Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?

[suspiciousperson]

I guess religion is not the right word then, as on reflection I agree that religion basically implies guaranteed bollocks in the sense that there will be assertions that cannot be justified.

Maybe the word I'm looking for is "movement" or something.

One reason I ask is because as someone who is basically atheist, when I have been involved in volunteer work there are a load of religious people there, far more than in the general UK population (or if that's not the case, they're more vocal about it - tbh before I got involved in charitable volunteer stuff I don't think I knew a single person who went to church at all regularly and even now most of the ones I know are weirdos like that. That kind of depresses me to be perfectly honest because in my view religion tends to make one less ethical. So it'd be nice to have something that thinking folk could *join*...

 

[Udarnik]

I guess religion is not the right word then, as on reflection I agree that religion basically implies guaranteed bollocks in the sense that there will be assertions that cannot be justified.

Maybe the word I'm looking for is "movement" or something.

One reason I ask is because as someone who is basically atheist, when I have been involved in volunteer work there are a load of religious people there, far more than in the general UK population (or if that's not the case, they're more vocal about it - tbh before I got involved in charitable volunteer stuff I don't think I knew a single person who went to church at all regularly and even now most of the ones I know are weirdos like that. That kind of depresses me to be perfectly honest because in my view religion tends to make one less ethical. So it'd be nice to have something that thinking folk could *join*...

Don't you have Unitarians in the UK anymore? They don't seem to believe anything specific except a general spirituality, but they are just as involved as other church folk in charity work around here. They run and house the local homeless shelter f'rinstance.

 

[Gib]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

probably need to ask

what would Moses do?

Part the red sea? :confused2:

 

[MrNobody]

I guess religion is not the right word then, as on reflection I agree that religion basically implies guaranteed bollocks in the sense that there will be assertions that cannot be justified.

Maybe the word I'm looking for is "movement" or something.

One reason I ask is because as someone who is basically atheist, when I have been involved in volunteer work there are a load of religious people there, far more than in the general UK population (or if that's not the case, they're more vocal about it - tbh before I got involved in charitable volunteer stuff I don't think I knew a single person who went to church at all regularly and even now most of the ones I know are weirdos like that. That kind of depresses me to be perfectly honest because in my view religion tends to make one less ethical. So it'd be nice to have something that thinking folk could *join*...

I don't know how active she is nowadays, but this atheist blind chick from the UK had some interesting stuff to say, a couple of years ago. At least enough to impress me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns6iZ1ttQaE

Apart from that: Why do you feel the need to join something?

 

[Rmack]

Is this the period where he was working with Parsons on the Moonchild? Was that his day gig while he was whining to the VA about indigestion and flat feet?

Yes

This is the one part of his bio that I've never heard much about - why in the blue fuck was he posing as a swami? Was this his first foray into religion?

Yes

And who the fuck would trust a red-haired swami in a turban? (Or am I imagining that I once saw a photo of him in a turban from this era?)

I can see that you've never been to California.

 

[Rmack]

that one is probably true, it fits well with what he was doing and how. crowley was big with turbans you know

And rings. Don't forget rings. And pipes.

 

[Student of Trinity]

No. First, it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory . Second, it flies in the face of tested scientific theories of what we currently know to be true about the universe. Like I said, you need to have a good grounding in physics to see my point..

I've got a pretty decent grounding in physics but I still don't get it. What do you not like about the Big Bang?

 

[Udarnik]

I can see that you've never been to California.

Touche.

But I have, San Fran 4 times, San Diego 3 times, and LA / Hollywood once. My impression of San Fran and LA was that, while many of you are nuts, most of you are not actively stupid.

But I guess I should also have considered the great sage, PT Barnum.

 

[Rmack]

I've got a pretty decent grounding in physics but I still don't get it. What do you not like about the Big Bang?

I know!

I love the fact that it happened suddenly.

I like to tell atheists; 'Sure, first there was nothing, and then for no reason at all, it exploded.'

 

[Rmack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ty_WlmIKvY

 

[Rmack]

whoops

 

[Rmack]

Touche.

But I have, San Fran 4 times, San Diego 3 times, and LA / Hollywood once. My impression of San Fran and LA was that, while many of you are nuts, most of you are not actively stupid.

But I guess I should also have considered the great sage, PT Barnum.

Yeah, you shoulda. Laffy definitely did.

 

[Rmack]

probably need to ask

what would Moses do?

Part the red sea? :confused2:

His faith would fail, and he'd have to smack the rock with his staff to make the water flow.

 

[Rmack]

No. And going back to the original question (Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?): That'd also be a "No" from me.

Why do I think so?

Because religion is strictly about belief. Of course one can believe that one ended up in an ugly thunderstorm because the god Thor wasn't too pleased with something one had or hadn't done and that'd be it.

Science has nothing to do with belief, it's just a good method to gain knowledge using the "tools" one has available. The "tools" usually being the knowledge gathered by previous "(re)searchers".

Science asks "why?" and religion replies "Because your deity of choice planned it that way."

So, since I don't think science and religion can ever find a way to work successfully together, my overall answer is "No".

It's interesting to me that what a large percentage of people apparently don't notice is that 'facts' passing themselves off as being scientific, really aren't either.

It's pretty much the spirit of our former cult. 'Scien' tology? We now know the 'ol bastard pretty much made it up as he went along. The exact opposite of science!

