Can science study religion?

[Anselm33]

For a statue to cry (101 times at Akita for example), for it not to be a miracle, then there has to be a natural scientific explanation. If there is no scientific explanation, then it is a miracle. Moreover it “cried” within a certain context - the vision of Mary to an elderly deaf nun, and with grim warnings, hence the tears.

As for water “occasionally” turning into wine, that’s a new one on me. I’ve heard of it happening once only. Water does get turned into wine on a regular, much slower basis, by the action of the grape under the influence of the sun, and then after fermentation in a vat. I haven’t heard though of too many barrels of water spontaneously turning into wine.

If Christ was here in the flesh, the only way you could test the hypothesis would be for a distinguished panel of scientists to analyse the contents both before and after the miracle.

They would have no choice other than to declare it a miracle. But they would not have a clue how He did it. Incidentally the second miracle at Fatima in 1917, much closer to our time with 70,000 witnesses involved the rapid drying of ground and clothes after days of rain. Scientists have calculated the energy required was equivalent to a 2 megaton nuclear explosion. Yet on one was even hurt. And what is overlooked in the feeding of the 5000 is how much energy had to be spontaneously converted into matter in the ratio of m = E/c^2. In both cases the sudden expending or withdrawal of energy from the local system should have destroyed everybody. But it didn’t.

If you ask for a parking lot, do you deserve it more than somebody else who also wants a parking lot? Why should God give you the parking lot and not them? As for finding your house keys, God expects us to use our brains and not lose them in the first place. However I think from time to time I’ve had hints, or at least a reassurance, that I’d find what it was I’d lost. Or a feeling of foreboding that something negative was about to happen.

On the flood - there seems to evidence of some sort of massive catastrophe in the past - fossils buried by the billion, thousands of snap frozen woolly mammoths, the widespread destruction of dinosaurs, foot prints petrified in mud, which requires rapid burial, the enormous oil and coal reserves, evidence of much more lush world than we have today, sea shells found on the tops of mountain ranges. Nearly every culture has a flood legend. The chief problem for a “recent flood” is the dating.

However between magnetic decay and what I suspect is a fifth dimension as put forward by a certain Israeli physicist, I don’t think that problem is insuperable.

As far as I’m concerned God exists, and happens to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. My father, who was raised in the Catholic Church, ignored the warnings passed on by that church, and if my experience mentioned above is any guide, is now in hell, as spoken about by Christ. But no amount of scientific research is going to prove it.

I just happen to remember the terrible scream**. But I don’t see how science is going to research a once-only non-repeatable supernatural occurrence**.

:thumbsup:you have it down exactly. there is a person posting on this thread, the OP, who knows nothing about how science works, and doesn’t know that measurements have to be replicable in order to confirm a theory. Now he/she knows nothing of theology either. That God chooses which prayers are to be answered. We don’t get what we pray for, but what we need. There’s a Chinese story (and also one by Truman Capote) about being cursed with answered prayers. As one prayer put, and as St. Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine say, we pray to get closer to God, not to give him a laundry list of what we need. Prayer is efficacious on a personal basis if only in bringing our hearts closer to God, as Brother Lawrence say. Conducting sociological surveys on the proportion of prayers presumably granted is demeaning to God, to the people who pray, and to the practice of religion. Those who pose such questions should be banned from this forum. Those who try, unsuccessfully, to destroy well established miraculous events should also be banned.

 

[susej7]

As a social science, yes. As a hard science, no.
This study was a waste of money. Most scientific studies outside of hard science (physics, chemistry, etc.) are wastes of money.

What other types of science do you consider ‘hard’ science, and what sciences do you think are ‘wastes of money’?.

 

[Rocinante]

Conducting sociological surveys on the proportion of prayers presumably granted is demeaning to God, to the people who pray, and to the practice of religion.

this makes me wonder why you were so irritated when i criticized templeton before. presumably you then think that the templeton foundation which funded a $2.4 million study on prayer is demeaning to God, you, and your hero fr fraki (or whatever his name is who you mentioned was recognized by templeton).

Those who pose such questions should be banned from this forum.

i think people who think that other people ought to be banned for posing questions ought to be banned from this forum (and certainly shouldn’t try to call themselves scientists).

Those who try, unsuccessfully, to destroy well established miraculous events should also be banned.

since there aren’t any miracles that are generally accepted as well-established scientific-historical facts, i suppose everyone is safe from your napoleonic demands–not that anyone really cares who you think should and should not be banned.

 

[NE_Catholic]

i know what you mean, but people actually have such superstitious beliefs. for example, PRmerger says in her signature line that we might thank her if we get a good parking space since she’s been praying for us.

and it goes beyond religion. My favorite was when Nomar played for the Red Sox. His “ritual” before each swing was mind boggling.

 

[NE_Catholic]

What other types of science do you consider ‘hard’ science, and what sciences do you think are ‘wastes of money’?.

you want to open a can of worms on my opinion?

I consider the following HARD science:
Physics
Chemistry
sometimes Biology

that would be it

waste of money? When it comes to “MY” tax dollars the list is endless.

