should we analyze religion the same way we study science?

Question

I admit that they are not a perfect comparison because you can not test a passage of religious text.

But should we try to be as objective and critical when we study both?

whether you agree or dissagree please state why and your religious affliation (or lack their of)

Answer 1

Religion and science are two totally different fields. Science are proven facts that are widely accepted, but religion are beliefs and differ from one race to another. Therefore it shouldn't be analyzed the same way.

--Rich

Answer 2

Yes I believe we should analyze religion and put it to the test in our hearts and minds. If the day ever comes that the human race builds a computer that can verify the existence of spirits, angels or more, then we should keep an open mind to that possibility. We certainly aren't going to find it if we don't even look for it and say it isn't there.

We should be objective, because we know the Bible was translated from other languages, so there may be mistakes, things can be interpreted incorrectly either innocently or purposely. The age of the Bible should be taken into consideration, for what the people of that time period would call something. If God spoke to a people thousands of years ago, it would be different than if he spoke to the people of today. If a race from another galaxy came here thousands of years ago, and those people thought it was God, and that race gave this race some guidelines to go by so we could better ourselves, they would speak differently if they visited the people of today.

All possibilities are a possibility so an open mind is what puts all the possibilities out there for us to examine. Although this upsets some people I do not believe science cancels out God, or God cancels out science. Jesus said to doubt and seek the truth for ourselves. Isn't that what science is - truth seeking? Seems to me if science seeks the truth and God wants us to seek the truth then the two need to be compatible.

I have a very deep religious belief

Answer 3

Scientific minds do appreciate philosopher/ theologists St. Thomas Aquinas.

His writing style is very logical. However, my Priest said that to read the argument for first ... then the argument against ... then read all inbetween. I tryed to do this, but my mind is more abstract and has hard times grasping science and equation ways of solving problems ... I enjoy God most when thinking about what he smells like, and how God's day is going ... Anyways, here is a sample (from Wiki) on how St. Thomas Acquanis works:

"The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

The argument of the unmoved mover.
The argument of the first cause.
The argument of necessity.
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
The argument of perfection.
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
The argument of design. " <2>


We have not encountered such a fine and challenging theologian/ philosopher since.

Answer 4

The domain of science is unanswered questions. It also happens to be the domain of religion. There are points in history where religion claimed to have an answer to everything including the right to decide what was scientifically correct. The earth as center of the universe, Adam and Eve versus Darwin, to name some striking examples.. Despite their almost identical philosophical approach they differ in methodology. Belief versus proof. Over the past two centuries religion has been scrutinised and found lacking in proofs. Our most powerful drive seems to be an unbridled curiosity and thirst for knowledge not belief. Yes religion should be put under the microscope just as any other human activity. Personally I do not need to Believe in anything I need to Know

Answer 5

Science and religion have fundamentally different aims. Science strives to explain the natural world, tiny pieces at a time, through formulation of hypotheses and repeated experimentation. Scientific theories are only developed after the repeated experiments result in predictable results. Scientists demand proof that can only be obtained through repeated experimentation that result in repeatable results. Although individual scientists may be religious or not, science itself is not concerned with the presence or absence of any diety. Scientists almost universally agree that it is impossible to prove scientifically the existance or lack of existance of any diety, although there are scientists who have personal opinions about whether one exitst.

Religion strives to explain man's relationship with the universe. Texts and faith seem to be heavily represented, although I am not religious so I do not speak from personal experience. Religion is also experiential (although not, I think experimental). Adherents experience things that the non-religious do not. Those experiences can feel very powerful and meaningful - I don't deny this. However, they do not rise to any scientific standard of proof (remember, science does not concern itself with testing for the existence of a diety) because scientific proof requires predictable, repeatable results.

All that said, there are people who study religion academically, the way one studies sociology, economics, or anthropology. But not the way one studies biology, chemistry, or physics.

Answer 6

I agree with that, becaues there are a LOT of flaws within the bible (no I don't practice the bible nor do I want anything to do with it, I only read it and or listened to people about it because I wish to gather all knowlege about everything that there is on earth so that I will be all knowlegable, besides, I'm writing a religious tension book, I needed research material) that deserve critical examinations and explainations. But I have learned by reading bits of it I needed to, that it is mearly a work of fiction anyway so therefore examining it to critical levels and trying to decipher it is useless all together.

As for my religious affiliation, I practince my own that I put together.

Answer 7

Depends on why you want to "Analise" the religion. I love to study different religious practices to better understand world cultures and people of those traditions whom I encounter.
We can't really demonstrate the ultimate effectiveness of a belief except in the self-fulfillment of its followers. And that may really be subjective.
If we are seeking our own religious path, I think we should do a lot of study, talk to people from different religious groups and attend a variety of services.
I'm Unitarian Universalist and I think part of my belief is that UUs are not for everyone. Some people are happier as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Pagans or Atheists. And I am a theist or a believer in God.

Answer 8

Absolutely. I've been doing this for years. I consider that the United Unitarian Church would probably best represent my "religious" beliefs - We Are All One. Many great minds have asked the same questions you have. Groups of scholars have analyzed the religious texts of the world and what they found clarifies the teachings of Jesus (at least it did for me and gave me strength to be myself). Science reveals God in the perfection of nature. Scientists write about the wonder they experience as they see the patterns of life repeated over and over whether they're looking in a telescope or a microscope.

"To see the world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wild flower,
Is to hold infinity
In the palm of your hand,
And eternity
In and hour."

Answer 9

I believe that science itself is a sort of religion. According to part of a definition on google religion is "In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe". Science is answers that attempt to explain the relationship with the universe. Just because some of the stuff is true doesn't mean it's all fact. It's my belief that ALL religions have some basis in truth, no matter what they are, or how much that truth has in it. So yes, we should analyze everything. The only way to grow in our beliefs is to question them and to learn for ourselves why it is we believe what we do. ^_^

(I'm a pagan, just to answer that part of the question.)

Answer 10

You could not use scientific reasoning (Rene Descartes) with religion. It would never make it past the theory stage unless God was not being elusive to create faith for His own reason (mystery).
Descartes covered his butt when he said, "There are two things I know for sure... that I exist and God exists." If he was being objective he would not have said that he knows God exists. Maybe he did as Moses and Abraham did. I personally have seen things that God has done without a doubt but it could not be tested in a lab or test group.

Answer 11

Yes, in the sense that we should attempt to separate the truth from the fiction. At the same time, there is the necessary element of faith. However, having faith in something does not excuse blind acceptance of a theory/religion/person. I'm not saying that I need to see visual evidence of Jesus Christ, but I do like to know that what I believe is logical and grounded in an authoritative source. I am Catholic.