environmental Health
Epidemiology
Biostatistics
Genetics and Genomics

Computational Biology
Genetics
Genomics
Molecular genetics
Immunology and Infectious Disease

Immunity
Immunology of Infectious Disease
Immunopathology
Immunoprophylaxis and Therapy
Pathology
Parasitology
Biology/Integrated Biology/ Integrated Biomedical Sciences (Note: This is only if the degree field is not specialized. )
Kinesiology

Biomechanics
Exercise Physiology
Motor Control
Psychology of Movement
Microbiology

Bacteriology
Environmental Microbiology and Microbial Ecology
Microbial Physiology
Pathogenic Microbiology
Virology
Neuroscience and Neurobiology

Behavioral Neurobiology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Computational Neuroscience
Developmental Neuroscience
Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience
Systems Neuroscience
Nursing
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health

Environmental Health
Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
Pharmacology
Toxicology
Physiology

Cellular and Molecular Physiology
Comparative and Evolutionary Physiology
Endocrinology
Exercise Physiology
Systems and Integrative Physiology
Animal Sciences

Animal Sciences
Aquaculture and Fisheries
Dairy Science
Poultry (or Avian) Science
Zoology
Entomology
Food Science

Food Processing
Food Microbiology
Food Chemistry
Food Biotechnology
Forestry and Forest Sciences

Forest Biology
Forest Management
Wood Science and Pulp/Paper Technology
Nutrition

Comparative Nutrition
Human and Clinical Nutrition
International and Community Nutrition
Molecular, Genetic, and Biochemical Nutrition
Nutritional Epidemiology
Plant Sciences

Agronomy and Crop Sciences
Botany
Horticulture
Plant Biology
Plant Pathology
Plant Breeding and Genetics

Emerging Fields:

Bioinformatics
Biotechnology
Systems Biology


PHYSICAL SCIENCES & MATHEMATICS
Applied Mathematics

Control Theory
Dynamic Systems
Non-linear Dynamics
Numerical Analysis and Computation
Partial Differential Equations
Ordinary Differential Equations and Applied Dynamics
Astrophysics and Astronomy

Physical Processes
Instrumentation
The Sun and the Solar System
Stars, Interstellar Medium and the Galaxy
External Galaxies
Cosmology
Chemistry

Analytical Chemistry
Biochemistry
Environmental Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal-Pharmaceutical Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Computer Sciences

Artificial Intelligence/Robotics
Computer and Systems Architecture
Databases/Information Systems
Graphics/Human Computer Interfaces
Numerical Analysis/Scientific Computing
Programming Languages/Compilers
OS/Networks
Software Engineering
Theory/Algorithms
Earth Sciences

Biogeochemistry
Cosmochemistry
Environmental Sciences
Geology
Geochemistry
Geophysics and Seismology
Glaciology
Mineral Physics
Paleobiology
Paleontology
Soil Science
Tectonics and Structure
Vulcanology
Mathematics

Algebra
Algebraic Geometry
Analysis
Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics
Dynamics/Dynamical Systems
Geometry and Topology
Harmonic Analysis and Representation
Logic and Foundations
Number Theory
Set Theory
Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology

Atmospheric Sciences
Climate
Fresh Water Studies
Meteorology
Oceanography
Physics

Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics
Biological and Chemical Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Cosmology, Relativity, and Gravity
Elementary Particles and Fields and String Theory
Engineering Physics
Fluid Dynamics
Non-linear Dynamics
Nuclear
Optics
Plasma and Beam Physics
Quantum Physics
Statistics and Probability

Applied Statistics
Biostatistics
Biometry
Probability
Statistical Methodology
Statistical Theory

What say you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

I for one think that there is a lot of misunderstanding running around about what constitutes "religion", and a still considerable if decisively lesser amount regarding "science".

That is a good reason to define the concepts carefully... but that will only help if honest discussion is pursued. No small challenge, when so many people still hold such strange, often unhealthy expectations about the two concepts.

A part of the difficulty, which you seem to hint at with your OP, is that there is a lot of probably misplaced expectation directed towards science. Science is not supposed to be ideologically significant, and it is often saddled with the extraneous demand for "providing answers" in contexts that do not really lend sense to such an idea.

That, of course, is a matter of how defficient education and awareness of science are, as opposed to any flaws in science as such.

Still, the flaws come massively from the so-called religious side. Reliance on narratives that are not only fragile but also deliberately arrogant and uninterested in actual truth pretty much beg for unnecessary, pointless conflicts that can never be constructive.

 

[HonestJoe]

Of course science is a religion and it becomes more of a religion with each passing year. It is true in every branch of science but nowhere more than in Egyptology. In this field the high priests are called "peers" and no reality exists until they have signed off on it. Indeed, data are now being withheld from these priests by a leader who won't release it because it doesn't conform to existing beliefs. Nobody seems to care in or out of Egyptology.

But if that is actually happening as you describe, they're not really practising science are they? I'd argue that they're not actually practising a religion as (well) described in the OP either. I certainly don't see how this would demonstrate that "science is religion", even if it actually proved that some scientists are acting in a religious manner.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

Science=knowledge.
Religion= obligation, bond, reverence

The obligation, binding to, reverence for knowledge.

All done.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

Science=knowledge.
Religion= obligation, bond, reverence

The obligation, binding to, reverence for knowledge.

All done.

Hive mentality generally defines science as anything with physical evidence and religion as anything without physical evidence.

For me, even if I had knowledge of Zues... that is science. The knowledge of Zues would be stored somewhere in me.

Everyone is a scientist, their own scientist, with all sorts of knowledges. The more one surrenders over their mind to other authorities, the less of a scientist one becomes.

 

[cladking]

But if that is actually happening as you describe, they're not really practising science are they? I'd argue that they're not actually practising a religion as (well) described in the OP either. I certainly don't see how this would demonstrate that "science is religion", even if it actually proved that some scientists are acting in a religious manner.

I agree.

But, as I said this is what all science is devolving into. It's not really "science" at all and is what I call "look and See Science". So long as you have enough fancy degrees experiment has become superfluous and all you need is observation, opinion, or mathematical justification.

Technology is still advancing rapidly because of the computer and various improvements in instrumentation but science is stuck. Much of it is stuck in the 1810's because of Champollion, 1860's because of Darwin, in the 1880's because of Egyptology, in the 1900's because of Freud, and (possibly) in the '20's because of Einstein.

Perhaps a better way to answer the original question is "what science" since it hardly exists at all any longer.

 

[cladking]

Don't agree.
I don't know what is happening in Egyptology, not a field I know anything about, but you seem to know a lot about it. Why don't you publish a paper refuting the 'Peers'

It's not fully relevant but Egyptology has been shown to be wrong and they won't address it at all.

What is relevant is that data which were gathered several years ago won't be released for peer review because it doesn't agree with modern dogma. This simply doesn't seem to bother anyone and not even the peers. Reason and evidence are being ignored meaning they are no longer making a pretense of being scientific. Now they are saying it is a "linguistic field" moreso than a scientific one but they won't address the fact Ancient Language has no words for "belief" or "thought". They have abandoned reason. "State of the art" in Egyptology is now irrelevant and the world and events have to continue without "expert opinion" on anything to do with "ancient" Egypt. There is no longer a science or field of linguistics that people call "Egyptology".

 

[HonestJoe]

But, as I said this is what all science is devolving into. It's not really "science" at all and is what I call "look and See Science". So long as you have enough fancy degrees experiment has become superfluous and all you need is observation, opinion, or mathematical justification.

That is different to what you described in your allegations of corruption in Egyptology and is a perfectly legitimate part of scientific process. Observation, coming up with possible reasons for your observations and confirming those reasons would be consistent with established mathematical and physical laws are all steps in a scientific process. They won't form any definitive conclusion or theory on their own but that doesn't make them wrong.

Technology is still advancing rapidly because of the computer and various improvements in instrumentation but science is stuck. Much of it is stuck in the 1810's because of Champollion, 1860's because of Darwin, in the 1880's because of Egyptology, in the 1900's because of Freud, and (possibly) in the '20's because of Einstein.

I'm not sure what you mean by stuck and that seems to contradict your assertion that "science" is constantly changing for the worse.

Perhaps a better way to answer the original question is "what science" since it hardly exists at all any longer.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. There is vast amounts of science being practised every single day all over the world. We just don't hear about it because it's mostly very boring and pedestrian steps along much longer processes. The only things that get in to the public eye are the successes (often spun up, exaggerated and misrepresented by the mainstream media) or the few examples of things going wrong (often coming to light because other scientists are correcting them).

 

[Valjean]

Of course science is a religion and it becomes more of a religion with each passing year. It is true in every branch of science but nowhere more than in Egyptology. In this field the high priests are called "peers" and no reality exists until they have signed off on it. Indeed, data are now being withheld from these priests by a leader who won't release it because it doesn't conform to existing beliefs. Nobody seems to care in or out of Egyptology.

Across the board experiment is being jettisoned in favor of consensus and mathematics. "Reality" no longer is determined and observed through well crafted experiment but has become an artefact of math and a caprice of priests.

This is the reality at the beginning of the third millennium. Since I believe religion derives from ancient science nothing can be more ironic. Calling this "irony on a Biblical scale" is the grossest of understatements.

I don't get it? What's Egyptology have to do with this?

How is science a religion? I don't think most people conceive of religion as an investigational modality. It's more likely to discourage investigation. It's not derived from testable observation, not peer reviewed, not falsifiable or predictive.

Ancient science? Examples?

 

[Koldo]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

I think you have missed one important piece: Ontology. Ontological claims are present in all major regilions. They inform people about what exists ( and what does not ).

