Thread: Can Science explaine Religion?

I was wondering if people think that science can explain religion completely, or even in part. Not in the typical sort of "psychology" way, however, but a proof of a soul and/or god/gods/goddesses, something that proves that a religion or multiple religions are correct or incorrect.

What's happened and is still happening, is, science offers better explanations for things religion used to explain. Including some features of religion.

On the other hand, I think we sometimes give religion more infamy in hindsight, where a lot of ancient thinking or behaviour is called "religious" when it was simply common sense or indeed mystified by us today. For example ghosts did not derive from religious dogma, rather people tried to reconcile the common experience with religion.

I think that at some level thinking people will always find a need for faith, because ultimately this existence is arbitrary and portions of human nature are necessarily irrational. If I say, "Let's blow up the Earth." you can reason why not but the root of reasoning is pure faith.

I did not vote as I believe that science can explain religion, but not in terms of right and wrong.

I have to agree with Pong above me, human nature compels us to follow similar ways and beliefs in order to maintain a superorganic structure (society), the beliefs that are most common are religions.

Science can explain why religion is and why it exists, in all kinds of ways, evolutionary, psychologically etc. Yet it does it in its own terms. Science itself is also the same as religion, science however has not got an agenda; it is the manifestation of logical fact and evidence of the surrounding universe, it does not seem to conquer nations, or drive out infidels.

I do see however, people affected by religion in their families flock to science as an anti conformist behaviour, and thus we have scientists with an agenda, thus making them the same with that meme, the same as a religious person. Same meme, same behaviours, same actions and reactions to both. Verzen is a perfect example of this.

In conclusion, science is the same as religion when divulging into new ideas and theories, these change science however and better understand the universe. Religious dogma on the other hand never changes, and falls behind. This creates an edge for science, in which hindsight, as you said, is able to explain religion in its own scientific standards, methods, models and evidence.

Science already does explain religion. The poll is flawed in that it creates a set of assumptions that science isn't setting out to demonstrate.

There is no good reason to "prove religion true" or "prove religion false."

Religion is a human condition that exists and no scientific discipline involved in exploring it would disagree. There is also no reason for legitimate science to begin with an assumption that religion reflects a real force in the universe (or the worship of that force). Superstitions are a construct of human imagination and culture and not reflective of reality.

The real questions science has about Religion are the similarities and divergences between religions and why they exist. What patterns can be determined and when did true religious thought begin? What would be indicators of this thought in cultural remains? etc.

Science may prove religion as a helpful tool, but saying science would prove religion to be "true" is relative. Now days, for example, (in the West Coast of America) climate change has become a sort of religion. We worship symbols of "green" production. We have a set of rituals, such as recycling, careful use of water, special light bulbs, fancy buildings and transportation systems designed to worship the same ideal yet, I would argue, most of these people have never read a scientific journal or seen hard evidence in support of their beliefs. They are merely told convincing stories through careful use of rhetoric. The same way as religions of old. These stories organize people and give them something to work for. They feel better about themselves and the world by worshiping their idols.

Science has demonstrated greater happiness in the lives of religious people over those expressly atheist. However, I merely read a report on the study so I don't know how it was conducted. In my opinion the value of life rests on more than happiness. So, religion may make people happy, but, does that make their lives any more fulfilling?

"Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heav'n." -John Milton

Forgive me if I use that quote too often, but, it is my favorite.

For those interested in this topic, there is a book by Dean Hamer, called "The God Gene".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Hamer believes he has identified a gene that predisposes people to religious belief. He suggests that this gene became frequent in the human gene pool due to the side effect of increasing sociability.

Other scientists believe Hamer is premature with his conclusions. However, I think his ideas are possibilities, and he has certainly amassed evidence. Whether that evidence is sufficient to sway the scientific community is another matter.

I vote no for this voting , not because there's nothing that can explain religions , but just because it can't be explained with SCIENCE. They're paradox and religions always have strong connections with culture and history , but not with science.

If there are any people who believes in religions , it means they still get wondered by something wihtout any scientific explanation. A true scientist won't believe in miracle , I think.

Originally Posted by Forgiven

I vote no for this voting , not because there's nothing that can explain religions , but just because it can't be explained with SCIENCE.

And yet science is doing a great job explaining religion. Neurologists have discovered regions of the brain that, when damaged, produce either hyper-religious behavior or decreased religious desires.

Anthropologists have been examining the religious practices of indigenous peoples all over the world for decades and are able to demonstrate many cross-cultural correlations in rituals, practices, and cult structures like power and status hierarchies.

Psychologists have demonstrated the need for religious dogma and structure on the human psyche as well as the psychological benefits that religious belief can provide.

Archaeologists have traced religious belief and the evolution of cult practices back into prehistory. Archaeologists like myself examine the material record for evidence of cognition among early humans, noting many artifacts that have possible religious importance, tracing these motifs and patterns through time to points at which they are finally self-described as religious in historical periods.

