Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

In reply to the discussion: The Science of Religion [View all]

Bretton Garcia

(970 posts)
9. There have been many pseudoscientific religious movements
Mon Jun 24, 2019, 03:06 AM
Jun 2019

Though? Over the last 100 years, the behavioral sciences have improved SOMEWHAT.

In any case, I'm professionally interested in the many neglected moments where even the Bible itself seems to describe and advocate the application of the experimental method to religion and God. Especially Dan. 1.4-15 KJE, and 1 Kings 18.20-40.

Obviously Christians did not take those parts of the Bible very seriously. But what if they had? Then, some hint, Christianity would usefully implode.

More than a decade ago, there was an article on this in "Skeptic"; an atheist magazine.

In the very interesting Bible examples above, it was claimed that science had, in several cases, scientifically proved that Judaism and Christianity can control great physical powers, miracles. But? Modern science demands that we periodically re-do old experiments, to see if they were accurate. To see if we can "replicate" them, and confirm them ...or not.

And of course, if we do that, then we quickly show that the old promises of physical miracles were flatly false.

So? I find it very useful to quote those two examples above, and others, to Christians. To show them that Christianity eventually ... demolishes itself.

Ultimately, the Bible didn't finally support faith: it ultimately demanded that we question, examine all the claims of Christianity, with real, genuine experimental method. And if Christianity today fails those experiments? Then, amazingly, the Bible itself demands that Christians acknowledge the failure of their religion.

In Dan. 1.4-15 KJE. And 1Kings 18.20-40, especially.

Maybe we aren't supposed to "test" - or better translated, "tempt" - fate, by very rash deeds. But amazingly, the Bible itself did allow and even command believers to begin the careful scientific testing of Christian assertions, promises of miracles, spirits.

"Put me to the test" says God; "test everything," added St. Paul. And in that way, discover your old religion, Christianity, is "false." A false prophet; a "false Christ."

In the end, the Bible usefully cancels itself.

So some atheists have decided to write some articles and books on this.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The Science of Religion [View all] MineralMan Jun 2019 OP
The study of religion does though... uriel1972 Jun 2019 #1
Not using the scientific method, though. MineralMan Jun 2019 #2
Well, there IS anthropology, sociology of religion. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #3
I was thinking more along these lines uriel1972 Jun 2019 #4
Theology, apologetics, creationism, Historical Jesus advocacy, pretend to be very rational Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #5
Those are very soft sciences that often produce MineralMan Jun 2019 #6
Yes. Though more scientific examination of faith-healing claims, etc., could be less problematic. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #7
You know the "hard sciences" aren't much better in that regard. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #12
I have no brief against the social sciences, actually. MineralMan Jun 2019 #13
I'm just saying I think the term "science" still applies. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2019 #14
OK. It's a rich area of discussion. MineralMan Jun 2019 #15
Hey, whatabout scientology? Major Nikon Jun 2019 #8
There have been many pseudoscientific religious movements Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #9
There's all sorts of examples in the bible that destroy Christianity Major Nikon Jun 2019 #10
Yes, faith is the problem. With its attacks on Reason. But? Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #11
They already pick and chose which parts to ignore anyway Major Nikon Jun 2019 #16
Yeah Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #18
I'm all for anything that works, I just don't see the tactic as being all that effective Major Nikon Jun 2019 #19
I encourage both methods, and then some. Bretton Garcia Jun 2019 #20
Or worse... NeoGreen Jun 2019 #17
This should be in the unintentionally humorous Group. eom guillaumeb Jun 2019 #21
And yet, here it is in the Religion Group, since it is about religion. MineralMan Jun 2019 #22
No, it is about your unprovable opinion about an unprovable subject. guillaumeb Jun 2019 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Science of Religion»Reply #9