Philosophy Now Forum

A tentative supposition: Without religion there would be no science.

An explanatory metaphor: The Grand Canyon.

Running through the Grand Canyon is a river—called the Colorado River. The flow of the Colorado River has produced the Grand Canyon. Water, over millions of years, has incrementally carved lower and lower into the rock until there is a canyon over a mile deep.

The meaning of the metaphor: Religious tendencies in humanity has enabled science to exist.

Running through human society for hundreds of thousands of years have been religions. Those religions have left the tendencies in the human psyche. Integral to science are OCD-like methodologies. The ability to learn from others. Et cetera.

Where there once was religions eroding their way through the genes of Homo sapiens, and shaping them, there is now the capacity to science. Science has pirated that capacity to its own ends—benevolently, ‘tis true. Yet the theft may not be without reprisals.

But the reprisal aspect is not my meaning. I mean that it was highly serendipitous that the capacity for science exists. And in the vein of that discovery, it would seem that there should be further capacities that future humanity could possess. Apparently, habits can produce capacities or perhaps even handicaps, sort of like selective breeding.

Nah!

Analogy: The Amazon Delta

The rich soil of the Amazon Delta is fed by many tributaries of the Amazon river up river and in the delta region.

The main river of the Amazon from its source represent the quest for knowledge and Science by humanity in general, i.e. fundamentally 'Science = to know.'
This fundamentally is to facilitate survival of the individual and that of the human species.

Wiki wrote:Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")

1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sciēns), present participle of scīre to know + -ia -ia
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Since its early days, the quest to know has developed into modern Science;

Science = a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Yes, religions did contribute to knowledge is some ways, but the main purpose of religion was and is to deal and soothe the terrible pains of the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis, e.g. via salvation with eternal life and avoidance of burning hell.

So, religion within the analogy of the amazon river is merely one tributary and not the main force of the Amazon river [analogically] that has contributed to the search of knowledge by humanity.
This is why at present, the search of knowledge, i.e. Scientific is independent of religions.

If any religious doctrine is against Scientific knowledge, the irrational claims of the respective religion [especially the Abrahamic] is given preference.
Note the immature and low grade claims of knowledge about the universe and nature from the Bible. The Bible claims the Sun revolves round the Earth and Earth is flat. There are various immature knowledge from Islam and other religion.

Note Buddhism's respect for Science;

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

There would be no science without belief. Belief is different from religion.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:03 am There would be no science without belief. Belief is different from religion.

I agree to the above.

Scientific knowledge is Justified True Belief as conditioned within the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. its scientific method, principles, assumptions, peer review, etc.

Scientific knowledge cannot stand alone on its truth-claims without reference to the conditions of its Framework and System.

Whilst scientific knowledge are credible due to its claim of empirical based verifiability, repeatability in testing, falsifiability, etc. scientific knowledge is at best merely polished conjectures [hypotheses, beliefs] which is very useful to humanity.

The Abrahamic and other religions' claim of absolute certainty of knowledge from God [illusory] can never be Scientific per se.

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 am A tentative supposition: Without religion there would be no science.

Children typically come into the world ready to explore and figure things out. They already feel connected to their environment, and that they belong in it. They continually seek to discover new things and know how things work. They are not saying, "Where is a god? There must be a god!" I think science comes from natural tendencies to explore and understand. Religion is created by adults to control and comfort. So this supposition you present does not make sense to me.

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 amAn explanatory metaphor: The Grand Canyon.

Running through the Grand Canyon is a river—called the Colorado River. The flow of the Colorado River has produced the Grand Canyon. Water, over millions of years, has incrementally carved lower and lower into the rock until there is a canyon over a mile deep.

The meaning of the metaphor: Religious tendencies in humanity has enabled science to exist.

Okay, seriously... how can you make such a leap?

How about... the Grand Canyon reflects the vast beauty and diversity of energy that flows through all things?

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 am
Running through human society for hundreds of thousands of years have been religions. Those religions have left the tendencies in the human psyche. Integral to science are OCD-like methodologies. The ability to learn from others. Et cetera.

I think you're manipulating this to meet a certain result.

It could just as easily be said that religion has stunted human beings. Tying them up in rigid ideas that prevent broader awareness... not only by distracting them with habit and limitation of what they think they know, but by compelling them to limit their awareness to that which supports and serves their religion, despite all to the contrary.

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 am it would seem that there should be further capacities that future humanity could possess. Apparently, habits can produce capacities or perhaps even handicaps, sort of like selective breeding.

I think that vast capacity is natural. Religion is not the cause. Religion can be a useful tool...for inspiring thoughtful contemplation, clarity, connection, openness, etc. But religion has also been distorted and filled with so many static elements, care should be taken that religion doesn't impede that natural vast capacity. Yes?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:22 am I agree to the above.

