The Religious Method

[Tomk80]

If you think that is what my post is saying then I don't think you've actually read it through.


No, I'm saying you can't make blanket statements like "So many Buddhists [are] hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe" as though Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion. Nobody can claim people have not been killed in the name of their religion. Indeed today Christians living outside the Western world are some of the most heavily persecuted.

But is that what Rilke's granddaughter was saying? It seemed to me that what she was saying is that buddhists (and I would probably include other religions and philosphies in this as well) become frustrated with Christians on Christian discussion boards because they tell them what they believe, instead of asking them and trying to get a good handle of what the person believes and that this can lead to hostile behavior on these boards. Nowhere whas she saying that "Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion", or even talking about religious persecution. You brought that into the discussion.

Don't start making this personal - I've only just met you and you're not exactly exemplifying the concept of Right Speech.

While her behavior could possibly be more patient, you aren't exactly behaving like a saint either. You are reading quite a lot into what she says as well, after she already pointed out that this is frustrating. Shouldn't that be something for you to listen to?

My argument isn't whether you're a "good" Buddhist or a "true" Buddhist;

But that is exactly what you yourself said.

my argument is saying things like Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife or anything supernatural is a basic factual error, akin to someone saying that going to church automatically makes them a Christian.

But she did not say "Buddhists don't believe". She said "stricter buddhists do not believe". Now, it would seem to me that the thing to ask then would be what she means by "stricter buddhists", as some have done. I would be interested in that answer as well. The problem here is that she is talking about her particular beliefs, while you are taking some of the more well-known beliefs of (possibly) a majority of buddhists, and portraying these onto her. She stated she is a Zen Buddhist, which while I would not immediately say it is not a religion, is definitely much closer to a philosphy than many other types of buddhism one can adhere too.

And if you'll forgive me for being snippy, I don't think it's a coincidence that the type of buddhist who complains so bitterly about religion is also the same type of buddist who claims Buddhism itself is not a religion. They are automatically exonerated from the same type of thinking they loudly and frequently criticise. You aren't the first one I've met.

What do you mean when you say "they are automatically exonerated from the same type of thinking they loudly and frequently criticize"? You do not know what her personal beliefs are and which stream of buddhism she adheres to, so you do not know whether she actually holds the same type of thinking she is criticizing. Shouldn't you establish that first?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

But is that what Rilke's granddaughter was saying? It seemed to me that what she was saying is that buddhists (and I would probably include other religions and philosphies in this as well) become frustrated with Christians on Christian discussion boards because they tell them what they believe, instead of asking them and trying to get a good handle of what the person believes and that this can lead to hostile behavior on these boards. Nowhere whas she saying that "Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion", or even talking about religious persecution. You brought that into the discussion.

While her behavior could possibly be more patient, you aren't exactly behaving like a saint either. You are reading quite a lot into what she says as well, after she already pointed out that this is frustrating. Shouldn't that be something for you to listen to?

But that is exactly what you yourself said.

But she did not say "Buddhists don't believe". She said "stricter buddhists do not believe". Now, it would seem to me that the thing to ask then would be what she means by "stricter buddhists", as some have done. I would be interested in that answer as well. The problem here is that she is talking about her particular beliefs, while you are taking some of the more well-known beliefs of (possibly) a majority of buddhists, and portraying these onto her. She stated she is a Zen Buddhist, which while I would not immediately say it is not a religion, is definitely much closer to a philosphy than many other types of buddhism one can adhere too.

What do you mean when you say "they are automatically exonerated from the same type of thinking they loudly and frequently criticize"? You do not know what her personal beliefs are and which stream of buddhism she adheres to, so you do not know whether she actually holds the same type of thinking she is criticizing. Shouldn't you establish that first?

+1

Well phrased, and sums up my thoughts exactly.

When the immediate response to, "I'm a Buddhist and certain schools of Buddhism don't believe X" is 30 seconds of Google and "no, your wrong. You're lying about being a Buddhist. I, a non-Buddhist and expert on Buddhism by virtue of my google-fu, declare you wrong, deluded, or dishonest", it DOES get a bit tiresome.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Funny how, whenever science and religion come into conflict, it's because of religious thinking, but whenever science and religion agree, it's because of scientific thinking.

