Religion typically derives its rituals from its beliefs.
Science typically derives its beliefs from its rituals (i.e. experimentation).
Is this just a coincidence or is there something to this?
Experimentation goes both ways. Paradigms, models and theories all dictate, to a great extent new rituals (experiments). Then on the more methodological level. I Think that experimentation in general arose out of beliefs. Someone decides that repeating causes while cutting down on the effects of other variables is a good idea.
Then as far as religion, I don’t Think it is this simple. I Think people hit on ideas for rituals and these generate, change beliefs - a lot of the indigenous, pagan religions were evolving processes that anyone could contribute to, thought shamans and priests were more likely to. But if you take something like shamanism. You find out that beating a drum and or taking a drug leads to experiences. These experiences lead to beliefs. More experiences lead to Changes and filling out.
I am not arguing that it is the opposite of what you said, just that I see things that make me Think this is not at all so neat.
That’s it? Someone just decided it? And it’s no better than if they had decided to do something else? I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying, but it sounds like that.
Actually, there is only one stream of knowledge and that is philosophy.
Both Science and Religion/Spirituality are its subsets and serve as verification tools.
Science deals with physical matter while spirituality deals with abstract matters like mind, thoughts and consciousness.
And at the end of the day, both Science and Spirituality should report its observations back to philosophy as to draw any proper conclusion.
with love,
sanjay
Mind, thoughts and consciousness are no longer considered abstract matters. They are studied scientifically; and philosophy trails way behind science in attempts to explain these phenomena. Much current philosophy amounts to reaction to findings of neuroscience. (Dennett, Searle, Chalmers, et.al.)
Ierrells,
I do not know about these other two gentlemen/ladies but Searle is not a neuro-scientist by any stretch of imagination. He is an out and out philosopher, nothing else.
If some of his or anyone else’s conclusions are based upon the biological or scientific studies of the brain, then i do not see anything wrong in it. On the contrary, this precisely what i am suggesting.
Furthermore, science and biology do not study thoughts or mind. These streams of kowledge deal only with the biological origins ( in their opinion) of these abstract matters, not the matter itself. Neruo-science deals with the various parts of the brain, not the thoughts or consciousness.
There is subtle difference between brain and mind. One is physical/biological entity while the other one is abstract matter. Science is yet to find mind, thoughts and consciousness empirically. and, that is precisely from where philosophy has to take baton from the science as it (philosophy) has to connect all lose ends.
with love,
sanjay
If you read it again, I think you’ll find that’s what he meant. The sentence starts with ‘Much current philosophy’ and ends with a list of current philosophers.
Yes FJ, you are right. That was certainly a mistake on my part. I was hurrying through the threads, perhaps that was the reason.
Anyway, thanks for correcting me.
Ierrellus,
I owe you an apology also as i misread you. Sorry for that.
with love,
sanjay
No problem. So what is your opinion of fMRI experimentation? It shows what parts of the brain are activated when one responds to written or spoken ideas. The activation would not happen if the impulse that causes it to happen were a mere abstraction.
It’s possible that the rituals preceded belief in religion. People found themselves performing rituals. When asked them why they did such things, they explained by inventing myths. Thus, across different religions you will find the same rituals are performed with different explanations.
As for scientific experiments being rituals, I don’t see that. In experiments everything is supposed to be operationally defined and logically worked out in advance so that cause and effect can be analyzed. People sometimes perform rituals for years without understanding them.
ritual or experiment?
Nope, not what I am saying. I am talking about sequence. My comments were value neutral which the OP is also. Just trying to look at what actually happened. Of course scientific empiricism evaluates it’s own methodology(gies). But that is a different issue.
Ierrellus,
Thinking about something and doing the same is not the same. There is a difference between those.
For example, Writing requires hands and fingers to move. In other words, at that time, that portion of the mind works which controls hands and fingers. But, while thinking about writing something, that part of the brain works, which controls thinking, not writing.
And, when one is writing and argument here at ILP, both portions of the mind would work simaltaneously.
with love,
sanjay
I think the first thing we have to hold on to is that religion isn’t science and science isn’t religion.
