Religion was the original traditional culture of the world, which was used to explain and justify everything using the authority of tradition, and the supernatural. Then two thousand six hundred years ago (approx.) in the west, (and China) the Greeks invented philosophy, because by then, it was becoming plain that religion had failed, and a better way to justify ideas had to be found.
At first appeal to logic and free debate in the case of philosophy, and later by empirical evidence and the experimental method in philosophy's child, science. At which point 2600 years ago, religion became obsolete. But it continued to persist by using fake authority to promote ideas that could not easily be justified by philosophy and science, especially to the uneducated.
Religion is therefore, the use of fake authority, tradition and the supernatural to justify ideas, in fact it is an exact synonym for the fallacy, of "argument from authority". What you have to ask yourself therefore, is who would want to use such a fallacy, it could of course only be the fraudulent and the criminal, only they would want or need false justification.
Religion is therefore by its nature opposed to science, philosophy, and education, because without opposition it does not exist, and opposition is the only thing it has to sell, in order to find itself a place in the market of ideas. The apologists for religion will tell you that religion is not in conflict with science and philosophy, because they have a lot of common ground on which they agree, but the real thing to consider is that if religion agrees with science and philosophy , then its ideas, 'are', science and philosophy, supported by much better props than fake authority, and not therefore, needing religion. That is only the case of the dishonest criminal doing a bit of honest trade, "on the side", because that increases its profits and power, but it is not a justification for the crimes.
20
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Interesting food for thought. You have categorized concepts differenting than I would, lumping science and philosophy together, while religion opposes both.
What makes a bit more sense to me is that philosophy occupies a space between science and religion. It is where musings on existance can lead to notions of what to do with our existance and how to think about it. Philosophy is not, by itself, science, however. In many cases, religion and philosophy both concern themselves with values and a sense of purpose. Religion merely imposes upon those values propositions a fabricated stamp of cosmic authority, trying to overcome any sense of uncertainty. And of course it uses rituals, traditions, and doctrinal tenets to be taken on "faith," and it reinforces it all with community pressure.
Many, including myself, look at Buddhism as both philosophy and religion, just depending on how it is pursued.
Science has many times been motivated to seek answers to questions posed by philosophy. ...much as religion, but in a fundamentally different approach.
MikeInBatonRouge
Level 8
Aug 13, 2021
0
That is true. But I was taking a more historical perspective in which, philosophy (especially western philosophy ) began as an attempt to answer the problems created by an existing unregulated and mainly religious culture.
The Greeks especially, at that time, had just started to uncover the secrets of maths and democratic politics, so that it would have seemed logical and natural to them, to try to use the methods and rules of maths and political debate, to address problems of understanding and explaining in other areas beyond those spheres, including those traditional to religion. A conflict which got several early philosophers, like Socrates and Hypatia killed.
Then latter, especially with the Renaissance, when it began to become apparent that debate and mere mathematical logic alone, would not answer all questions well without some extra help, it became needful to develop the experimental method and with it science. Which was certainly at first seen as a sub-set of philosophy, and was even called, natural philosophy, which is the name by which Newton, for example, would probably have known it, and he would probably have called himself a philosopher. He certainly would not have called himself a scientist, since the word was not even coined then. Science thus historically, grew out of philosophy, even alchemists, which was another title Newton certainly did use would have also called themselve philosophers.
I met a man a long time ago who told me that he was diagnosed with leukemia, and then he met God, and God helped him to fight and recover from the disease. Of course, most people, probably including the man himself (because he sounded intelligent and not like a religious freak), know that it was advanced medical treatments that saved him. He wasn't denying science. If relying on God helped him pull through the desperate situation, so be it, I thought. So, I didn't dispute. As long as religious beliefs are kept private at the individuals level and not used for political manipulation, etc. (which religious authorities tend to do), I don't treat religious folks with contempt or ridicule.