That's usually because it is Nonetheless, that's just what this thread is about: are there indeed any cases where science and relgion agree and it's not because of science, but because of religion? That is, is there anything we know about, anything within the sphere of human knowledge, any medical cures or astronomical data or physical theories or what have you, that arose through religious means (prayer, divine revelation, oracular prophecy, etc) and not scientific means (though the latter may well have verified the former)?

Most early religious thinking relied on animism: natural phenomenon occured according to the will of the gods or spirits. The only way to change it was so try and appease them. By contrast, much of Christian theology was based on ideas from Greek philosophers like Thales (who believed the world worked like a giant machine) and Aristotle (who focused on the philosophy of causes and causality). Christians believed that if the world worked like a giant machine, then it must have had an inventor. We call that inventor God.

Indeed one of the reasons science never took off in China, despite being much more advanced than the Western world at the time, was because ...

There was no confidence that the code of nature's law could ever be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read.​

- 'The Grand Titration:
Science and Society in the East and West'
by Joseph Needham​

The idea of God as the creator of the natural world and the laws which govern it persist today. And because God was the creator of these laws, many Christian believed we could prove He exists by examining these laws. Both Augustine and Aquinas developed "proofs" of God based not on divine intervention but on reason and logic. They didn't argue that God exists because He spoke to them personally, they argued we could prove He existed by looking at the evidence.

It's probably fairer to say scientific thinking was developed by monotheism rather than Christianity alone. No eastern mystic religion helped developed the concept of the scientific method.

Indeed. But, the scientific method didn't arise out of prayer or revelation, it arose out of rational thought and deductive reasoning. The end goal may well have been to use science to prove God exists, but their method was not religious.

Suppose my faith tells me to cure children of HIV/AIDS, and I go out and actually find a cure. Wonderful! But, is that knowledge acquired by science or religion? That the intention is religious, that the motivation is religious, is irrelevant. It's the method that's important.

If my method was hypothesis, test, revision, retest, then the knowledge has been acquired by scientific means. If my method is to sit down, clasp my hands, and pray, then the knowledge has been acquired by religious means.

The intent behind my actions is irrelevant as to the OP. I'm asking if religious methods have given us knowledge, if prayer or divine revelation what have you yield things like medical cures, climatological predictions, warnings of natural disasters, etc.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is an atom?

A small (~0.00000001 m thick) ball-like nugget of mass; every single object in our day-to-day lives is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms of various types or 'elements'. How different atoms interact gives various objects their properties - it's the explanation for why air is gaseous while wood is solid, for why ice is lighter than water, etc. Though it's useful to think of atoms as discrete units, they are themselves made up of three smaller particles: tiny, light, negatively-charged electrons orbiting a nucleus of heavy, positively-charged protons and heavy, electrically neutral neutrons.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That's usually because it is Nonetheless, that's just what this thread is about: are there indeed any cases where science and relgion agree and it's not because of science, but because of religion? That is, is there anything we know about, anything within the sphere of human knowledge, any medical cures or astronomical data or physical theories or what have you, that arose through religious means (prayer, divine revelation, oracular prophecy, etc) and not scientific means (though the latter may well have verified the former)?

Indeed. But, the scientific method didn't arise out of prayer or revelation, it arose out of rational thought and deductive reasoning. The end goal may well have been to use science to prove God exists, but their method was not religious.

Suppose my faith tells me to cure children of HIV/AIDS, and I go out and actually find a cure. Wonderful! But, is that knowledge acquired by science or religion? That the intention is religious, that the motivation is religious, is irrelevant. It's the method that's important.

If my method was hypothesis, test, revision, retest, then the knowledge has been acquired by scientific means. If my method is to sit down, clasp my hands, and pray, then the knowledge has been acquired by religious means.

The intent behind my actions is irrelevant as to the OP. I'm asking if religious methods have given us knowledge, if prayer or divine revelation what have you yield things like medical cures, climatological predictions, warnings of natural disasters, etc.