Not surprisingly, many other institutions in our modern world operate on this same business model.

The universities have an unbroken record of being the unquestionably right authorities on reality, looking down with scorn on the uneducated masses.....until they weren't! Over and over again! Even in modern times!

I love to quote this tenured professor from an American university during the early part of the Twentieth Century that pontificated on how heavier-than-air flight was clearly impossible to educated people, and those who believed otherwise where simply ignorant of the scientific facts that they knew.

I won't, though, because he's had enough abuse. If he hasn't learned his lesson by now, it's hopeless.

My point is, most people don't do the research on 'Scientific' and just assume that because it's promoted so thoroughly by all those obviously educated people, that someone must have qualified the findings, so it's obviously true.

This is what lured me into our cult, friends. Don't let them fool you. They are just like us.

 

[OhMG]

I don't think I knew a single person who went to church at all regularly and even now most of the ones I know are weirdos like that. That kind of depresses me to be perfectly honest because in my view religion tends to make one less ethical. So it'd be nice to have something that thinking folk could *join*...

Um, you have ignored world history for the last 100 years. Study up and you're viewpoint will change on that.

 

[Teanntás]

I keep reading on this forum that not everything LRH wrote is a scam (to which the obvious reply is Hitler loved puppies).

Moving away from scientology tech, there are loads of interesting psychological thingies, often taught by counseullers etc (e.g. CBT, interpreting body language) or even magicians (e.g. cold reading).

Is there much chance that a "nice" religion/movement could be created from scientific research, with no dogma and no founder-beyond-reproach, etc etc? And would anyone join it?

John Stewart Bell

"............Of course, it is true that also in classical mechanics any isolation of a parti­
cular system from the world as a whole involves approximation. But at least one can
envisage an accurate theory, of the universe, to which the restricted account is an
approximation. This is not possible in quantum mechanics, which refers always to an
outside observer, and for which therefore the universe as a whole is an embarrassing
concept. It could also be said (by one unduly influenced by positivistic philosophy)
that even in classical mechanics the human observer is implicit, for what is inter­
esting if not experienced? But even a human observer is no trouble (in principle)
in classical theory - he can be included in the system (in a schematic way) by postu­
lating a psycho - physical parallelism" - i. e ., supposing his experience to be cor­
related with some functions of the co-ordinates. This is not possible in quantum
mechanics, where some kind of observer is not only essential, but essentially outside.
In classical mechanics we have a model of a theory which is not intrinsically inexact,
for it neither needs nor is embarrassed by an observer......."

http://dspace.nacs.uci.edu/bitstrea...preprint with Everett comments.pdf?sequence=1

So there YOU are

 

[Teanntás]

Yes, and it is called Science! It's mind-blowing ...


[video=youtube;XGK84Poeynk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/video]

[video=youtube;DZGINaRUEkU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU[/video]

Absolutely beautiful and inspiring - thanks!

http://vimeo.com/39982578

 

[Student of Trinity]

John Stewart Bell

"............Of course, it is true that also in classical mechanics any isolation of a parti­
cular system from the world as a whole involves approximation. But at least one can
envisage an accurate theory, of the universe, to which the restricted account is an
approximation. This is not possible in quantum mechanics, which refers always to an
outside observer, and for which therefore the universe as a whole is an embarrassing
concept. It could also be said (by one unduly influenced by positivistic philosophy)
that even in classical mechanics the human observer is implicit, for what is inter­
esting if not experienced? But even a human observer is no trouble (in principle)
in classical theory - he can be included in the system (in a schematic way) by postu­
lating a psycho - physical parallelism" - i. e ., supposing his experience to be cor­
related with some functions of the co-ordinates. This is not possible in quantum
mechanics, where some kind of observer is not only essential, but essentially outside.
In classical mechanics we have a model of a theory which is not intrinsically inexact,
for it neither needs nor is embarrassed by an observer......."

I think my first post-doc job was paid in part under some kind of grant about quantum cosmology. I never actually worked on that, but at some point I saw an official document that stated the purpose of my employment as being, 'To investigate the effects of quantum mechanics upon the universe." At the time I think it reinforced my feeling that my employers were over-estimating my capabilities. I wish I had kept a copy of that, now.

 

[Teanntás]

I think my first post-doc job was paid in part under some kind of grant about quantum cosmology. I never actually worked on that, but at some point I saw an official document that stated the purpose of my employment as being, 'To investigate the effects of quantum mechanics upon the universe." At the time I think it reinforced my feeling that my employers were over-estimating my capabilities. I wish I had kept a copy of that, now.

"'To investigate the effects of quantum mechanics upon the universe."

Well, get to it

I'm listening to these talks at the moment

http://www.rexvox.com/videofeed/lpQkP7LVCFY

 

[Teanntás]

I know!

I love the fact that it happened suddenly.

I like to tell atheists; 'Sure, first there was nothing, and then for no reason at all, it exploded.'

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/big-bang-8.jpg

"...The most important concept to get across when talking about the big bang is expansion. Many people think that the big bang is about a moment in which all the matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a tiny point. Then this point exploded, shooting matter across space, and the universe was born. In fact, the big bang explains the expansion of space itself, which in turn means everything contained within space is spreading apart from everything else. The illustrations below should help a little...."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory1.htm