 

[Rocinante]

and it goes beyond religion. My favorite was when Nomar played for the Red Sox. His “ritual” before each swing was mind boggling.

there is certainly a lot of magical thinking out there. religious people would do well to distance themselves from psuedo-science, but too often it seems that they let it pass as religion.

 

[NE_Catholic]

there is certainly a lot of magical thinking out there. religious people would do well to distance themselves from psuedo-science, but too often it seems that they let it pass as religion.

I don’t get your comment. I find most people, whether religious or not, have some superstition. Sports generally bring out the worst.

 

[Rocinante]

I don’t get your comment. I find most people, whether religious or not, have some superstition. Sports generally bring out the worst.

for example, consider a recent claim by senatorial candidate christine o’donnell:

“The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me, that morning for this campaign. I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign, I always ask people: ‘Please pray for the campaign. Please pray for our staff. Please pray, specifically, that the eyes of the voters be opened.’”

blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/10/25/odonnell-credits-prayer-for-campaign-boost/

is this how prayer works? can prayer be credited with a spike in the polls? if not, the religious people ought to be the first to call her on it so that religion is not disparaged by such misconceptions. i find that religious people are reluctant to point out such misconceptions and instead credit someone like o’donnell with strength of faith.

rocinante

 

[NE_Catholic]

for example, consider a recent claim by senatorial candidate christine o’donnell:

“The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me, that morning for this campaign. I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign, I always ask people: ‘Please pray for the campaign. Please pray for our staff. Please pray, specifically, that the eyes of the voters be opened.’”

blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/10/25/odonnell-credits-prayer-for-campaign-boost/

is this how prayer works? can prayer be credited with a spike in the polls? if not, the religious people ought to be the first to call her on it so that religion is not disparaged by such misconceptions. i find that religious people are reluctant to point out such misconceptions and instead credit someone like o’donnell with strength of faith.

rocinante

this is quite a diversion.
I’ve answered the OP and now you appear to setting up a new front against religion/prayer. Why don’t you read on CAF how Catholics feel and regard prayer? Most people dismiss what she said, religious or not. Why would anyone even aknowledge her through a public statement?

I remember Wade Boggs ate chicken before every game. Think that helped him?

 

[Rocinante]

I’ve answered the OP and now you appear to setting up a new front against religion/prayer. Why don’t you read on CAF how Catholics feel and regard prayer? Most people dismiss what she said, religious or not. Why would anyone even aknowledge her through a public statement?

i don’t understand what you are saying. this isn’t a new front. it is an example of what i’ve been talking about. such a religious view of o’donnell is not particularly unusual and is unscientific. science can debunk such claims as hers (which we agree is false), therefore science obviously can have something to say about particular religious beliefs (if not every religious belief). therefore, the answer to the OP is that science can study at least some claims about religion. agreed?

 

[Turlock2]

@all It seems to me that the question, “can science study religion?” is yes when the results favor religion and no when they don’t.

Well, this is to a large extent true, as it is of any special interest group who pays for “scientific” studies. For instance during the Bush administration, as exposed by the Oakland Tribune, we had one guy, a former Exxon executive who went back to that company when he was discovered, who censored all the scientific data from the mutitude of sources who were reporting on environmental changes and damage from oil exploration, prduction, use, and transporttion. So Congress acted on altered information, as might people who read studies that prove or disprove the efficacy of prayer.

But I think a far mor interesting quesiton is: “Can religious people study religion?” I ask this because it is pretty obvious on here and other religious forums that a very large majority of the faithful of any stripe are on these venues for self verification, and not to learn something. In particular, there is a grave concern among them about learning how one acquires their faith. It seems that once adopted, just like a political view, a religious view is nearly impossible to alter. In my case it took a trauma to jog me out of my adamantine perspective enough to look objectively at my all belief systems, religious and otherwise. It literally took a shock. I have never been so grateful for anything in all my life.

It is pretty clear that cradle faithers of any religion don’t understand how the mind of an infant works to acquire the means to survive. The perceptual layers of the years actually incorporate and hide the more generalized infomation that is necessary for an infant to survive as part of a family. That’s not wrong, and neither is religion, but it might be good to see how the divisive and contentious factors that come with religion are, for the most part, acquired at an early age. We don’t see Muslims spontaneoulsy sprouting from Protestant families, nor Catholics spontaneously generated in aboriginal cultures, or Buddhists among the Eskimos. We have to ask why the particulars come from a culture when the generalities, say awe at the wonders of Nature and even the desire to know God are evenly and similarly distributed.

Is God less of a Universal then Nature in that only one small nomadic Bronze Age tribe had the contractual right to speak to or for Diety? That, after about 190,000 years of the race existing on the planet? Is God so small and particular? I sincerly doubt that. But many appearently don’t! I guess as long as they are good and happy, that’s fine. But one has to wonder what happens to natural curiosity in all the faiths of whatever kind.

 

[lemondiesel]

I just don’t understand why people can’t understand that the entire Bible is like one big story problem. Science coexists with religion, because science can alter beliefs. This works both ways.