When I read your post I thought of this man who became Christian because of his desperate situation and who also acknowledges the advancement of science, and his case somehow opposes to your statement "religion by its nature opposed to science". There are many scientists who are also religious, are there not? I wonder how they connect religion and science; two conflicting worlds, in their heads.
Ryo1
Level 8
Aug 12, 2021
1
A personal belief is quite compatable you need only keep the two apart in your head, but the institutions and the methods of thought, they are quite different.
Religion is a kind of business, especially on the US. Those leading religious organizations have always had those among them who use religion to become wealthy. The power which religion holds over its believers can be very powerful as attested to by the many religious cults which take advantage of people - taking all their accumulated belongings, a significant portion of their incomes, and in some cases their lives and the lives of their children. I would basically agree that personal religious belief is not a problem but the range and too often the expectation of religious leaders extends well beyond personal belief. The expansion of their "market share" becomes too important to their bottom line.
Thanks for posting.
In my lifetime I have always wanted to know things and this desire had me right in the middle of many philosophies including religion. It is in the claims of religion that believers think they have all the answers. They have found a black cat in a dark room. Apologists make the claim loudly. The problem is that logic and evidence dictate that nothing is found and we know very little. Religion is static and non-progressive. Science is on a truth finding mission.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Aug 12, 2021
4
I see the creation of Gods as the personification of the unexplained and in appealing to these Gods (prayer is one form, sacrifices another) a way of attempting to control the uncontrolable aspscts of life. Once created, they become a part of culture and tradition and the fear of offending these Gods risks having to lose the feeling of order and control over the uncontrollable.
RussRAB
Level 8
Aug 12, 2021
6
Thank you sharing that historical perspective.
I am no position to comment on the philosophy thread in your post.
My own perspective is that it was Sir Isaac Newton that really got the scientific revolution going with his Laws of Motion and their predictive power to explain the positions of the planets, out of which grew the Scientific Method. The success of that method is countered by religious people with their "God moves in mysterious ways" which they use as a cover for the lack of predictive power of religion.
The abandonment of a lifelong belief in the Abrahamic god can come at immense personal cost which explains why such people cling to their religion despite the complete lack of falsifiable evidence to support their godly claims.
anglophone
Level 9
Aug 12, 2021
4
You do not have to know much about philosophy really. My point is really only about its history, which is that it started when people began to question traditional , given, wisdom. And that it started the thread in human thought which eventually led to science, originally called, natural philosophy, which is the name Newton would have known it by, I think, though he may have even been before that name, and have called himself just a philosopher or perhaps alchemist.
The greatest anomaly of all is "Religious Philosophy".
Petter
Level 9
Aug 12, 2021
5
See also Scientology.
One of my favorite thoughts came years ago from a blogger named Greta Christina. As I've said before on Agnostic, please excuse the specific wording because I'm paraphrasing from memory.
Over the years we've had many supernatural explanations for various events -- the sun was Apollo carrying a lamp across the sky with his chariot, thunder was dwarves bowling in the mountains, whatever. But as we got better looks at things we've realized that there were secular explanations for the things. We now know that thunder and the sun aren't associated with beings, they're natural parts of our real world.
But how many times has it gone the other way? We used to think there was a secular explanation for something but now we know it's caused by that god over there, or the spell I cast, or the rabbit's foot in my pocket or something else supernatural? Exactly ZERO.
We've never found any verifiable evidence for the supernatural. 
RichCC
Level 8
Aug 12, 2021
4
Yes, I always liked that argument. And if there is a god in the gaps, then he/she/it is shrinking all the time, and has been for a long time, in fact I think it has now got so tiny, perhaps, nobody can find it anymore. LOL.
Everything that we can observe is by definition part of the natural world. The supernatural is by definition unobservable. Anybody who claims to have seen, heard, felt or smelled anything supernatural is talking nonsense.
The only "evidence" for the supernatural is fake by definition.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.