The Religious Method

[Wiccan_Child]

What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?

This excludes science motivated by religion (e.g., a scientist who discovers a cure for HIV/AIDS via wholly natural, scientific methods, but does so out of Christian charity), and such knowledge has to be something we actually know within all reasonable doubt (e.g., the existence of atoms), not religious notions yet to be verified (e.g., reincarnation, angels, hell) or falsely predicted (e.g., claims akin to those found in horoscopes).

 

[Strathos]

That is not the purpose of religion.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In other words have there been any scientific discoveries which did not involve using actual science?

Gee, I wonder ...

Also, what exactly is "religious methodology"?

 

[AV1611VET]

What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?

The Hittites.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In other words have there been any scientific discoveries which did not involve using actual science?

Gee, I wonder ...

Also, what exactly is "religious methodology"?

What indeed Information is 'scientific' if we know of it through science (e.g., evolution). However, that does not preclude the knowledge coming from other sources - hypnotic regression, divine revelation, psychic divination, etc. The information gleaned from these sources might also be verifiable with science, making them scientifically and religiously acquired.

For example, suppose God revealed unto a preacher (who had no prior knowledge of biology or medicine) a 100% guaranteed, side-effect free cure for cancer. This knowledge is not scientific knowledge, as it wasn't given by scientific means. However, that doesn't mean science can't take the claim and verify it, making it scientific knowledge. [EDIT: to clarify, such knowledge would be both religious and scientific, as it's religious in origin and scientific in verification.]

Suppose God revealed this knowledge to the preacher after he prayed for it. That could well constitute a religious method for acquiring method, and indeed it's been touted as one since time immemorial. Similar information could well be attained by the many varieties of occult divination (tarot cards, entrails, bones, palms, tea leaves, etc), or through unprompted divine revelation (as is supposed to have happened in the book of Revelations, the Qu'ran, etc).

Given the many ways that people have claimed to have acquired knowledge via religious (or otherwise supernatural or paranormal) means, have any such claims been subsequently verified by science?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Hittites.

Come again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Come again?

Unless I misunderstand your OP, I offer the Hittites as an example of an empire that children learned about in Sunday School, LONG before archaeologists discovered them.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, suppose God revealed unto a preacher (who had no prior knowledge of biology or medicine) a 100% guaranteed, side-effect free cure for cancer. This knowledge is not scientific knowledge, as it wasn't given by scientific means. However, that doesn't mean science can't take the claim and verify it, making it scientific knowledge.

Thus science would take the credit for "discovering" the universe is expanded, even though it was taught in churches LONG before Hubble ever lived?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

For example, suppose God revealed unto a preacher (who had no prior knowledge of biology or medicine) a 100% guaranteed, side-effect free cure for cancer. This knowledge is not scientific knowledge, as it wasn't given by scientific means. However, that doesn't mean science can't take the claim and verify it, making it scientific knowledge.

Suppose God revealed this knowledge to the preacher after he prayed for it. That could well constitute a religious method for acquiring method, and indeed it's been touted as one since time immemorial. Similar information could well be attained by the many varieties of occult divination (tarot cards, entrails, bones, palms, tea leaves, etc), or through unprompted divine revelation (as is supposed to have happened in the book of Revelations, the Qu'ran, etc).

Given the many ways that people have claimed to have acquired knowledge via religious (or otherwise supernatural or paranormal) means, have any such claims been subsequently verified by science?

So you're asking whether any scientific discoveries have been made through divine revelation?

Hmm ... none that I can think of off the top of my head. Most divine revelations mentioned in the Bible have more to do with future events (prophecies) raher than anything to do with science.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Unless I misunderstand your OP, I offer the Hittites as an example of an empire that children learned about in Sunday School, LONG before archaeologists discovered them.

That would probably have more to do with history rather than science.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would probably have more to do with history rather than science.

I tend to give science too much credit.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?

This excludes science motivated by religion (e.g., a scientist who discovers a cure for HIV/AIDS via wholly natural, scientific methods, but does so out of Christian charity), and such knowledge has to be something we actually know within all reasonable doubt (e.g., the existence of atoms), not religious notions yet to be verified (e.g., reincarnation, angels, hell) or falsely predicted (e.g., claims akin to those found in horoscopes).

There are no truths about the universe which have been a product of wholly religious methodology. None. It's one of the great failures of religion. Has religion ever cured a single disease? Developed new techniques for farming to keep men from starvation? No.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are no truths about the universe which have been a product of wholly religious methodology. None.

God (or "religion," as you guys would probably refer Him) created the hardware that is this universe.

If I read the OP right, it is akin to asking if Black & Decker ever built a single thing.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are no truths about the universe which have been a product of wholly religious methodology. None. It's one of the great failures of religion. Has religion ever cured a single disease? Developed new techniques for farming to keep men from starvation? No.

Religion - particularly Christianity and Islam - helped develop the scientific method. So by extension it has helped eliminate disease and improved farming techniques.

(Also, I have no idea why so many "Buddhists" on CF are critical of religion. Buddhism is a religion.)

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Religion - particularly Christianity and Islam - helped develop the scientific method. So by extension it has helped eliminate disease and improved farming techniques.

Really? What evidence do you have of this? And that's not what the OP asked. He asked about knowledge generated by religion techniques: revelation, reading entrails, etc.

(Also, I have no idea why so many "Buddhists" on CF are critical of religion. Buddhism is a religion.)

You speak from a position of ignorance. Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Really? What evidence do you have of this? And that's not what the OP asked. He asked about knowledge generated by religion techniques: revelation, reading entrails, etc.

I've already answered Wiccan_Child's question.

Several christians and many muslims helped develop the scientific method. These include: Ibn-al-Haytham, Robert Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon and William of Ockham.

You speak from a position of ignorance. Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.

The Western world is not the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion - but even by Western definitions Buddhism counts as a religion because it contains supernatural beliefs, including belief in an afterlife. Stricter forms of Buddhism are more similar to a religion than more modern, liberal forms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.

Then is it a religion as the Eastern world understands it?

Buddhism is a religion...

SOURCE

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I've already answered Wiccan_Child's question.

Several christians and many muslims helped develop the scientific method. These include: Ibn-al-Haytham, Robert Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, Roger Bacon and William of Ockham.

Not relevant to the OP.

The Western world is not the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion - but even by Western definitions Buddhism counts as a religion because it contains supernatural beliefs, including belief in an afterlife. Stricter forms of Buddhism are more similar to a religion than more modern, liberal forms.

False. I'm the Buddhist, I know. No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs.

What is samsara? what is Nirvana?

 

[Redac]

Not relevant to the OP.




False. I'm the Buddhist, I know. No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs.

Are you claiming no school of Buddhism has those thing? Or just that whatever school you may subscribe to does not?