Sociologists have studied the patterns of religious belief, noting correlations and trends across gender and race. Robert Bellah used the science of sociology to provide a very lucid explanation of religious evolution among societies that includes pre-axial, axial, and post-axial stages.

Science can, does and continues to provide explanations for religion. In most cases, the religious don't care and are happy to admit it since sciences like anthropology and archaeology are explaining long dead or far-removed religions. It's only when science begins looking at religious beliefs that are close to home (or when the new age sensibilities of some are threatened) that objections are raised. Which is more and more of recent years.

But science explains religious belief every day. Admittedly, there are many things left to explain about religion, and this is true of all scientific endeavors. But it's probably far more likely that science will provide adequate answers to religious belief in our lifetimes than it will cosmology or particle physics. Religious superstition among humans is far, far less complex and far, far more finite than particle physics and astronomy.

I would say that in the end no religion will exist without being backed by science... however, I have already been proven wrong multiple times. People will believe what they want, no matter what. Every day I am astounded by smart people who believe in absolute nonsense, just because they heard it somewhere. Instead of researching the facts, they base their whole perspective of life on a lie. And when I teach them the undeniable truth, they usually believe me! When they accept the scientific truth though, 9 times out of 10 they also keep all of the old political, philosophical, or religious beliefs that originally grew from the lie.

The thing that makes me believe that science can't explain religion is , religion is a dogma. If you believe it , then just believe it and if you don't , just dont believe it. Science has a method of analyzing. Can or can't science explain about religion is based on that method's result. If the result is the religion isn't fit with some analyzis then it will become a fragile religion because the weaknesses will be exposed. The religions will blame the research and also the result.

Just the same as Inquisition in Modern period. Tragedy of Copernicus , Galileo and so on. The heliocentric theory didn't being accepted by the curch , and that's the cause.

So I think the religions are dogmas , if you believe it , then just believe it. believe the miracles , and enjoy your life. And if you dont ,just dont follow it. That's make a simpler conclusion for me. After all , that's just my opinion , I'm not a God either....

Originally Posted by Forgiven

The thing that makes me believe that science can't explain religion is , religion is a dogma. If you believe it , then just believe it and if you don't , just dont believe it. Science has a method of analyzing. Can or can't science explain about religion is based on that method's result. If the result is the religion isn't fit with some analyzis then it will become a fragile religion because the weaknesses will be exposed. The religions will blame the research and also the result.

Just the same as Inquisition in Modern period. Tragedy of Copernicus , Galileo and so on. The heliocentric theory didn't being accepted by the curch , and that's the cause.

So I think the religions are dogmas , if you believe it , then just believe it. believe the miracles , and enjoy your life. And if you dont ,just dont follow it. That's make a simpler conclusion for me. After all , that's just my opinion , I'm not a God either....

But it doesn't follow that a "dogma" cannot be studied and explained by science. To be clear, Religion is a broad term that is inclusive of many dogmas as well as some non-dogmatic beliefs.

That science can explain religion is really not a matter of question since science has been explaining religion almost since the first scientific principles were established. More recently, science has been directly explaining Religion for decades now. There are, of course, those who are religious adherents who dismiss scientific explanations, especially those explanations that deal with their own religious beliefs. However, undereducated or emotional dismissal doesn't imply any failure on the part of science. For instance, some religious sects maintain that the Earth was formed by their god(s) only 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. Many disciplines of science quite handily refute this, explaining a portion of these religions to be mythical. This is, of course, an example of an indirect explanation of religion by science. But direct explanations are many as well. As early as the 1960's, sociologist Robert Bellah examined the five stages of evolution in Religion, emerging with a general explanation for the development of religious thought in society. While his explanation isn't a step-by-step "law" of religious evolution, the social description he developed is still largely valid today.

So, simply "believing" that science cannot explain religion will not keep science from doing so.

So, simply "believing" that science cannot explain religion will not keep science from doing so.

Yes , I agree with that sentence. Science is too wide to be limited , I'm sure of that. The question of "can science explain religion? " is just like a circle. It has many angles to be seen. If we take one angle , we can't just see the other as clear as what we take earlier. In kind of Sociology , Anthropology and so on which study about religions and it's relations , it's effect in our daily life , it can be studied from the evolutions , just like history. It's evolutions , from the animism , paganism , till now.

But we can't just ignore that there are some questions of religions that still un-logical to human's mind ( that's what I refer as "dogma" ) for a simple example is turning water into wine , ressurect people,etc. That kind of miracle is what makes we who decide to believe in religions just accept that as a part of that religion.

It's not kind of question to be answered with a "yes" or a "no". that's why I think there could be one answer to this matter of question : if you believe then just believe it , and if you don't then don't believe it.

If we didn't separate this matter of point of view , there will be just controversy like Darwin's evolution theory....

Originally Posted by Forgiven

But we can't just ignore that there are some questions of religions that still un-logical to human's mind ( that's what I refer as "dogma" ) for a simple example is turning water into wine , ressurect people,etc. That kind of miracle is what makes we who decide to believe in religions just accept that as a part of that religion.