 

[Native]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well.

That´s just the big question. Some persons define religion as just a system of beliefs - where modern science, as in cosmology. mostly are based on cosmic observations where different assumptions are ascribed, which in fact also just are belief system.

Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.

The prime "mythos" in all religions deals with the story of creation, i.e. "how the world came to be". In this sense, religion deals with real human empirical knowledge, but this have been repressed and forgotten in modern science.

IMO we need to take the ancient stories of creation seriously, but this don´t happen before we have made a modern language for understanding the ancient mythos of creation. Different "personified deities" have to be interpreted as "forces of nature" which creates formative motions everywhere.

On the other hand, we also have to deal with the modern language and perception of cosmological science as well.

Another big issue is how our ancestors understood the creation compared to modern science. Most of the cultural religions had the conviction that the creation is an eternal and cyclical motion between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

This cyclical perception is very different from the modern scientific idea of a Big Bang and a linear time model of the creation, which is just as bad - or even worse - explanation of the creation as with the litterate creationists.

IMO ancient myths of creation can very well complement modern cosmology - and even correct the modern cosmology.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

I think it is more accurate to say, that Religion is Science for the ignorant. Any gaps in our understanding of the physical reality, can be filled with "God did it".

 

[Jim]

Religion is not a simple thing to define. It's been acknowledged that religion as understood in Western culture is very much a product of said culture and something of an artifice. As such, any relationship between what we call "religion" and what we call "science" is something of an artifice as well. For some, the nature of that relationship looks like two fighters in a wring doing fisticuffs. For others, the nature of that relationship is a conjunction where any distinction between the two is blurry to nonexistent. This thread is to discuss that perception of the relationship - how science is religion - in a fashion that hopefully won't derail into a pointless spat about creationism or whatever. I'll confess I'm not holding my breath on that hope, though.

To get us started, it's worth considering some of the overarching functions of religion. Please note that this list attempts to avoid defining religion in a way that is heavily biased towards Western culture's conception of it:

• • Mythos - first and foremost, religion is about myth making or storytelling. It is a body of narratives that informs us about ourselves, others, and relationships. In short, it's about the meaning of life and living.
  • Ritual - religion also includes practices that engage those narratives on an active basis. Stories are not simply told, they are living entities and enacted through behavior. In short, it's about outlining a way of life and living.
  • Values - inevitably, the myth and ritual as an articulation of personal and/or cultural values. Religion deals with our sacred things, that which we deem worthy of worship, that which we hold as a centerpiece in our lives.
  • Community - humans are social animals, and shared myth and ritual among humans creates community. It is through this community that religions become organized or institutionalized, a structure that facilitates passing mythos, ritual, and values between generations.

In what ways do the sciences dovetail with the above, or complement it? What are the stories sciences tell us? What are the practices it encourages in us? What values does it promote? And what communities are created around these shared elements?

If there is some alternative framework you use to understand religion, how does your framework of choice intersect with the sciences in a complementary fashion?


The reasons I created this thread should be obvious given the presence of another on the board right now - as someone whose religious path heavily draws on the sciences given the sciences are basically the study of my gods I have a hard time looking at certain threads without making some sort of counter to them. So here it is!

I had an impulse to say that some of the behavior of people who continually denounce Christianity and Christians is part of some religion, as much as what Christians do. I’ll try to explain what I was thinking with an example. Sometimes people try to use the alleged authority of God and their scriptures as a stamp of authority on what they’re saying. Sometimes people blame that on religion and belief in God, but I see people denouncing religion and belief in God, doing the same thing with the word “science” and reports of research. The behavior, and the psychological and social dynamics of it, look the same to me, only substituting the word “science” in the place of the word “God,” and research reports which nobody actually reads in the place of religious scriptures which nobody actually reads. I also see other examples of behavior in people who are denouncing Christianity and Christians, that looks the same to me as the behavior that they’re denouncing in Christians, the only difference again being that they say “science” instead of “God,” and they use research reports as their authority instead of religious scriptures. That’s where I got the idea to call that way of thinking a “religion.”

 

[Audie]

I think it is more accurate to say, that Religion is Science for the ignorant. Any gaps in our understanding of the physical reality, can be filled with "God did it".

Short and sweet. Love it!

 

[Audie]

...............Ireligion and belief in God, but I see people denouncing religion and belief in God, doing the same thing with the word “science” and reports of research. The behavior, and the psychological and social dynamics of it, look the same to me, only substituting the word “science” in the place of the word “God,” and research reports which nobody actually reads in the place of religious scriptures which nobody actually reads. I also see other examples of behavior in people who are denouncing Christianity and Christians, that looks the same to me as the behavior that they’re denouncing in Christians, the only difference again being that they say “science” instead of “God,” and they use research reports as their authority instead of religious scriptures. That’s where I got the idea to call that way of thinking a “religion.”

You is kind of a stuck record on that theme, but
you are not winning any converts.