Let us develop a scientific Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

doctormitrau

Registered Member
I invite you all to give the best, benefitial to humanity/ mankind/ society/ guide for future sciences/ prosperity etc., from your religion/ dharma along with quotations in support of your suggestions..... but logical and scientific.
 
All religions were scientific* in their own time, they just haven't been updated. ;)

*according to that time knowledge of the universe.

So, whatever you might develop here, in 2000 years will probably be as out of date as the bible cosmologically is now.

There actually is no conflict between mysticism and science, just the conflict between the science of 2000ad and 2000bc.

Any way, hindusim is pretty close to our nowaday knowledge and buddhism is timeless, i.e., it can work in any time because it's not tied to any cosmology at all, just psychology.
 
Here is a start :) more to come

1. In the beginning when Inquisitive Minds created the hypotheses and the theory, the theory was an idea and the unknown covered the face of the unexplored, while a wind from the scientific method swept over the face of the evidence. And scientists said, “Let there be observation”; and there was observation. And Inquisitive Minds saw that the evidence supported the theory; and Inquisitive Minds separated the theory from the unknown. Scientists called the theory Science, and the unknown they called undiscovered. And there was further study and there was consensus, the first science.
 
and more, I will add further passages soon :) It has biblical structure borrowed from genisis and ill include Some ethics and the way I think technology might leed too a greater life and also possible destruction, stuff like that.


2.The Inquisitive Minds said, “Let us make Scientists” in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion in over the study of mathematics and empirical systems, and in the study of atoms and molecules, and over life forms and over all planetary bodies, over all the matter and energy that is manifest in the universe.
 
Harro said:
Here is a start :) more to come

1. In the beginning when Inquisitive Minds created the hypotheses and the theory, the theory was an idea and the unknown covered the face of the unexplored, while a wind from the scientific method swept over the face of the evidence. And scientists said, “Let there be observation”; and there was observation. And Inquisitive Minds saw that the evidence supported the theory; and Inquisitive Minds separated the theory from the unknown. Scientists called the theory Science, and the unknown they called undiscovered. And there was further study and there was consensus, the first science.
Click to expand...

That's trippy....
 
Harro said:
and more, I will add further passages soon :) It has biblical structure borrowed from genisis and ill include Some ethics and the way I think technology might leed too a greater life and also possible destruction, stuff like that.


2.The Inquisitive Minds said, “Let us make Scientists” in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion in over the study of mathematics and empirical systems, and in the study of atoms and molecules, and over life forms and over all planetary bodies, over all the matter and energy that is manifest in the universe.
Click to expand...
We don't have that kind of power.
 
I find some fields are very dogmatic in science. Hardly any room to "explore" because the olde guard will not allow it. So ya, it is already a religion.
 
I think that these are the unquestionable dogmas of science:

- Deductive logic is valid
- There exists some external reality external to our minds (ie solipsism is false)
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds

To build this into a religion, some sort of moral foundation might also be required. Perhaps something like along the lines of minimizing entropy, or valuing unique patterns.

Ideas might be gleaned from the philosophy of information ethics - consider all things as information objects, the universe as the "infosphere" then consider Floridi's four moral laws:

0. entropy ought not to be caused in the infosphere (null law)
1. entropy ought to be prevented in the infosphere
2. entropy ought to be removed from the infosphere
3. information welfare ought to be promoted by extending (information quantity), improving (information quality) and enriching (information variety) the infosphere.​

Just thoughts.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Actually:

The only fact that we can be sure of is that we do not know
Click to expand...

That's correct. That's why I labeled the things I listed as dogma. They can't be logically proven, they must be taken on faith... and they are foundations of science.
 
Pete said:
That's correct. That's why I labeled the things I listed as dogma. They can't be logically proven, they must be taken on faith... and they are foundations of science.
Click to expand...
So science is a religion. :scratchin:
 
Science usually is a part of a religion. Until science of a particular age turns into a unchangable dogma.
Then we have the case of some christians believing homo sapiens was a counterpart of dinosaurs.

adam-eve-dinosaurs_sm.jpg


p.s. From that image - I wonder if Eve and Adam were eaten by a T-Rex...
Or another point - if, as many believe, Jesus factually ascended into heavens, by now he wouldn't even be out of our galaxy.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:
So science is a religion. :scratchin:
Click to expand...
If you define "religion" as anything that involves believing something unprovable, then yes. But, "religion" generally means more than that, as I implied.

But, you'll notice that it is impossible in practice to not accept the dogma I listed. The only things outside the bounds of those axioms is madness and a little philosophy.
 
Last edited:
there can be no such thing as a "scientific religion". Science is the study of the natural world. It has nothing to do with religion per se. That said, it is not at war with faith either. Science is limited to observed, in the present, phenomena. It is an inductive process which can never arrive at "Truth", spiritual or otherwise.
 
mynameisDan said:
there can be no such thing as a "scientific religion". Science is the study of the natural world. It has nothing to do with religion per se. That said, it is not at war with faith either. Science is limited to observed, in the present, phenomena. It is an inductive process which can never arrive at "Truth", spiritual or otherwise.
Click to expand...

If gods have any effect whatsoever on the natural world, we should be able to detect it. Of course, there can be no claims to god existence that are credible unless a clear effect demonstrating the existence of gods has been observed. If not, the claims are worthless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top