It's not kind of question to be answered with a "yes" or a "no". that's why I think there could be one answer to this matter of question : if you believe then just believe it , and if you don't then don't believe it.

Your examples are claims that are testable by science. If water can be turned to wine, one need only observe the process, placing controls on it to see either the mechanism of transformation or the mechanism for deception. The same applies to "resurrection." Either a body can be killed and resurrected three days later or it cannot. This is, again, a claim that can be tested.

But, like all good "miracles" they elude testing since they happened long ago or to people who refuse to be tested. In other words, they are probably lies and delusions.

There is nothing about religion that cannot be explained, at least in part, by science.

"There is nothing about religion that cannot be explained, at least in part, by science."

Very well said.

Science is indicative of intelligent design. if one looks at the complexity of life and the organization of atoms they must see it is not random. i think that the theory of relativity goes to help explain the god conundrum. how could god always exist. well on a small scale it is true that time is relative...can that be true on a larger scale as well. that would help explain the issue of god having no beginning or end. i think that the answers of proof are there. we cannot see the exact plan. Science is both absolutism and relativity. i dont believe that is possible without intelligent design.

Originally Posted by jbstein

Science is indicative of intelligent design. if one looks at the complexity of life and the organization of atoms they must see it is not random.

You are labouring under a very serious misunderstanding. It is unlikely that any modern scientist, who has considered the origin, evolution and mechanisms of life, has ever considered these to be the result of random events. The whole point of Darwin's theory was to demonstrate that evolution was not random. The work of thousands of biochemists and geneticists has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the mechanics of life are not random. A raft of hypotheses have been proposed to explain abiogenesis, none of which are random. The complexity can be shown to arise from the working out of the natural laws. Nothing random needed. No designer in sight.

Originally Posted by jbstein

i think that the theory of relativity goes to help explain the god conundrum. how could god always exist. well on a small scale it is true that time is relative...can that be true on a larger scale as well.

This doesn't hold any obvious meaning to me. Perhaps you could expand the thought.

Originally Posted by jbstein

Science is both absolutism and relativity. i dont believe that is possible without intelligent design.

Science isn't about belief.

When intelligent design proponents start talking about randomness, its always a sign of their own lack of understanding and ignorance. I would go so far as to hypothesize that the significance of "randomness" to their arguments is inversely proportional to their ignorance.

i would just like to add

" Science without religion is lame and Religion without science is blind " albert einstein.

Originally Posted by sonu_pal

i would just like to add

" Science without religion is lame and Religion without science is blind " albert einstein.

taken out of context and without understanding of the quote...

It is like this what all great men, like Socrates, etc. have known: The more we know with our scientific mind, the less we know! There is always a point on which we cannot know, always something beyond, we can never reach.. From here on, faith enters, based on scientific awareness that there is nothing we can ever know.. not just blind faith( enough in itself), but aware faith whose path invariably ends in religions.

Jsaldea12
9.1.10

Originally Posted by jsaldea12

It is like this what all great men, like Socrates, etc. have known: The more we know with our scientific mind, the less we know! There is always a point on which we cannot know, always something beyond, we can never reach.. From here on, faith enters, based on scientific awareness that there is nothing we can ever know.. not just blind faith( enough in itself), but aware faith whose path invariably ends in religions.

Jsaldea12
9.1.10

bullshit

I speak from experience: is there anything that science can explain to the very source? is it not that we simply state that this is how it happens, not why?

Newton is quite a remarkable, brilliant man of science, but he had reached, he had arrived, that is why he said, "I am like a little child in thd beach, picking a grain of sand while the whole beach is full of sand...meaning he knows very, very, feeble, he knows nothing at the end.

jsaldea12
9.2.10

Faith of any kind, but particularly blind religious faith, is synonymous with gullibility. Anyone who chooses to believe an idea that is posed without any credible evidence is a clear candidate for a swindle.

So, jsaldea, if you are in this class, please let me know. I have an amazing real estate deal for you. Cash only, and in small bills.

From my previous posting, re-From here on, faith enters, based on scientific awareness that there is nothing we can ever know.. not just blind faith( enough in itself), but AWARENESS faith whose path invariably ends in religions".

jsaldea12
9.2.10

jsaldea

Faith has no direction. Here on Earth, there are in excess of 20,000 different religions, all based on faith. Some are wildly different from others, even bizarre. Rational thought takes but a moment to realise that they cannot all be correct. A little more thought leads those who are capable of thinking coolly and clearly to the inevitable conclusion that they are probably all wrong.

Science, however, leads in one direction only. Towards the truth. There are occasions where wrong conclusions are gained, which have to be corrected later. There are lots of times we, who follow science instead of superstition, have to admit we do not know things yet. But in the long run, scientific enquiry leads to progress. Every year we know more than we did the previous.

Faith and religion, by contract, have made absolutely no progress ever. The superstitious beliefs of 2000 years ago are the superstitious beliefs of today. No change.