 

[Turlock2]

I just don’t understand why people can’t understand that the entire Bible is like one big story problem. Science coexists with religion, because science can alter beliefs. This works both ways.

Yes, but neither is complete.

 

[lemondiesel]

Yes, but neither is complete.

Because both are misguided

 

[edwest2]

i don’t understand what you are saying. this isn’t a new front. it is an example of what i’ve been talking about. such a religious view of o’donnell is not particularly unusual and is unscientific. science can debunk such claims as hers (which we agree is false), therefore science obviously can have something to say about particular religious beliefs (if not every religious belief). therefore, the answer to the OP is that science can study at least some claims about religion. agreed?

“we agree is false” What is false? Her asking for prayer? Prayer itself? What claim is being studied? Science can’t debunk God or prayer.

There are no peer reviewed scientific studies that Study God. Period. God cannot be brought into a laboratory.

People will continue to go to Church and pray. We will pray to the saints as well. If you believe there is no God based on science, then present the science that has the evidence. If it is your claim based on your assumption then argue that but don’t make the claim that science holds documents if it doesn’t.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Well, this is to a large extent true, as it is of any special interest group who pays for “scientific” studies. For instance during the Bush administration, as exposed by the Oakland Tribune, we had one guy, a former Exxon executive who went back to that company when he was discovered, who censored all the scientific data from the mutitude of sources who were reporting on environmental changes and damage from oil exploration, prduction, use, and transporttion. So Congress acted on altered information, as might people who read studies that prove or disprove the efficacy of prayer.

But I think a far mor interesting quesiton is: “Can religious people study religion?” I ask this because it is pretty obvious on here and other religious forums that a very large majority of the faithful of any stripe are on these venues for self verification, and not to learn something. In particular, there is a grave concern among them about learning how one acquires their faith. It seems that once adopted, just like a political view, a religious view is nearly impossible to alter. In my case it took a trauma to jog me out of my adamantine perspective enough to look objectively at my all belief systems, religious and otherwise. It literally took a shock. I have never been so grateful for anything in all my life.

It is pretty clear that cradle faithers of any religion don’t understand how the mind of an infant works to acquire the means to survive. The perceptual layers of the years actually incorporate and hide the more generalized infomation that is necessary for an infant to survive as part of a family. That’s not wrong, and neither is religion, but it might be good to see how the divisive and contentious factors that come with religion are, for the most part, acquired at an early age. We don’t see Muslims spontaneoulsy sprouting from Protestant families, nor Catholics spontaneously generated in aboriginal cultures, or Buddhists among the Eskimos. We have to ask why the particulars come from a culture when the generalities, say awe at the wonders of Nature and even the desire to know God are evenly and similarly distributed.

Is God less of a Universal then Nature in that only one small nomadic Bronze Age tribe had the contractual right to speak to or for Diety? That, after about 190,000 years of the race existing on the planet? Is God so small and particular? I sincerly doubt that. But many appearently don’t! I guess as long as they are good and happy, that’s fine. But one has to wonder what happens to natural curiosity in all the faiths of whatever kind.

It seems that the concept of “learning something” is not correct. The idea of “learning something” only refers to change and not gaining any actual knowledge. Are there those of others faiths that once exposed to the truth of Christ who see differently? As I’m sure you’re aware of the story of Saul who is contacted directly by God, what is your answer? Personal hallucination that is also conveyed to others who meet with him?

Another story tells of people in China who are told about Jesus for the first time, responding with, “How long have you known?”

As someone who studies a broad number of fields, some simply out of curiosity, it is quite obvious. My meeting at a Krishna temple involved a man dressed in Krishna garb describing an apple and his beliefs. Having read the Bhagavad Gita, I see the story of a man who is not God.

The human being at an early age has been defined. Some do not come to a knowledge of God until they are adults. The “divisive and contentious” factors are not just part of religion. The Bolsheviks were dividing and conquering others for no God. And what about Pol Pot?

The Bible is no mere book, as witnessed by its longevity.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I just don’t understand why people can’t understand that the entire Bible is like one big story problem. Science coexists with religion, because science can alter beliefs. This works both ways.

Science can alter beliefs? Like what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ashurie]

What about Social Sciences? One of my subjects for next year is Sociology of Religion…sounds interesting, its about how people worship and take religion into their lives etc etc.

I am in RCIA - being Catholic is my choice, and to me if feels right, but I love learning about different religions, and how people live in their religion. I am a curious person, and love learning about different cultures etc…

 

[lemondiesel]

Science can alter beliefs? Like what?

God bless,
Ed

Let’s say I am walking along, with no scientific knowledge, and I happen to see a volcano erupt. I may attribute this great phenomenon to an unknown, or God. But science can come along and tell us that it was do to internal heating, and gas release of Earth. Therefore, it has altered our belief about the volcano.

 

[Ashurie]

Let’s say I am walking along, with no scientific knowledge, and I happen to see a volcano erupt. I may attribute this great phenomenon to an unknown, or God. But science can come along and tell us that it was do to internal heating, and gas release of Earth. Therefore, it has altered our belief about the volcano.

So true, I can also believe that it was God’s will for that volcano to erupt, with knowledge of how one erupts.