Monotheism vs. Polytheism

[fionwe1987]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

There's no theoretical opposition between religion and science ; that's just the way it's been so far, because major religions have a tendency to go way beyond mere matters of spirituality.

But it's not always the "way it's been". In some parts of the world, at some points in time, yes, but not everywhere. 

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Depends what one means by "co-existence."

Not really. What alternative definition of co-existence are you using?

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I would say that it's a sign of just how successful science has been that, after millenia of being a pretty major obstacle to some scientific fields even emerging, it is now possible to argue that religion was not actually a problem for science.

Which fields? 

I feel this is a very Western-centric view, too, btw. 

[polishgenius]

There's a lot of people sticking to a made-up story (religion must always impede science) in the face of facts backed up by  overwhelming evidence (religion has often actively promoted and encouraged science) in order to maintain their worldview (religion is an inherent negative). 

.

[IFR]

Einstein specifically address this topic in his book The World As I See It. His words may be of interest to some here.

Quote

EVERYTHING THAT THE human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and desire are the motive forces behind all human endeavour and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present itself to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions—fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connexions is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates for itself more or less analogous beings on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. One’s object now is to secure the favour of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed towards a mortal. I am speaking now of the religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases the leader or ruler whose position depends on other factors, or a privileged class, combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.

The social feelings are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes, the God who, according to the width of the believer’s outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.

The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, which is continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in a nation’s life. That primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that they are all intermediate types, with this reservation, that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. Only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, as a general rule, get in any real sense beyond this level. But there is a third state of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form, and which I will call cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to explain this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the nothingness of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. He looks upon individual existence as a sort of prison and wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear in earlier stages of development—e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learnt from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer especially, contains a much stronger element of it.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no Church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as Atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are capable of it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion which pioneer work in theoretical science demands, can grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labour in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

On the Monotheism/Polytheism front: Platonism gives you a combination of the two. The One as the originator (not strictly a god in Platonic view, because that would be to limit it. The One does not exist because it is Beyond Existence), and the Demiurge as the Craftsman of the world.

On Religion and Science. Science is merely a method of learning via testing hypotheses. It is not the only path to knowledge, of course (mathematics does not test hypotheses). Meanwhile, religion does not make scientifically verifiable claims, so the two fields remain non-contradictory.

On Galileo. The model Galileo was using involved circular orbits, and thus made predictions no better than the old Ptolematic model. When asked to present his work as a hypothesis, Galileo refused, and wrote a text that goes so far as to thinly call the Pope an idiot. The Church reacted badly. Meanwhile, the elliptical orbit issue came with Kepler, and an actual underlying theory of motion to explain matters came with Newton. At the time of Galileo, the matter was far more complex than folk-history would suggest. 

[maarsen]

The question arose about Newton's religious and scientific work. Most of Newton's time seems to have been spent on alchemy and numerology, with actual math and science taking a back seat. As to his religious beliefs,  he would have been burned as a heretic if his Arian beliefs were known.

Asto religion and science, what major questions have any religion ever given a definitive answer to? Science has given too many to count.

Edited January 21 by maarsen

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The question arose about Newton's religious and scientific work. Most of Newton's time seems to have been spent on alchemy and numerology, with actual math and science taking a back seat. As to his religious beliefs,  he would have been burned as a heretic if his Arian beliefs were known.

England's last burning for heresy was thirty years before Newton was born. Newton's eccentric religious leanings would have cost him his job, but he would not have suffered beyond that.

Newton himself would not have differentiated between his alchemy work and his scientific work. In fact, it has been suggested that his inspiration for gravity was esoteric in origin.

[fionwe1987]

43 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Asto religion and science, what major questions have any religion ever given a definitive answer to? Science has given too many to count.

I don't think anyone here has made the claim that religion is better than science, or more successful at science. Merely that the two have and can coexist.

As for what answer religion has ever given, not many, but I do think the Buddha hit the nail on the head when he linked human suffering to attachment. That's solid psychology that no one's refuted yet, and science agrees with. 

But I wouldn't say religion has had anything approaching a good success rate. 

Edited January 21 by fionwe1987

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

But it's not always the "way it's been". In some parts of the world, at some points in time, yes, but not everywhere.

What constitutes the rule and what constitutes the counter-example(s)?

