6 ms·

Can a religion be created to force people to think logically and scientifically?

2 points by amichail 16y ago

skowmunk 16y ago
There is already such a religion: Science.
- amichail 16y ago
  But people are not forced into it with threats of eternal punishment.
  - skowmunk 16y ago
    Whichever religion it is, the typical one or the atypical, whether the threat is of eternal punishment or something else, it all boils down to whether one chooses to succumb to those threats or not.
    - amichail 16y ago
      People are indoctrinated as children. Overcoming the threats later on in life is very difficult.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - skowmunk 16y ago
        Difficult is not impossible. And most of than not, nothing that is really worth,... is easy.
zeynel1 16y ago
Interesting question. Since I define science as "curiosity to understand nature by asking questions" I wonder if you need a religion to practice science. When you say "science" you may mean "organized science" controlled by professional practitioners. In that sense, I agree with skowmunk; organized science and organized religion have a lot in common.
- skowmunk 16y ago
  Though I had meant it in a different way, I do agree with the similarity you have pointed out, regarding organization of both religion and science in general. Regarding the questioning aspect: I would say that all religions originated out of questions, they were early attempts at science (that is,.. attempts to answer questions on natural phenomena and the unknown - at that time), but over time they just evolved into ideologies that no longer tried to answer phenomena. Why I say this? without going into a monologue - all current religions, monotheistic or polytheistic, were predated by earlier polytheistic versions which were more or less dominated by deity worships. The deities were more often than not the powerful and frightening phenomena that people couldn't explain back then. It wasn't different from culture to culture neither, the Norse had their Thor and Hindus had their Indra, both for thunder, the Egyptians had their Ra(sun god) and so on. If the ancients had better tools for the analysis of phenomena, I am sure they would have come across better conclusions, just like JJ. Thomson would have come up with a better model than the watermellon model for the atom, if he had better tools for investigation.
  - zeynel1 16y ago
    "...they were early attempts at science..." True. May I add that; as these attempts at science evolve into ideologies; mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies as well. Instead of ideology; we may say; tradition. Tradition corrupts science from within. We can see this in modern physics in its insistence that all new discoveries must conform to the existing laws of physics. "... Thor ... Indra ...Ra ..." And Zeus; he is another representative of the tradition of thunder gods.
    - skowmunk 16y ago
      "....mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies...." That is true. Thinking about why this happens.... could it be the vanity of people that causes this? Sticking to ideas or practices because its 'their' ideas/practices/traditions (irrespective of if they have been passed down or been indoctrinated themselves) instead of looking at the logic behind them or their relevance to the present or future or a situation? and then decide if they should be still held on to or not? What if we define 'ideology' as the thought/belief equivalent of 'tradition' as 'tradition' is to practices/rituals - both being 'holding on to something' irrespective of its relevance? I guess that would make both of our statements mean absolutely the same.
wmf 16y ago
This would be a good question for Less Wrong. I suspect the answer is that you can't use irrational means to encourage rationality.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jyhg 16y ago
That's what religion is already, in some sense. Any time you honestly question it, and poof - it's gone and you've learned something. The problem is getting people to honestly question that which feels comfortable, religion or otherwise.

2 points by amichail 16y ago

skowmunk 16y ago

There is already such a religion: Science.

amichail 16y ago
But people are not forced into it with threats of eternal punishment.
- skowmunk 16y ago
  Whichever religion it is, the typical one or the atypical, whether the threat is of eternal punishment or something else, it all boils down to whether one chooses to succumb to those threats or not.
  - amichail 16y ago
    People are indoctrinated as children. Overcoming the threats later on in life is very difficult.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - skowmunk 16y ago
      Difficult is not impossible. And most of than not, nothing that is really worth,... is easy.

zeynel1 16y ago

Interesting question. Since I define science as "curiosity to understand nature by asking questions" I wonder if you need a religion to practice science. When you say "science" you may mean "organized science" controlled by professional practitioners. In that sense, I agree with skowmunk; organized science and organized religion have a lot in common.

skowmunk 16y ago
Though I had meant it in a different way, I do agree with the similarity you have pointed out, regarding organization of both religion and science in general. Regarding the questioning aspect: I would say that all religions originated out of questions, they were early attempts at science (that is,.. attempts to answer questions on natural phenomena and the unknown - at that time), but over time they just evolved into ideologies that no longer tried to answer phenomena. Why I say this? without going into a monologue - all current religions, monotheistic or polytheistic, were predated by earlier polytheistic versions which were more or less dominated by deity worships. The deities were more often than not the powerful and frightening phenomena that people couldn't explain back then. It wasn't different from culture to culture neither, the Norse had their Thor and Hindus had their Indra, both for thunder, the Egyptians had their Ra(sun god) and so on. If the ancients had better tools for the analysis of phenomena, I am sure they would have come across better conclusions, just like JJ. Thomson would have come up with a better model than the watermellon model for the atom, if he had better tools for investigation.
- zeynel1 16y ago
  "...they were early attempts at science..." True. May I add that; as these attempts at science evolve into ideologies; mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies as well. Instead of ideology; we may say; tradition. Tradition corrupts science from within. We can see this in modern physics in its insistence that all new discoveries must conform to the existing laws of physics. "... Thor ... Indra ...Ra ..." And Zeus; he is another representative of the tradition of thunder gods.
  - skowmunk 16y ago
    "....mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies...." That is true. Thinking about why this happens.... could it be the vanity of people that causes this? Sticking to ideas or practices because its 'their' ideas/practices/traditions (irrespective of if they have been passed down or been indoctrinated themselves) instead of looking at the logic behind them or their relevance to the present or future or a situation? and then decide if they should be still held on to or not? What if we define 'ideology' as the thought/belief equivalent of 'tradition' as 'tradition' is to practices/rituals - both being 'holding on to something' irrespective of its relevance? I guess that would make both of our statements mean absolutely the same.

wmf 16y ago

This would be a good question for Less Wrong. I suspect the answer is that you can't use irrational means to encourage rationality.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jyhg 16y ago

That's what religion is already, in some sense. Any time you honestly question it, and poof - it's gone and you've learned something. The problem is getting people to honestly question that which feels comfortable, religion or otherwise.