Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Regulator
Religion as it evolved is itself a compendium of observed realities, and the social codes espoused by religion usually assert social optimality by empirical observation of their success. In other words, religion itself is "ethics based on reality". Religion merely ascribes to such realities an underlying causality, namely an abstraction known as "god".

When you remove all non-reality based -- mystical elements-- from a religion, what would remain in that religion's philosohy?

It would be a swiss cheese philosophy full of holes.

19 posted on 02/28/2004 9:50:34 AM PST by thinktwice (The human mind is blessed with reason, and to waste that blessed mind is treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: thinktwice
When you remove all non-reality based -- mystical elements-- from a religion, what would remain in that religion's philosohy?

You're still confusing the implicit causality with the explicit social codes. So here's a concrete example: Kosher rules exclude eating pig meat. We all know why now - Trichinosis. But it probably took the Israelite tribes 500 years of observation to come up with the axiom: don't eat pig meat, because you might end up dead. And so the leaders of the tribes - the Priests - made a rule, that they buttressed by saying "this is rule of God". Lacking a physical explanation, that was the best they could do.

But again, in what way is this "mysticism" as opposed to objective empiricism? You could just as reasonably say that indeed, God doesn't want you to eat uncooked piggies. The fact that the world actually is so constructed is easily ascribed to a deity - and science cannot and would not oppose that, because ultimate causality is outside of its charter.

There are legitimate contradictions between science and religion - the age of the earth, evolution, blah blah. But in many cases, those are controversies within the "faiths" themselves. In the end, anyone can see that much of religion is empirical itself, and that its conclusions regarding social behavior are based on experience and history, and not merely the ad hoc assertions of the local soothsayer - your "mystical" component.

Where the two approaches diverge is this: science has no opinion on ultimate causality, and would not posit one, absent a lack of a method of proof. Religion does, and posits a "faith" that such causality has been revealed through persons and history. It's as good an explanation as any. But the social systems so buttressed have, in the Judaeo-Christian case, borne out as successful. Might be a good "proof" that they really were the "laws of nature's god".

Neither you, nor I, or all the scientists and engineers I have known and worked with could say one way or the other.

25 posted on 03/01/2004 12:03:48 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson