3 ms·
Are you suggesting there's a difference in the procedural, moral and/or intellectual rigor of religion 2500 years ago, as compared to today, on a scale similar
by roc 17y ago
Are you suggesting there's a difference in the procedural, moral and/or intellectual rigor of religion 2500 years ago, as compared to today, on a scale similar to the differences between alchemy and science? or astronomy and astrology?
I can't say I see differences of that magnitude. In fact, I don't see many significant differences at all.
(E.g. whereas most modern religions are far less bloodthirsty than some historical religions, so were many religious contemporaries of those bloodthirsty belief structures.)
- Alex3917 17y agoAbsolutely. Modern day religious scholars are doing things like giving people psilocybin in double blind studies to elicit primary religious experiments. (And they found that they were able to create primary religious experiences in roughly 70% of the participants.) Saying that these academic papers that are being published in the top journals in the country are the intellectual equivalent of Catholicism is ridiculous.
- roc 17y agoI'm not sure why endeavors wholly separate from the practice of religion should be considered to reflect upon the state of religious practice. Surely one can be religious and practice science. But in what denomination of which religion is it a requirement? The non-religious have performed countless similar studies on religious experience, efficacy of prayer, etc. Are you suggesting their activities reflect on the state of religious practice in the modern world, simply because their subject matter is related to religious practice?
- Alex3917 17y agoScience isn't separate from religious practice, but rather it's one of our contemporary religions. Only instead of the ten commandments, you start with the unprovable beliefs that there is nothing supernatural, the universe can be explained entirely through natural laws, we can learn about these natural laws through observation and measurement, the world exists as we see it and is not an illusion, etc. So in regards to the academic studies on the efficacy of prayer, I would consider these studies to be part of modern religious belief rather than separate from it.
- scott_s 17y agoSee Eliezer Yudkowsky's The Fallacy of Gray, HN discussion and essay: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147767 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147767
- Alex3917 17y agoI don't disagree with you at all. If you look at a lot of modern religious thought though, the assumptions are usually just as sound as the assumptions behind science. In fact, they are usually the same plus or minus one, with well-grounded reasons behind any diffs.