4 ms·

> They are trying to peek at the true nature of reality. That would be science. Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and po

• bobthechef 5y ago
  > That would be science. In the broad sense, the sciences include philosophy. Natural or empirical sciences are not privileged. They are a product and part of culture as much as anything and thus subject to the same caveats as anything else. Those who worship at the feet of "Science!" are those who lack the intellectual sophistication to understand what science is. It is a kind of petty intellectual provincialism when elevated beyond its natural place in the grand scheme of things. So yes, religion, and philosophy (metaphysics at its core), are very much concerned with ultimate reality. This does not mean that what the sciences tell us must be false or illusory, only that, at best, they are concerned with bits and pieces of reality, while metaphysics studies being as being and religion, at least Christianity, concerns itself with revealed truths concerning the ultimate. Faith (as probable and trustworthy) only enters the pictures when, for example, we identify the god of Abraham with the god of philosophy (Ipsum Esse Subsistens). I.e., the god of revealed theology with the god of natural theology. So while the empirical sciences are without question a good, let us not pretend they are anything more than they really are. > Religion is a set of rituals, values, traditions, beliefs, institutions and power structures which claim to have a supernatural justification. Since the supernatural justification cannot be examined, it cannot really be questioned or investigated. First of all, there is no single thing called "religion". And furthermore, every man has a religion according to the most sensible characterization as that which a man worships. All men worship something, view something as the highest good, whether they realize it or not. Second, you've sort of listed a bunch of characteristics without any deeper reflection: 1. Rituals don't exist for their own sake. They have functions. They are a language of signs that are meant to communicate some reality and put some flesh on things which could otherwise remain purely abstract. They can be sacramental in nature (sign of the cross). Truths are what are ostensibly communicated, and it is those truths ultimately that they serve. 2. Traditions serve to maintain a continuity that allows truths to become accessible across generations (and btw, there are traditions within science as well; you couldn't have science without tradition; what do you suppose a mentor is doing when he's teaching you?). Tradition is what allows you to interpret scripture. Without that knowledge, you're left with the problems plaguing Protestantism (obverse the 40,000+ sects in America alone). So again, truth is the ultimate end of tradition. 3. Institutions also serve a purpose. They are guardians of tradition and, in the case of the Catholic Church, also that through which sacraments are dispensed. Institutions are also not solely the province of religion, at least not from a Christian POV where a distinction between God (religious) and Caesar (secular) exists. But again, truth is the ultimate end. 4. "Power structures" is a wishy washy term in this context. Authority exists everywhere. Distributions of power exist in all human societies. Authority has a purpose when exercised within its proper bounds, which is the good of men in some sense, and ultimately the good of men depends on truth. Again, we are oriented toward the truth. The truth as known and the truth as lived. > Imagine some historian proved that Moses never existed. Would Christianity, Judaism and Islam just disappear? Of course not. This is untrue. Religions make truth claims. Which truth claims are essential to the viability of a religion and in what way vary. Something like Buddhism would probably survive without the Buddha of the stories because the principles are what count, but it would not survive a thorough rebuttal of those principles. On the other hand, Judaism and its heir, Christianity, for example, are historical. God acts in history. There is historical development. That doesn't mean that the writing style used in heterogeneous scripture will conform to modern historical conventions, that there aren't places where symbolic language or hyperbole are used, but it does mean, for example, that Christianity as such is nothing without Jesus. Jesus was not just some "wise man". The validity of Christianity rests entirely on him being the Incarnate Logos. Otherwise, Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or the gospels are made up (to all of these, and more, there are responses; see Kreeft for a compilation). So yes, if you could somehow show that Jesus never existed, you would in effect destroy Christianity. There is no question about it.
  • goto11 5y ago
    > Religions make truth claims. Yeah, but typically of a nature which cannot be proven right or wrong. E.g. how could anyone prove that Jesus was or wasn't the "Incarnate Logos"? It is impossible since it is a purely metaphysical claim. Or how to prove Mohammed actually talked to an angel of God? Either claim is unprovable. Which one you believe basically comes down what makes you feel good. (Or more realistically, what your parents told you to believe.) But in cases where the truth claim can be verified, there are numerous examples of such claims being proven wrong, without it having any effect on the believers. Just as an example, the biblical justification of the dogma of the Trinity was proven to be a forgery already in the renaissance. Did it it change anything? Of course not. The belief in the trinity was so institutionalized at that point it didn't matter.
  • goto11 5y ago
    By the way, the Lewis trilemma is silly. It is possible for a person to be mistaken about something without being either mad or a liar (i.e. deliberately telling untruths). Regarding the Gospels it is well known they are written down decades after the events and based on an evolving tradition of beliefs. The gospel writers might only have written things they believed were the literal truth even though some of it is obviously legends rather than historical facts. For example Jesus is a completely different person in John than he is in Mark, but that does not mean any of the authors where deliberately making things up. Given the available sources, it is quite unlikely that Jesus considered himself a God. He might have considered himself the Messiah in the Jewish sense of a human prophet king and savior of the people.
• HKH2 5y ago
  > That would be science. Science doesn't seem too good at dealing with subjective experience.
  • goto11 5y ago
    Perhaps, but that is beside the point when discussing religion, since religions does not say their claims are purely "subjective experiences". Rather they tend to be adamant they are objective truths bigger than any individual. A few exceptions exists, like the Church of Satan which worship Satan while at the same time openly stating that he does not exist except as a symbol.
    • HKH2 5y ago
      I also think there is a difference between what they say they do and what they do. It seems you are focusing on the former, while I am focusing on the latter. Consider someone who is upholding a tradition. They may give you an explanation which may not do it justice. That is not to say all traditions are relevant or useful, but I think that there is a possibility that a tradition can go beyond the scope of an individual's awareness, and copying is often far cheaper than rebuilding from scratch and working through trial and error.
• sapientiae3 5y ago
  The way I see it (using an analogy that necessarily oversimplifies things) is that if this existence were like a computer game, and we were the characters in it, then science attempts to understand the game, and religion (or perhaps more accurately theology) tries to understand the game developer.
  • goto11 5y ago
    Better analogy: Science tries to understand the game and where it comes from. Religion claims that some guy talked to the game developer, and therefore we all have to obey everything he says.
    • sapientiae3 5y ago
      Not really - empirical science makes the assumption that nothing exists outside of the game (or at least anything that exists outside the game has to be proved from elements within the game)
      • goto11 5y ago
        Empirical science makes no assumptions like that. Empirical science cannot say anything meaningful about things which does not affect reality in some way, however indirectly.
        • sapientiae3 5y ago
          Then in some way, we are in agreement. Science cannot say anything meaningful about things that don’t affect reality. Religion (or theology) concerns itself with the reason that reality exists. The purview of science is limited to phenomena that can be observed or experienced. The purview of religion (specifically theology) is that which cannot be explained by science (now or ever)
          • goto11 5y ago
            > Religion (or theology) concerns itself with the reason that reality exists. All religions have a creation myth, but religion cannot be reduced to just the creation myth. That would just be deism which is basically a form of atheism. Religions believe that supernatural forces actually affect the world.
• kiliancs 5y ago
  > Whether the claims of a religion is "true" typically doesn't matter much to the adherents. What matter is the community, traditions and identity the religion provides. I see you said "typically", but your description of religion is in direct contradiction to what I understand as a Bahá'í, so I thought it might be worth sharing a bit. One of the core principles of the Bahá'í Faith is the independent investigation of truth. It is considered a moral duty of human beings, and as such, I think it could also be considered a moral requirement for adherence. Without it, the adherence to rituals, traditions, identity, institutions, etc. is just an eggshell—and often cause of division.
• proc0 5y ago
  Science cannot explain the nature of reality itself. Anything it can explain and test, is within reality itself. This is because at the heart of science are tests, which are meant to predict how reality unfolds. In other words, without reality "unfolding" (whatever that may be), you can't test anything and therefore you can't practice science. We've already bumped into this with Quantum Theory. Experiments can't solve 'the measurement problem', and interpretations like 'Many Worlds' where multiple parallel universes exist, are unfalsifiable and untestable. I think the Big Bang falls into this as well, since we have no idea what exists before time started.
  • senectus1 5y ago
    Lots of absolutist claims here >Science cannot explain the nature of reality itself. Science is a methodology, by design it can flex and change based evidence. Absolute claims do not belong in science, you are not speaking the language of science.