The Science of Religion

[sexypanda]

I found this article in last week's New Yorker. Just wondering what your thoughts were on this:

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/060403crbo_books

The article discusses the topic of religion from an evolutionary and economic viewpoint. Really interesting stuff.

[evolvedForm]

I actually heard Dennett speak recently and it was on this topic. I tend to agree with his push for religion to be studied scientifically. Other than that he didn't offer too much new stuff.

[pilliwinks]

Let me say I really like Dennett, and have found some of his ideas on cognition to be stimulating and insightful.

Having said that, I find him embarrassing on the topic of evolution, and I suspect has little more insight into religion. Does he also propose the scientific study of love? beauty?

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if there were enough money in the science budget to fund this kind of ...um... stuff.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Does he also propose the scientific study of love? beauty?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect there's research in those going on constantly. Wasn't something published recently on symmetry, as well as various face and body ratios that make people attractive, and why babies are cute, and ...?

If something has a cause, it's fodder for science. It's hard to think of a subject that is causeless. Obviously I'm missing the intent of your comment.

luckyme

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I find him embarrassing on the topic of evolution, and I suspect has little more insight into religion. Does he also propose the scientific study of love? beauty?

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if there were enough money in the science budget to fund this kind of ...um... stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]


Absolutely tons of this already going on.

[Matt Jenko]

if there is a chance something can be measured, science will have a crack at it.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Dennett, the earliest stages of religion were likely characterized by speculations about supernatural or quasi-natural beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is science? Where is there any evidence of this? How would you ever test such a theory?

This type of stuff is certainly interesting and probably is pretty close to the truth. Plausable explanation...yes. Science....no.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to Dennett, the earliest stages of religion were likely characterized by speculations about supernatural or quasi-natural beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is science? Where is there any evidence of this? How would you ever test such a theory?

This type of stuff is certainly interesting and probably is pretty close to the truth. Plausable explanation...yes. Science....no.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science doesnt have to be based on direct observation - inferential evidence is certainly admissable too. Obviously, it hasnt really begun yet so it is hard to speculate what might provide evidence - but I think those elements of a religion which are "inviolate" may well correlate with the ones that arose earlier. Also, common trends occurring in all religions would seem to be evidence that they arose universally, before contact between them (and presumably early in their existence).

I am not suggesting these are necessarily right, nor that these are the only possible avenues of research (they are unlikely to be given I have devoted about 60 seconds to thinking about it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) - however it doesnt seem impossible to me to conduct some form of scientific study of the issue.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to Dennett, the earliest stages of religion were likely characterized by speculations about supernatural or quasi-natural beings.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is science? Where is there any evidence of this? How would you ever test such a theory?

This type of stuff is certainly interesting and probably is pretty close to the truth. Plausable explanation...yes. Science....no.

[/ QUOTE ]
Science doesnt have to be based on direct observation - inferential evidence is certainly admissable too. Obviously, it hasnt really begun yet so it is hard to speculate what might provide evidence - but I think those elements of a religion which are "inviolate" may well correlate with the ones that arose earlier. Also, common trends occurring in all religions would seem to be evidence that they arose universally, before contact between them (and presumably early in their existence).
I am not suggesting these are necessarily right, nor that these are the only possible avenues of research (they are unlikely to be given I have devoted about 60 seconds to thinking about it /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) - however it doesnt seem impossible to me to conduct some form of scientific study of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as Dennetts premise that early religion was speculation about the supernatural, I would think its more likely that it was speculation about the natural...ie it was the earliest attempts at science. When answers didnt come easily, knowledge abhors a vacuum, and the vaccum would have been filled with supernatural beings who did know all the answers.

In the bolded part, if by "arose universally" you mean they had a common source, that isnt implied by similarities in the themes.

They more likely would arise because of common experiences and common areas of inquiry.

Eg, since most civilizations form around bodies of water, flood stories would be common. Creation stories would be common since religion was also the science of the times, and the most obvious question anyone can ask is "how did we get here".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In the bolded part, if by "arose universally" you mean they had a common source, that isnt implied by similarities in the themes.

They more likely would arise because of common experiences and common areas of inquiry.

Eg, since most civilizations form around bodies of water, flood stories would be common. Creation stories would be common since religion was also the science of the times, and the most obvious question anyone can ask is "how did we get here".

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that a common source isnt implied - I was speaking from the assumption that there is no supernatural "source" and religion is a human/social invention. My first thought was that universal themes would provide guidance as to what answers were sought after in the initial invention of religion - I dont know if this is reasonable on more reflection (as I said I only gave it a minute's thought). Nonetheless, I dont think it is correct to say science is impossible here (the claim I was responding to). The data of science doesnt have to be quantitative, nor arising from direct observation - inference and data similar to what I was suggesting make it possible to practise science.

Edit: Arose universally was a poor choice of words - I meant that if there are elements that all religions attempted to answer before coming into contact with other cultures and religions, then it provides evidence that there are some "universal questions" humans want an answer to.

[chrisnice]

All this stuff seems to be of historical interest, not science. Studying and further investigating the stuff you mention would probably earn one a degree in the humanities.

[bunny]

Perhaps it depends on whether you think "social science" is well named. It is probable that I have given poor examples as I dont have any knowledge or experience in the field and didnt give it much thought - the point I was making is that there probably are facts we can infer about early religions that we can use to test hypotheses. This seems all that is necessary to use science to study religion.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
All this stuff seems to be of historical interest, not science. Studying and further investigating the stuff you mention would probably earn one a degree in the humanities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree somewhat. But I think studying the actual religous experiences people have would make for an extremely interesting scientific study. Using brain scans to measure what actually happens to the brain during contact with "God" and during meditation, prayer, or deeply felt worship experience and comparing that between various religion would definitely be interesting.

[pilliwinks]

EEGs of people from different backgrounds meditating/praying has been done a bunch of times. For what it's worth, there is a very distinct pattern that you get, and yes, it is comparable between the faiths.

Sadly, the EEG neglected to measure whether or not anybody up there was listening, so it just showed that several kinds of people are able to get really, really relaxed without drugs.