Science is repeatable. Religions aren't.

There are lots of reasons to choose science over religion. Chief among them, of course, is that science comes up with solid knowledge about reality, while religion doesn't. 

But I find science's repeatability to be an especially appealing feature of science. 

Meaning, if somehow all scientific knowledge were to disappear from the face of the Earth, while leaving humanity intact, there's little or no doubt that this knowledge eventually would be rediscovered. 

In other words, science is repeatable. It's methods aren't dependent on one-of-a-kind happenstance, like Einstein being born at a particular time and place with certain aptitudes. 

If Einstein hadn't come up with his theories of special and general relativity when he did, someone else would have trod the same scientific ground not long after.

Ditto with Darwin's theory of evolution. Others were on the verge of publishing their own take on evolution just when Darwin was about to, which, I recall reading, spurred Darwin to finish writing "On the Origin of Species" as soon as possible.

We can also easily imagine an alien civilization in a galaxy far, far away having much the same understanding of scientific reality as we humans do. Sure, their language, concepts, mathematics, and such probably would markedly differ from ours.

But almost certainly they'd have a similar understanding of atomic particles and the forces of nature as we do. After all, their basic physical reality would be the same as our basic physical reality.

By contrast, things would be very different if somehow all religious knowledge were to disappear from the face of the Earth. Or if we came into contact with an alien civilization and learned about what beliefs, if any, they might have in the realm of religion 

What are the chances that Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism would reappear if no trace of these religions remained? Essentially, zero. 

Same with every other religion, since each religion is heavily dependent on historical circumstances that can't be repeated. Jesus' supposed birth and death. The Koran being dictated to Muhammed by an angel. Hindu beliefs arising from ancient Indian sources.

Because Buddhism is the most psychological, and least supernatural, of the world's major religions, it's teachings would have the best chance of being rediscovered if all trace of Buddhism vanished. Even so, Buddhism obviously is a product of the insights arrived at by a specific person. 

Take away the Buddha, and you would still have Buddhism, yet in a markedly changed form. But take away Einstein, and the theory of relativity would be totally unaffected, since the theory rests on the nature of reality, not on any particular person.

Of course, most religious people find the non-repeatability of their faith to be a desirable feature. It gives them a pleasing feeling of being special. Jesus died for our sins so that we might live for eternity with our Father in heaven. Cool!

Unreal. But cool. 

Me, I prefer reality. Which is why I love science so much.

Particular people are responsible for scientific discoveries -- they don't fall out of the sky like snowflakes -- yet this knowledge has little or nothing to do with them, and everything to do with the nature of our world.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

Religious experience is Repeatable.

As an experience it is nearly universal, though subtle and often ignored or entirely inconscious. And not often well understood.

But labels and explanations are culture bound. And plentiful.

Science transcends culture labels generally but its areas of focus are both cultural and technology bound.

Therefore many truths remain unknown.

[Arun Marwah]

Love is the only religion.

[Tendzin]

Huh? The Judeo-Christian religious meme has existed for thousands of years, going through innumerable permutations that center on the idea that there's one transcendent God and He is our creator. The idea of one God (or multiple Gods) hasn't survived because of assiduous propagandizing any more than the Buddha's insights.

By the way, I think it's rather doubtful that we know that even the earliest Buddhist scriptures are the opinions of one person. To me, they read as if they were written by a committee or many different authors.

But again, back to the God issue: If science makes "discoveries," then who or what created what was discovered? The very fact that countless still unexplainable things have been discovered (laws of physics, the complexity of DNA, the inexplicable harmony of so many physical factors that make life on earth possible) show the limitations of science as all that humanity needs.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian : [ science comes up with solid knowledge about reality, while religion doesn't ]

Granted, credulous religious believers may not. Arguably though mystics
can and do. They assert that there's solid, repeatable knowledge about
reality to be found within consciousness itself. Mystics purport to answer
the age-old eternal questions such as "who are we" and "why are we here"
too.

But mystics, using scientific methodology, realize that knowledge inside
within consciousness itself via rigorous mindfulness and an intense de-
votional practice. Science on the other hand looks at outer phenomena
for repeatability in order to establish proof.

Science and mysticism both insist on proof. They both deal in reality too.

[Vinny]

Christian thieves cannot repeat the words of books they write from their mind. Unconscious Bluff of Christian thieves was exposed by Osho Rajneesh.

[Uchit]

RSSB marketing has branded their movements as SCIENCE of the soul. The reality is that it's a science to HELL and Lucifer/satan ~ yes it works.

Don't repeat the 5 evil satanic mantra as instructed by gurinder singh dhillon,
( the first word means the light of the devil). This repetition will induce a transce state which gives something else, the entity you call your master your power. This is like surrendering your mind body and soul over to demonic entities ( RSSB call it shabad). You have been warned.

[Ron E]

I tend to think that even if religion was to disappear - as we know it - it would soon arise again in some form, mainly because we are genetically programed to believe.

We seem to be incapable of living our lives with the reality that we are constantly presented with.

As the concepts of gods are disposed of they will quickly be replaced with beliefs in some mystical ideas surrounding dark matter, consciousness or perhaps the utterances of those who have had some neurological experience that they take to be 'spiritual' insights.

We are, by our very nature's somewhat doomed to live partly in a make believe state of mind.

[um]

@ Ron

Have some coffee and ask yourself ... what the different parts of your body are functional neeeded for and ask these questions also in a negative way

Suppose I could not move my thumb or had none?
What is the need of the thumb

In the end what is the function according you to have a mind?

Next make the step to culture
What is politics, why do we need it, how came it to be
and ...
end with the questions related to religion.
Why do some religions want people to do certain things and forbid others.

Give your own answers, not what can be found in books or what has been told to you.

It might take more than one cup of coffee ... do not forget to take apple pie and gaze in the distance ... and wonder about the birds and the trees in the same time.

[um]

> Particular people are responsible for scientific discoveries -- they don't fall out of the sky like snowflakes -- yet this knowledge has little or nothing to do with them, and everything to do with the nature of our world.<<

A couple of days I was give access to an life stream of scientists in congress relate to consciousness and things of that matter

The speaker stated that the redness of an object as seen by human beings is not a quality of the object and he explained that bats relate to the object in an other way.

That would mean that the what the scientists are measuring are not the qualities of the world, and that what can be measured is an endless projection of the scientist .. he measures what he wants to measure

The same as god is seeking himself through a human.

By putting 4 poles in the ground we have an measurable meadow. These poles where not there

[Ron E.]

Um. I don't drink coffee - and mind is a myth!

[um]

@ Ron

hahaha .....but how do you walk without a mind, or drive a car?

[manjit]

Hi Ron E, you write: "We seem to be incapable of living our lives with the reality that we are constantly presented with.
As the concepts of gods are disposed of they will quickly be replaced with beliefs in some mystical ideas surrounding dark matter, consciousness or perhaps the utterances of those who have had some neurological experience that they take to be 'spiritual' insights.
We are, by our very nature's somewhat doomed to live partly in a make believe state of mind."

I'm sorry, my reading this has made you very confused.

When you say "We" are incapable of living our lives "with the reality that we are constantly presented with", who is this royal "We" you refer to? Did you instead intend to mean OTHER people are unable to live with the "reality" YOU are presented with? Would that be a more accurate formulation of what you are trying to communicate?

Conversely, of course, the "concept" of "gods" and "mystical ideas" may well be the REALITY others are presented with, and YOU are unable to deal with that reality? Have you considered it?

It is strange you refer to concepts, beliefs and "make believe", yet seem to imply "neurological experience" is a semantic descriptor of reality that is identical or indistinguishable from the "reality we are constantly presented with", and beyond the "concepts" we are "doomed to live". This is, quite frankly, very bizarre and confused, if you ask me. It is just a conceptual belief, and quite, quite obviously so.

The primacy of consciousness, above and beyond that of intellectual, conceptual notions of "neurobiology" is, of course, the "reality we are faced with". To deny this self-evident fact and reality is to deny the reality we are faced with. This is inarguable.

Last night I came across news about this soon to be released new book by Iain McGilchrist the author of "The Master and his Emissary", and based of that did a quick youtube search and ended up watching a lecture of his until the early hours, which I wasn't expecting to do. I very rarely nowadays bother watching long lectures on consciousness, science or philosophy, but this was an absolute delight and thoroughly engrossing. One of the best 90 minute lectures on consciousness, science, matter and philosophy one can find.

It put's to the absolute sword, and thoroughly demolishes, the reductionist, materialist, pseudo-scientific views on consciousness, reality, being, matter and the universe which Brian and commenters like Ron E appear to closed-mindedly think is a settled matter (pardon the pun), when it is beyond obvious it's Mystery, and "mystical ideas", all the way down.

An absolute must watch whatever your current opinion is, this is a lecture by one of the deepest thinkers on the subject, way, way beyond the superficial pop-treatment of the subject that is often found here. But then I would say that, Iain is basically saying here what I have been writing in response to Brian's views for 10 or so years, so it is great to have a respected philosopher author to write what will no doubt be a brilliant and influential book on it. The world needs these kind of books to shift the popular understanding from the current unscientific, incoherent, inconsistent, circular, nihilistic, disconnected, ideological thinking of pseudo-scientific reductionist materialism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7O1Qa4Zb4s&ab_channel=TheWeekendUniversity

https://channelmcgilchrist.com/the-matter-with-things/

"Is the world essentially inert and mechanical – nothing but a collection of things for us to use?
Are we ourselves nothing but the playthings of chance, embroiled in a war of all against all?
Why, indeed, are we engaged in destroying everything that is valuable to us?"

"In this landmark new book, Iain McGilchrist addresses some of the oldest and hardest questions humanity faces – ones that, however, have a practical urgency for all of us today:
Who are we?
What is the world?
How can we understand consciousness, matter, space and time?
Is the cosmos without purpose or value?
Can we really neglect the sacred and divine?

In doing so, he argues that we have become enslaved to an account of things dominated by the brain’s left hemisphere, one that blinds us to an awe-inspiring reality that is all around us, had we but eyes to see it. He suggests that in order to understand ourselves and the world we need science and intuition, reason and imagination, not just one or two; that they are in any case far from being in conflict; and that the brain’s right hemisphere plays the most important part in each. And he shows us how to recognise the ‘signature’ of the left hemisphere in our thinking, so as to avoid making decisions that bring disaster in their wake.

Following the paths of cutting-edge neurology, philosophy and physics, he reveals how each leads us to a similar vision of the world, one that is both profound and beautiful – and happens to be in line with the deepest traditions of human wisdom.

It is a vision that returns the world to life, and us to a better way of living in it: one we must embrace if we are to survive."

[um]

@ Manjit

Reading your message these thoughts did arise:

There is "being" in reading books, watching movies, thinking about theories and there is "being"without all of these

[Life] [the meaning of life] is caught, not caught.

Um, you can not go on spending your life in learning .....talk the walk and walk the walk

the proof is in the eating

and ...

It was his Hukam to have you loose your job so that you can spend sime time here .... hahahaha

Later this day I will watch the video's and have myself informed as to what he has to say.

[Ron E.]

Manjit. Just to clarify, my reference to 'we' means we humans - generally. And my comment that 'We are, by our very nature's somewhat doomed to live partly in a make-believe state of mind' reflects what McGilchrist sees as being blinded to the awe-inspiring reality that is all around us.

I think McGilchrist makes some very good points in the video but note that he did not advocate anything unscientific. His theories very well conform to the science-based rigours that this blog talks about; meaning, they are open to peer review and revision (unlike some religious scriptures).

The book review states:- "He argues that we have become enslaved to an account of things dominated by the brain’s left hemisphere, one that blinds us to an awe-inspiring reality that is all around us, had we but eyes to see it. He suggests that in order to understand ourselves and the world we need science and intuition, reason and imagination, not just one or two; that they are in any case far from being in conflict; and that the brain’s right hemisphere plays the most important part in each. And he shows us how to recognise the ‘signature’ of the left hemisphere in our thinking, so as to avoid making decisions that bring disaster in their wake".

It's not a question of 'being unable to deal with other people's reality' as you posit but more to do with (as McGilchrist mentions) a question of recognising that people are - again as he says ". . being blinded to an awe-inspiring reality that is all around us." People who take the view like Brian and myself (as you mentioned) could very well live the type of "awe-inspiring reality" that McGilchrist talks of - who's to say?

[manjit]

Hi Um - thanks of your reply - I pretty much entirely agree with you!

Reading what you write recently, I think you will enjoy the video if you have an interest in the philosophy of consciousness. I think he mentions a few things I believe you have hinted at recently, and on this thread, subtle things....

Re Hukam? :)

Hi Ron E, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

However, your my reading your reply has again led to you being confused.

You write: "I think McGilchrist makes some very good points in the video but note that he did not advocate anything unscientific."

Your lack of precision in both understanding and language has led you to completely miss the point. Of course McGilchrist is advocating something "unscientific", he is advocating a more holistic, "right-brained", philosophical appreciation and understanding of the ontological mystery of our being conscious, which is by definition "unscientific". What you should have said is, McGilchrist is not advocating anything which CONTRADICTS science. This is a very subtle, but fundamentally important distinction to make.

And, of course, McGilchrist is not CONTRADICTING science when he states that the idea the brain either generates consciousness, or consciousness does not exist (the position of the materialist reductionists, as Brian has advocated here for years), is the least likely of multiple theories and scenarios, and that it is more likely that consciousness creates matter (though he posits a more non-dual theory as even more likely, as I have also posited here over the years). These are philosophical positions which, those of an ideological bent who, influenced by pop-culture and pop-science and pop-philosophy, mistakenly confuse with the scientific process ITSELF, like Brian has done on this blog for years.

So, when you reduce the reality as it is presented to SOME - mystical experiences, paranormal experienced, NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic experiences, etc etc - whether they seek or "believe" in such experiences beforehand - with a condescending, dismissive label of "neurobiological", you are not actually commenting about reality as it is, or the reality as other's face it, or anything so deep - you are merely commenting on your own beliefs and concepts which limit reality to "neurobiology" to create the scientifically speaking (because science really, really hasn't got a clue, as McGilchrist hints at throughout) illusion of knowledge and understanding; you imagine you are staring at reality as it is whereas it is obvious you are merely staring at the mirror of your own mind and it's pet concepts, no more or less than any religious person.

You write "People who take the view like Brian and myself (as you mentioned) could very well live the type of "awe-inspiring reality" that McGilchrist talks of - who's to say?"

Yes, of course. It is of course possible the Taliban are also merely trying to convert us all to their joyous, beautiful vision of heaven on earth, it's really not for me to say.

However, again, I think you're missing the point of McGilchrist's new book......he is saying PRECISELY the kind of out-dated, Newtonian view of physics and consciousness that Brian has been advocating for years, and which from your brief comments appearing to flippantly dismiss the neurobiological "mystical "fantasies of those unable to face reality as you so surely bravely do, are the cause of many the problems in the world today. I, of course, have been saying as much for years. But the evolution of history, from the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, atheists etc, leading to the incredibly dis-connected from each other and nature Monotheistic God of Mindless Matter, at the altar of which Brian has sacrificed his head, apparently, is a very, very long story. All we need to remember is the 20th century, the century of secular horrors and atrocities, and the 21st century desecration and destruction of nature by a science based on disconnection from nature and each other, rampant individualisation and greed, because, hey "survival of the fittest". Thank God McGilchrist has written a book about it. Read it. ;)

[Ron E.]

The reality that we all share is the reality that we experience via the senses. This is the domain not only of science but of a world that we can agree on and share. It is a world of wonder and immense meaning.

But this is never enough for us. Perhaps through fear we desperately crave something to give our lives more meaning. This basic insecurity drives the many beliefs we hold.

The world we inhabit, along with our ability to recognize such everyday sublime is lost amongst our habit of forcing it into riged concepts. We 'fix it' mentally, making it static and dull.

Through science, through our sense of wonder and connection to it all, we have the potential to live in harmony, yet our various mind created beliefs keep us wanting that which ultimately is unsatisfactory.

[Dungeness]

@ Ron E. : [Through science, through our sense of wonder and connection to it all, we have the potential to live in harmony, yet our various mind created beliefs keep us wanting that which ultimately is unsatisfactory.]

Agreed. But mystics argue that sense of wonder and connection must
be expansive enough to include the domain inside you. A focused path
of minfulness will shed light on that insecurity, fear, and loss of the
sublime that you mention. That darkness comes from inside us and
remain until seen and unravelled.

These are the "mind created" beliefs that are so problematic. This
is "the world we inhabit", replete with mental fixups ", making it all
"static and dull". But they must be sought and remedied at their
source inside and not by looking for solutions outside.