Religion can be a number of things:
This is probably the most popular view of what religion is, or at least what religion came to be, since the development of religion has not been static, nor has it only progressed. It depends on what people have experienced, what dangers they found themselves in, how much they were dependent upon a basic cultural identity etc. The present situation seems to be under the pressure of massive cultural and technological change, which numerous people believe they are forced into and therefore turn to tradition for stability and orientation.
In this situation rituals become extremely important as a means to find a sanctuary where things are familiar, where people belong and where they feel secure and safe. I believe that this requirement is where rituals come from.
Ritual has to do with identity and differentiation, but also with transportation of the myth, mythology or philosophy which is at the root of a religion. Christians and Buddhists differ in their world view, but strangely less in their practises, even if a superficial look might suggest the opposite. An important question, which has been lost to nominal members who are not concerned with an in-depth knowledge of their heritage, is what the beliefs and practises actually meant originally, and how these are interpreted today. The superficiality of beliefs today bring about a strange perversion of intentions, and show that things can go terribly wrong in a religion - not only once, but over and over again.
Rituals can therefore become masochistic or nihilistic, can encourage inappropriate as well as appropriate behaviour, and some can in fact perpetuate evil as much as others can perpetuate good in their observance.
I find it difficult to regard scientific experiments as rituals, although there will be a certain ritual about them in order to guarantee a desired degree of accurateness. However, science has amassed knowledge over the years but found that, with every answer and snippet of knowledge, there opens up a who new array of questions. The universe is obviously not only as we have discovered, but also different. So, it is indeed a question as to whether we can safely say we “know” something, or whether it would be safer to say, that at the present we believe …
I would, however, also state that the religious belief is not as rigorously attained as scientific beliefs are. As I mentioned above, there are numerous people who only have a nominal affiliation to religion, and their “knowledge” is very superficial. The same can be said about popular scientific knowledge however.
Bob, it is true that both of these are more or less accepted as definitions of religion but these do not present the essence of the religions.
Actually, religions are much like science but with only two exceptions.
Science says that do this and this and this would be the result; verification. Religions also say that do this and this and this would be the result; verification.
The first exception is that religion concentrates on different issues than science.
The second exception is that one cannot rely on the work done by others in religion, though it is possible in science.
with love,
sanjay
Zinn,
There is no such animal as “abstract matter”. Matter is concrete.
Yes, and this is the insight that lead me to the thought expressed in the OP. I’m wondering if this asymmetry might be the key reason why we see such a distinction between religion and science.
To all: There is some truth to the idea that scientific experimentation is a little different from religious ritual if only because it is malleable and carried out in different ways depending on what exactly is being tested, whereas religious ritual is typically the same in all cases. But the similarity I see between them is that they serve the same function: they are the practice that goes along with the beliefs and values.
There is also a good point about how scientific experimentation stems from certain scientific philosophies such as empiricism and uniformity in nature, and also that what we learn from our experiments also leads back into practice in the form of technology. But these I would call pre-scientific and post-scientific (respectively) in the sense that I think what we call “science” strictly speaking is just the practice of conducting controlled experimentation and the knowledge about the natural world that this practice yields.
Ierrellus,
In a sense, you are right. But, that discussion would lead us outside the periphery of this thread. I will post it as a new thread.
with love,
sanjay
I think that’s as good a way as any to show an equivocation between the two.
I further the notion of equating science and religion by equating, within certain contexts, people who are dogmatic about either respected term. To be as short spoken as possible; I mean to imply that one who is dogmatic would state that their side of the religion/science dichotomy has priority or is particularly more profound than the other. I think such dogmatism is antithetical to progress by almost any way one defines it.
I still see the distinction in the intention. If the intention of science is to gather a body of facts or truths systematically arranged to show the operation of general laws, is this also what religion has done? We may end up with a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation on both sides, but my observation is that science is concerned with what, where and how (basically: What is that?), whereas religion is concerned with why, what for and who (basically: What does it mean?).
I believe that it would be good if religious ritual was as enquiring as scientific ritual, but it seems that the former is more concerned with consoling gods, conscience or orthodoxy. That is why intention is the key word here.
I agree with your other statement.
Science and religion are products of the mind. Each provides a perspective about human reality. Each begins with belief. Each cites authority and experience as verification of beliefs. Each utilizes ritual. Seems to me there is a strange symmetry between science and religion.