Scientific knowledge is Justified True Belief as conditioned within the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. its scientific method, principles, assumptions, peer review, etc.

Scientific knowledge cannot stand alone on its truth-claims without reference to the conditions of its Framework and System.

Whilst scientific knowledge are credible due to its claim of empirical based verifiability, repeatability in testing, falsifiability, etc. scientific knowledge is at best merely polished conjectures [hypotheses, beliefs] which is very useful to humanity.

The Abrahamic and other religions' claim of absolute certainty of knowledge from God [illusory] can never be Scientific per se.

The only difference between the two kinds of knowledge is the degree of certainty. If I perform an experiment - I am certain of the result. If I perform the same experiment 100000000 times, I am more certain of the result.

But nobody can objectively answer the question "How certain is certain enough?".

Do you trust yourself to determine that the stove is hot, or do you need repeatability, verifiability, falsifiability and peer review before drawing the conclusion?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:03 am There would be no science without belief. Belief is different from religion.

My corollary is based on the theory of evolution. Humanity evolved several faculties under religious authority. That is not the same as saying scientific theory is the same as religious dogma.

But science works precisely due to its own dogmatic adherence to its own methodologies. But instead of knock 7 times before entering a room. It adheres to run several tests before believing a theory, or prove it with mathematics first.

In case this helps with the confusion, I am not denigrating science as a religion. I am only saying that it is reminiscent of a religion. I am not promoting my corollary to be scientific. It is merely hypothetical. Prove me right or prove me wrong, but please don't misunderstand me.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:20 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:22 am I agree to the above.

Scientific knowledge is Justified True Belief as conditioned within the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. its scientific method, principles, assumptions, peer review, etc.

Scientific knowledge cannot stand alone on its truth-claims without reference to the conditions of its Framework and System.

Whilst scientific knowledge are credible due to its claim of empirical based verifiability, repeatability in testing, falsifiability, etc. scientific knowledge is at best merely polished conjectures [hypotheses, beliefs] which is very useful to humanity.

The Abrahamic and other religions' claim of absolute certainty of knowledge from God [illusory] can never be Scientific per se.

The only difference between the two kinds of knowledge is the degree of certainty. If I perform an experiment - I am certain of the result. If I perform the same experiment 100000000 times, I am more certain of the result.

But nobody can objectively answer the question "How certain is certain enough?".

Do you trust yourself to determine that the stove is hot, or do you need repeatability, verifiability, falsifiability and peer review before drawing the conclusion?

Sure you can tell if your stove is hot by feel. Science is superfluous in that case. It is not superfluous in many others.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:02 pm

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 am
Running through human society for hundreds of thousands of years have been religions. Those religions have left the tendencies in the human psyche. Integral to science are OCD-like methodologies. The ability to learn from others. Et cetera.

I think you're manipulating this to meet a certain result.

It could just as easily be said that religion has stunted human beings. Tying them up in rigid ideas that prevent broader awareness... not only by distracting them with habit and limitation of what they think they know, but by compelling them to limit their awareness to that which supports and serves their religion, despite all to the contrary.

Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:24 am it would seem that there should be further capacities that future humanity could possess. Apparently, habits can produce capacities or perhaps even handicaps, sort of like selective breeding.

I think that vast capacity is natural. Religion is not the cause. Religion can be a useful tool...for inspiring thoughtful contemplation, clarity, connection, openness, etc. But religion has also been distorted and filled with so many static elements, care should be taken that religion doesn't impede that natural vast capacity. Yes?

Vast capacity is natural, but it may have been thwarted and promoted by religion. And, in my opinion, care should definitely be taken that religion doesn't impede that "natural" or let's call it "genetic" vast capacity. 100 times yes.

Systematic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:35 am Sure you can tell if your stove is hot by feel. Science is superfluous in that case. It is not superfluous in many others.

You really missed the point. Touching the stove is science - it's an experiment.

The difference between that kind of science and other kinds of science is only in the number of experiments you perform Is just sampling.

Repeatability, verifiability, falsifiability and peer review are just guard rails that buy you confidence/certainty in the hypothesis' validity.

How much confidence/certainty is necessary to accept a hypothesis as valid? That's just a choice! It's a function of your Risk appetite.

Some people require a lot of evidence - some people require little to none. On this continuum of necessity vs sufficiency is where ALL of philosophy is played out.

Philosophy is the game of insisting on infinite evidence - forever setting the bar out of reach.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:40 am Philosophy is the game of insisting on infinite evidence - forever setting the bar out of reach.

That's called skepticism.

-Imp