Is religion the original primitive science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2013, 02:22 PM
Is religion the original primitive science?
Humanities attempt to figure out the world around them by observing things and making culturally agreed upon assertions about the outside observable world has been going on for a long time, but for some reason there is a demarcation between science and religion as if they are two separate things. What makes Science different from religion in how beliefs are formed and arrived at?


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
What makes science different is
- the way truth statements are arrived at (by ensuring they make specific predictions and modifying or discarding statements with poor predictive power)
- the tentative way that truth statements are held (prove us wrong and we'll thank you for it)

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
28-05-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
(28-05-2013 03:43 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  What makes science different is
- the way truth statements are arrived at (by ensuring they make specific predictions and modifying or discarding statements with poor predictive power)
- the tentative way that truth statements are held (prove us wrong and we'll thank you for it)

The first one is employed by both religion and science.

The second isn't necessarily true considering that any and all belief systems are placed rigidly into belief systems. Science has expanded along with society in general having a less rigid ideological structure, however like religion and any other belief system it is till contained in and defined by particular ideological structure. The ontology of religion ha also changed in structure just like science has.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
False and false. Well done.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
28-05-2013, 06:39 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
With my trusty +5 ad hominem maul of smite stupidity, I wade into battle against this troll.

First off science isn't a collection of culturally agreed upon assertions.
The scientific method is a way in which we try to explain the reality that we observe using evidence as the foundation.
Religion makes unfounded assertions without evidence and unfortunately many people unjustifiably believe those assertions.

The former planet Pluto has an orbital period of about 246 years. It was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh.
We've only known about the existence of Pluto for 83 years.

Is the orbital period of Pluto an agreed upon assertion or do we have evidence that shows Pluto is adhering to the law of physics.
The motion of objects within a gravitational field is quite known. Science observes that when a ball is tossed up, it follows a certain path, reaches a certain height and then falls all according to it's mass, it's initial force acting upon the ball and some resistance due to air and other negligible factors.

We have observed that Pluto is where we predict it will be tomorrow, next week, next year and even in the next 100 years.
Science does this very accurately.

But now if we turn our attention to Mercury, we have found that the formulas that worked well for Pluto, in the past, didn't exactly work with the same precise accuracy when we tried to predict where Mercury would be. The calculations were off by a very small amount. It was off by 43 arc seconds per century. It's not that Mercury was doing something that Pluto wasn't. It was that relativity hadn't been taken into account because at the time, it hadn't been discovered.

In science as we discover something new, it can help us to explain the things we observe in a more fundamental and precise fashion.
When we add in the general theory of relativity it helps to account for the 43 arc second per century shift that Newtonian gravitational theory didn't account for.

Religion can't do any of that. It can only make assertions and then tell people that you must take it on faith that this assertion is true.

Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be..... NOT magic.




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rahn127's post
28-05-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
Agree with Hafnof. Religion does not usually "discard statements with poor predictive power." Example: people still believe Jebus will return even though he said (if he even existed) that a generation would not pass until his return. It's been 2000 years and Christians still cling to that one.

Science also requires some type of proof. Religion is the opposite and many discourage questioning beliefs. If I had a dollar for every time a Xtian has told me that I just need to have faith (after not answering my questions or producing evidence), I'd be rich.

Religion may have begun as a primitive type of science where man attempted to explain weather, hunting success or failure, harvest or lack thereof, but they parted ways at some point. It's the difference between alchemy and chemistry or astrology and astronomy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjs's post
28-05-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
(28-05-2013 02:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  Humanities attempt to figure out the world around them by observing things and making culturally agreed upon assertions about the outside observable world has been going on for a long time, but for some reason there is a demarcation between science and religion as if they are two separate things. What makes Science different from religion in how beliefs are formed and arrived at?


Drinking Beverage

No.

God is merely an idea that explains everything. It's like a conspiracy theory for people who want to think one person is controlling the world.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
28-05-2013, 09:09 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
Science: observe, form theory, create prediction, test prediction, compare prediction with result, adjust theory with new information, create prediction, test prediction, compare prediction with result, etc.

Religion: observe, form theory, do not test theory, ignore all contrary data.

There is a fundamental difference.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
28-05-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
If we're interested in being philosophically accurate... science, religion and society haven't done shit... ever.

People do shit. People make up shit based on what they see (religion) and people test shit they've made up (science).

A preacher can start out with a religious hypothesis and if he adheres to the scientific method and he's honest, he will soon change his positions. Thus, there can be such a thing as religious science. Trouble is, there are no honest clergymen or religious scientists. Not that they're dishonest on purpose... just that the first lie they tell is to themselves.

But no, religion is not the first science. Philosophy is. And, philosophers were the first people to question the natural world with respect to how it could possible have been created by a sky ghost.

The clergy were too busy doing evil to their fellow humans to bother with testing their claims.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
02-06-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Is religion the original primitive science?
I think that probably yes. If god was invented by the human being that can explain many things :

1.The story of Genesis (inspirated by Babylonian myth) if god exist he authorised that but why ?
2.Biblical contradictions , if the eternal exist there are not contradictions or his words was modified by humans etc...
3.Why in the new testament there are verses who was added after the first and second century (like the verses about a biblical episode named : pericope adulteræ) ?
4.Why the pagans have a god for ? agriculture , music , love , war etc...
5.There are many questions like these.

PS : Who have some information who can explain in what context God was invented in the old testament if that is true ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: