The Science of Religion

[MineralMan]

Doesn't exist.

That is all.

[uriel1972]

1. The study of religion does though...

[MineralMan]

2. Not using the scientific method, though.

[Bretton Garcia]

3. Well, there IS anthropology, sociology of religion.

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. I was thinking more along these lines

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

[Bretton Garcia]

5. Theology, apologetics, creationism, Historical Jesus advocacy, pretend to be very rational

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]

6. Those are very soft sciences that often produce

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.

[Bretton Garcia]

7. Yes. Though more scientific examination of faith-healing claims, etc., could be less problematic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. You know the "hard sciences" aren't much better in that regard.

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

[MineralMan]

13. I have no brief against the social sciences, actually.

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]

14. I'm just saying I think the term "science" still applies.

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

[MineralMan]

15. OK. It's a rich area of discussion.

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

[Major Nikon]

8. Hey, whatabout scientology?

[Bretton Garcia]

9. There have been many pseudoscientific religious movements

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]

10. There's all sorts of examples in the bible that destroy Christianity

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]

11. Yes, faith is the problem. With its attacks on Reason. But?

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]

16. They already pick and chose which parts to ignore anyway

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]

18. Yeah

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]

19. I'm all for anything that works, I just don't see the tactic as being all that effective

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.

[Bretton Garcia]

20. I encourage both methods, and then some.

The more the merrier.

Whatever works best for the individual.

[NeoGreen]

17. Or worse...

...'Chinese scientology'

[guillaumeb]

21. This should be in the unintentionally humorous Group. eom

[MineralMan]

22. And yet, here it is in the Religion Group, since it is about religion.

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

[guillaumeb]

23. No, it is about your unprovable opinion about an unprovable subject.