Religion is easily all-encompassing, and societies gripped with religions fervor always turn on science. I've always learned and read that societies that experienced an explosion of scientific discoveries were the ones in which the priesthood's power was decreasing, and vice-versa, that societies dominated by the priesthood struggled to advance science. I remember taking this from history books back when I was in middle school!

And that might be seen as a "narrative" if, to this day, religious fervor wasn't still systematically linked to un-scientific attitudes: creationism, climato-skepticism, hostility to contraception or abortion, crass intolerance for any exotic ideas.. The stupidity of religious superstition can still be witnessed on a daily basis, and not just in the West.

I suppose one could argue religion is only hostile to science when combined with stupidity, but then isn't one of the main functions of religion to provide simple answers?
My point is that the stupidity of religious fervor is a feature, not a bug, and the fact that some clever people have always been able to go beyond their religious belief to look for more complex answers really doesn't count as a point in favor of religion.

Quote

I feel this is a very Western-centric view, too, btw. 

Then it may be another question of semantics. There are some "religions" that are almost incapable of leading to religious fervor, but they tend to be called/considered philosophies, precisely because of that. Though I will grant you that this could be absolutely seen as a Western-centric view, because Western religions are particularly political.

6 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I don't think anyone here has made the claim that religion is better than science, or more successful at science. Merely that the two have and can coexist.

To my eyes it's like saying the LGBTQ community can coexist with religion.

I mean sure, it can, and it does, but it would be absurd to start claiming religion has helped the LGBTQ community.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I'm someone who can speak as a fundamentalist escapee, and also as someone who works in science but has grown rather disenchanted with the enterprise.

Yes, obviously, in terms of describing the workings of the world to the extent that we can predict and control? Science is the only game in town. During the Enlightenment and earlier, the processes of discovery and religious mysticism were not so easily teased apart, but the two traditions have since split rather decisively, and religion just cannot deliver on this front.

But let's not go overboard in our worship of the scientific enterprise either. Its utility really is limited to knowledge for the sake of prediction and control. And almost inevitably, for exploitation. It's obviously very helpful, but human life needs a lot more than good physical health and comforts in order to thrive.

People need meaning and a sense of purpose, community, a connection with some sort of tradition. One doesn't need to delve into the supernatural for these things, but science sure as hell isn't going to provide them. More often than not, science just allows neoliberal exploitation of the rest of us for the profit of a few.

So, at very least, we need some sort of humanistic philosophy, some governing moral narrative and supporting norms. And it helps not to have some smug sense of superiority over people who do happen to have more of a mystical mindset, especially if those people aren't opposing scientific progress.

I have no qualms about making fundamentalism the enemy. But in such a battle it's pretty foolish, and downright irrational--to the point of being rather orthodox--to burn bridges with perfectly reasonable potential allies because they don't adhere to every point of belief that you'd like them to.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 1/14/2024 at 1:32 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

I actually had to use the garden hose on a couple of Mormon missionaries who hounded our door relentlessly one summer. I have also experienced arrogance from Jehova Witnesses who are especially guilty of "our way is the only way and all others are damned."

Really?  They wouldn’t leave when you told them you weren’t interested.  Wow.

Missionary work has always seemed counterproductive to me.  If someone is going to find a path to faith it has to be their own path for it to be genuine in my earnest opinion.  Using fear and other coercive techniques really misses the point of “faith”.

[Rippounet]

I operated from the premise that the objective was Truth (I thought this was posited at some point, but I could be wrong). But if the objective to have a harmonious, cohesive society, then religion is a necessary evil, no doubt about that.

37 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

People need meaning and a sense of purpose, community, a connection with some sort of tradition. One doesn't need to delve into the supernatural for these things, but science sure as hell isn't going to provide them. More often than not, science just allows neoliberal exploitation of the rest of us for the profit of a few.

Most of the "science" that lead to neoliberal exploitation is actually bullshit. Economics especially is so bad at science, that quite a few economicsts see it as a religion ("free market fundamentalism").

40 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

And it helps not to have some smug sense of superiority over people who do happen to have more of a mystical mindset,

Yeah, given what this mystical mindset leads to, on a daily basis, I'll take the smug sense of superiority any day. Or do I need to post half-a-dozen links about what religion has done for us just this past week?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

.

