Religion and Science Unification

[Skakos]

There need be no disparity between modern scientific reality and religious reality when God is understood as immanent, but not transcendent. Pantheism is probably going to be the religion that supercedes the substance dualism which is implicit in popular theism.

This is not to say that religion and science will be unified. Religion's language is the language of poetry and expression whereas science is best mediated by the impersonal linguistic style.The form of language sets the mood for either scientific or religious experience.

And yet a poet can tell you more about life and its essence that the cold language of a chemist...

[Gene16180]

To the OP, Should science begin believing things on faith? Should religion begin applying the scientific method to its claims? what exactly would this "unification" look like?

[Rederic]

(Nested quote removed.)


And yet a poet can tell you more about life and its essence that the cold language of a chemist...

He can't tell you about the best treatment for whatever cancer you have.

[DeeElf]

There need be no disparity between modern scientific reality and religious reality when God is understood as immanent, but not transcendent. Pantheism is probably going to be the religion that supercedes the substance dualism which is implicit in popular theism.

This is not to say that religion and science will be unified. Religion's language is the language of poetry and expression whereas science is best mediated by the impersonal linguistic style.The form of language sets the mood for either scientific or religious experience.

This was Aleister Crowley's (and less explicitly, William James') contention, and was worked out by him in various ways through his writings, and expressed in The Equinox Journals as Scientific Illuminism.

To the OP, Should science begin believing things on faith? Should religion begin applying the scientific method to its claims? what exactly would this "unification" look like?

The motto of Scientific Illuminism was, "The method of science--the aim of religion." Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith expressed similar sentiments.

[Skakos]

(Nested quote removed.)


He can't tell you about the best treatment for whatever cancer you have.

The best treatment for cancer and other terminal diseases is love and caring from the people that are close to you. A good poem could also help. We will all die someday. I know doctors who have cancer and choose to die quietly without "treatment"...

-- Updated November 22nd, 2012, 4:42 pm to add the following --

To the OP, Should science begin believing things on faith? Should religion begin applying the scientific method to its claims? what exactly would this "unification" look like?

I believe that some religious claims can be supported by scientific methods. For example it is LOGICAL to claim that the world has a First Cause. It is not only a matter of faith.

On the other hand science can and must use religious faith in the value of humans and stop being so amoralist.

[Ktulu]

I believe that some religious claims can be supported by scientific methods. For example it is LOGICAL to claim that the world has a First Cause. It is not only a matter of faith.

On the other hand science can and must use religious faith in the value of humans and stop being so amoralist.

I'm sure you are aware that Kalam Cosmological Argument is question begging as a proof of god.

[Gene16180]

I believe that some religious claims can be supported by scientific methods. For example it is LOGICAL to claim that the world has a First Cause. It is not only a matter of faith.

Ok, in your other thread titled “the limit of science” you wrote the following-

Do you think Science has limits? Or do you think Science can eventually explain everything? I think the second idea is a much problematic one. How can you defend it, when science is based on many things which have inherent limitations? Take Logic for example. Gödel proved that it has limits. So how can we say that Science, which is based on Logic, can find EVERYTHING?

So, back there you were you were questioning the scope of science based on the limits of logic and here you are using logic to try and prove that the universe had a creator? Surely, if the limits of logic apply anywhere they would apply to something as mysterious, enigmatic and far removed from daily human experience as the genesis of the cosmos. I think your selective skepticism in these matters betrays an strong bias.

On the other hand science can and must use religious faith in the value of humans and stop being so amoralist.

Scientists themselves can be either moral or immoral, the application of science can be moral or immoral(with or without faith), but I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you elaborate?

[Ktulu]

The motto of Scientific Illuminism was, "The method of science--the aim of religion." Joseph Campbell and Huston Smith expressed similar sentiments.

I have to admit that I had to research Scientific Illuminism. I'm sure it's not without it's merits in provoking thinking among its contemporaries, I fail to see any merit in it in in light of our modern scientific paradigm.

[Skakos]

(Nested quote removed.)


I have to admit that I had to research Scientific Illuminism. I'm sure it's not without it's merits in provoking thinking among its contemporaries, I fail to see any merit in it in in light of our modern scientific paradigm.

And what might that modern paradigm be?

[Ktulu]

And what might that modern paradigm be?

A better question would be what the differences are. In that I mean, between the modern paradigm and 1900th century scientific paradigm.

Certain phenomena which at the time were considered without explanation, now have explanations. Electricity, X-rays, radioactivity, magnetism were seemingly magical properties. You cannot deny that we have a better understanding of those phenomena. Though, in part it is due to such theories as were proposed, or rather to the debunking of such theories.

I pride myself in having an open mind. I fail to see how illuminism adds any value to anything in today's understanding of science. In order for a theory to be scientific, it needs to either explain poorly understood phenomena, or to simplify current conceptual systems. This doesn't seem to be meeting that criteria, and even if a theory is indeed scientific, it doesn't mean that it is correct. It has to be falsifiable and repeatable, with transparent methodology.

[Skakos]

(Nested quote removed.)


A better question would be what the differences are. In that I mean, between the modern paradigm and 1900th century scientific paradigm.

Certain phenomena which at the time were considered without explanation, now have explanations. Electricity, X-rays, radioactivity, magnetism were seemingly magical properties. You cannot deny that we have a better understanding of those phenomena. Though, in part it is due to such theories as were proposed, or rather to the debunking of such theories.

I pride myself in having an open mind. I fail to see how illuminism adds any value to anything in today's understanding of science. In order for a theory to be scientific, it needs to either explain poorly understood phenomena, or to simplify current conceptual systems. This doesn't seem to be meeting that criteria, and even if a theory is indeed scientific, it doesn't mean that it is correct. It has to be falsifiable and repeatable, with transparent methodology.

I agree that a good scientific theory must be falsifiable. But that means that EVERY theory of science is to be proved wrong at some point. This is the NATURE of science: it does not reach for the truth. (even though many people think it does) Furthermore, science DOES have limits. Not to the physical world phenomena which are all well within its scope. But beyone those.

PS. What is "illuminism"?

[Rederic]

(Nested quote removed.)


I agree that a good scientific theory must be falsifiable. But that means that EVERY theory of science is to be proved wrong at some point. This is the NATURE of science: it does not reach for the truth. (even though many people think it does) Furthermore, science DOES have limits. Not to the physical world phenomena which are all well within its scope. But beyone those.

PS. What is "illuminism"?

Whereas religion, with its holy book of immutable laws, already knows the truth, does it? Without even one scrap of evidence for any of it, religionists believe it implicitly & believe this gives them the right to criticise science. I believe religion is a classic case of The Emperor's New Clothes. You believe it in its entirety without there being any substance at all.

As for the last part of your post, I assume you're talking about the spiritual dimension. Science can't possibly examine anything that lacks any evidence for its existence. Believing in spirituality without evidence is simply faith & is beyond any scientific rigour.

Illuminism 1. (l.c.) the claim to possess superior knowledge. 2. the beliefs or claims of certain religious groups or sects that they possess special religious enlightenment.

[Slaga1]

I think intuition is very important, and it is constantly used in science to develop new theories. Not just religion, but anything that involves irrational thought such as art and music, also are important for intellectual progress.

[Gene16180]

I believe that some religious claims can be supported by scientific methods. For example it is LOGICAL to claim that the world has a First Cause. It is not only a matter of faith.

On the other hand science can and must use religious faith in the value of humans and stop being so amoralist.

You avoided my question... I would still like a response if you don't mind. In a different thread you warn about the limits of logic and the apparently fatal flaw this poses to the scientific method. Why do these limits not apply to theology?

[Naughtorious]

Why do these limits not apply to theology?

Good question.

Whereas religion, with its holy book of immutable laws, already knows the truth, does it? Without even one scrap of evidence for any of it, religionists believe it implicitly & believe this gives them the right to criticise science. I believe religion is a classic case of The Emperor's New Clothes. You believe it in its entirety without there being any substance at all.

Good answer.