Most of the "science" that lead to neoliberal exploitation is actually bullshit. Economics especially is so bad at science, that quite a few economicsts see it as a religion ("free market fundamentalism").

 

Good point about religion in economics.

That part of @Phylum of Alexandria's post you quoted, I was thinking along the lines of navigation, colonization, industrialization, resource extraction,  but I guess none of that started as "neoliberal", but the exploitation dynamic works just as well with the Age of Exploration as with the Petroleum Age and Better Living Through Chemistry, and the Age of Information.  

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Rippounet said:

I operated from the premise that the objective was Truth (I thought this was posited at some point, but I could be wrong). But if the objective to have a harmonious, cohesive society, then religion is a necessary evil, no doubt about that.

Well, I think from a psychological standpoint, "truth" has essentially been split in two with the advent of science. Science governs factual, informational truth. As I mentioned, the information that is crucial for predicting and controlling the world around us. Because it's subject to being supported or disproven, it's the closest we have to a face value, everyday notion of "truth."

But a good story is a lie that speaks a deep truth. A powerful myth goes even deeper. Humans are storytelling creatures more than we are scientific creatures. And just because science produces better facts doesn't mean we can just shake off our need for something deeper, for ultimate, and also personal truths. The easy thing would be to say that the latter is not really "truth" but emotional resonance, etc. But when a person feels it, it feels like truth to them.

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Most of the "science" that lead to neoliberal exploitation is actually bullshit. Economics especially is so bad at science, that quite a few economicsts see it as a religion ("free market fundamentalism").

There are countless examples of scientific knowledge being used for crass exploitation and commercial gain. For instance, 'it's common for geology experts to work for oil companies to help to them determine where to drill. In my own previous field, neuroscience, pharmacology is almost always the goal. Sometimes that's good, obviously. But if you build it, they will come. And they will find a way to exploit it, and they will profit. 

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, given what this mystical mindset leads to, on a daily basis, I'll take the smug sense of superiority any day. Or do I need to post half-a-dozen links about what religion has done for us just this past week?

"Religion" in what sense? I already dismissed fundamentalism. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

That part of @Phylum of Alexandria's post you quoted, I was thinking along the lines of navigation, colonization, industrialization, resource extraction,  but I guess none of that started as "neoliberal", but the exploitation dynamic works just as well with the Age of Exploration as with the Petroleum Age and Better Living Through Chemistry, and the Age of Information.  

Yes, I was going to say as much, but I decided to keep it simple. What started as discovery and colonial "enlightenment" is now in the neoliberal age.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

"Religion" in what sense? I already dismissed fundamentalism. 

Then we don't disagree. But then, from the start, there was little (if any) disagreement in the thread, just a knee-jerk reaction to religion being given a bad name. Though, tbh, perhaps I don't need to be that negative - I actually believe religion to be a net positive for humanity, in the greater scheme of things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 1/15/2024 at 11:56 PM, Rippounet said:

For instance, you can only start analysing and understanding evolution if you admit that it exists, which means that you admit that no God created humans, at best they only created the process which saw humans emerge

I’m religious… when I’m not sick (like this morning) I’m at church Saturday evening (for vespers) and Sunday morning (for Devine Liturgy).  I have no problem with evolution.  I don’t see evolution as disproving the existence of God, Gods, or a god.  But that’s me and I also have never seen scripture as the undiluted word of God.  It’s, in my view, flawed people attempting to understand something that is beyond them and always will be beyond them.
 

 

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

What constitutes the rule and what constitutes the counter-example(s)?

There is no rule. The question we are debating, again, is "can religion and science coexist". Not "do science and religion always coexist", to which the answer is no. 

A single example of science and religion coexisting is enough to make "yes" the only answer to "can science and religion coexist?"

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Religion is easily all-encompassing, and societies gripped with religions fervor always turn on science. I've always learned and read that societies that experienced an explosion of scientific discoveries were the ones in which the priesthood's power was decreasing, and vice-versa, that societies dominated by the priesthood struggled to advance science. I remember taking this from history books back when I was in middle school!

Yeah those history textbooks obviously didn't give much thought to the history of Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Then it may be another question of semantics. There are some "religions" that are almost incapable of leading to religious fervor, but they tend to be called/considered philosophies, precisely because of that. Though I will grant you that this could be absolutely seen as a Western-centric view, because Western religions are particularly political.

Yeah, this may be the crux of the issue.

I'll also point out that "fervor" can and does permeate science. And not just in economics. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

To my eyes it's like saying the LGBTQ community can coexist with religion.

Again, phrased just like that, duh, of course it can. Go look at Hindu temples where you have statues of all kinds of brazenly queer sex being depicted right in the heart of religious sanctity, and then tell me with a straight face that religion cannot coexist with the LGBTQ community. For significant portions of its history, there's a religion that didn't just coexist but celebrated the community. 

I think you're quite simply fitting religion into an overly narrow box that is ahistorical, and ignores facts.

I find it very weird to have to defend religion, as someone who is strongly atheist and loathes organized religion and what is has devolved to in most of the world.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I mean sure, it can, and it does, but it would be absurd to start claiming religion has helped the LGBTQ community.

Yeah that's a totally different statement. It's absurdity doesn't make the statement "religion can coexist with the LGBTQ community" wrong, or absurd. 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I'm someone who can speak as a fundamentalist escapee, and also as someone who works in science but has grown rather disenchanted with the enterprise.

Yes, obviously, in terms of describing the workings of the world to the extent that we can predict and control? Science is the only game in town. During the Enlightenment and earlier, the processes of discovery and religious mysticism were not so easily teased apart, but the two traditions have since split rather decisively, and religion just cannot deliver on this front.

But let's not go overboard in our worship of the scientific enterprise either. Its utility really is limited to knowledge for the sake of prediction and control. And almost inevitably, for exploitation. It's obviously very helpful, but human life needs a lot more than good physical health and comforts in order to thrive.

People need meaning and a sense of purpose, community, a connection with some sort of tradition. One doesn't need to delve into the supernatural for these things, but science sure as hell isn't going to provide them. More often than not, science just allows neoliberal exploitation of the rest of us for the profit of a few.

So, at very least, we need some sort of humanistic philosophy, some governing moral narrative and supporting norms. And it helps not to have some smug sense of superiority over people who do happen to have more of a mystical mindset, especially if those people aren't opposing scientific progress.

I have no qualms about making fundamentalism the enemy. But in such a battle it's pretty foolish, and downright irrational--to the point of being rather orthodox--to burn bridges with perfectly reasonable potential allies because they don't adhere to every point of belief that you'd like them to.

Yeah i think all those problems are not from science but from capitalism.

What do you mean by a more mystical mindset? Today its becoming very rare to see someone that has "mystic" mindset that is also not opposing acientific progress, many of them held some belive in some form of psudoscience, specially  comon in these mystics is to be anti vaxx, anti "western" medicine (that i will admit has problems with the more human side of medicine). And in my mind most of this mystic kind of thoughts can be traced to a religeous kind of thought.

The problem (as i see it) with potential allies that are on the mystic spectrum belive thing that take them away from a materialistic analysis of the world and allot of times leads them to reactionary philosphies. Its very easy to fall down the alternative therapies and such rabbit hole, and that almost always ends up with the conspiracy mindset, to me the two are extremely interconected.

Edited January 21 by Conflicting Thought

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

England's last burning for heresy was thirty years before Newton was born. Newton's eccentric religious leanings would have cost him his job, but he would not have suffered beyond that.

Newton himself would not have differentiated between his alchemy work and his scientific work. In fact, it has been suggested that his inspiration for gravity was esoteric in origin.

Mary of England did burn Protestant heretics and Elizabeth certainly had a few Catholics executed but as an Arian Newton would have been seen as a heretic by both sides and would have no protection.

[maarsen]

The scientific method had a very good record of predicting the future of inanimate objects. Religions not so much. As for animate objects, the scientific method does work but not as well as it could, but with improvements every time I look. Again, with religions or philosophies, not so much. However much I enjoy studying philosophy,  we really have not made much progress since Plato's time. 

The only real progress was in 2009 when David Wolpert proved with mathematics that in any universe, any being in that universe cannot know all of the laws of nature in that universe. Any being outside of said universe can know all the laws but cannot interact with that universe. Omnipotence and omniscience are both impossible in our universe. The best we can do is a theory of almost everything.  

The proof is on Wikipedia for those who understand the math. As this is an extension of Godel's incompleteness theorem to the physical sciences, I suspect it will be as hard to accept but until someone refutes either we seem to be in a godless universe.