And indeed, this cuts to the heart of the fundamental, and quite probably irreconcilable conflict between religion and science: they are two completely different techniques for acquiring knowledge of ourselves and the world.

Based purely on pragmatic considerations - how successful they are at generating such knowledge - religion has been an abject failure. As a technique of knowing, it has never brought a single new fact to the table. Science, on the other hand, has been wildly successful in generating knowledge.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nowhere whas she saying that "Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion", or even talking about religious persecution. You brought that into the discussion.

Actually what she said was ...

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.

I responded by saying ...

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

I then went on to say Buddhism counts as a religion because it believes in the supernatural and the afterlife. She in turn replied ...

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

The only reason she mentioned that Buddhists become annoyed with Christians telling them what to think was because I said no reputable source on Buddhism agrees with her description. Even the other atheist users like Redac and Wiccan_Child asked her to clarify whether she meant Buddhism in general or just her particular sect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But she did not say "Buddhists don't believe". She said "stricter buddhists do not believe".

Actually what she said (on page 2) was:

You speak from a position of ignorance. Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it.
...
False. I'm the Buddhist, I know. No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs.

I responded by saying that the West isn't the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion, and that "stricter" (older) forms of Buddhism reject the belief that there is no afterlife, using a definition found on a Buddhist dictionary.

She herself didn't mention she was Zen until page 3. Furthermore Zen Buddhism is still a religion - which was my main objection in the first place.

Tom80 if you're going to start whiteknighting for other users at least read everything they've said actually first. Suddenly jumping into a conversation which doesn't involve you is rather annoying, especially when you get it wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And indeed, this cuts to the heart of the fundamental, and quite probably irreconcilable conflict between religion and science: they are two completely different techniques for acquiring knowledge of ourselves and the world.

Based purely on pragmatic considerations - how successful they are at generating such knowledge - religion has been an abject failure. As a technique of knowing, it has never brought a single new fact to the table. Science, on the other hand, has been wildly successful in generating knowledge.

That's my suspicion as well.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Nonetheless, that's just what this thread is about: are there indeed any cases where science and relgion agree and it's not because of science, but because of religion? That is, is there anything we know about, anything within the sphere of human knowledge, any medical cures or astronomical data or physical theories or what have you, that arose through religious means (prayer, divine revelation, oracular prophecy, etc) and not scientific means (though the latter may well have verified the former)?
...
Suppose my faith tells me to cure children of HIV/AIDS, and I go out and actually find a cure. Wonderful! But, is that knowledge acquired by science or religion? That the intention is religious, that the motivation is religious, is irrelevant. It's the method that's important.

Sounds like a bit of a loaded question: even if God showed us how to cure AIDS through devine revelation, the actual method used to create that cure would require using the scientififc methods, and therefore counts as science. Sorry for being snippy (again) but this really sounds like you're moving the goalposts:

Religion has never helped advanced science.
Religion helped create the scientific method? No, people who happened to be religious helped create the scientific method.
Religion helped develop the concept of natural laws required for using the scientific method? No, that was just the intention. The scientific method itself gave us the results.

But I disgress. I've already mentioned prophecies, but I think it got lost among all the comments about Buddhism (LINK). The only examples that I can think of which involves gaining knowledge through divine intervention, but without using the scientific method to actually develop this new knowledge, would be miracles.

Miracles are quite common among tales of Saints; the story usually goes that the Saint renounced their old way of life, gained their new power through either faith or grace, and were able to help (or sometimes curse) people simply by touching them or speaking to them. But like I said earlier I think it would be almost impossible to actually verify whether or not they really happened.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Based purely on pragmatic considerations - how successful they are at generating such knowledge - religion has been an abject failure. As a technique of knowing, it has never brought a single new fact to the table. Science, on the other hand, has been wildly successful in generating knowledge.

That's my suspicion as well.

Which confirmes my suspicion that atheists will always believe that religion and science are incompatible, even when religion actively contributes to science.

 

[Tomk80]

Actually what she said was ...

I responded by saying ...

Yes, which was in no way, shape or form related to the direction you started to send the discussion in. You made the statement that the blamed all bad things on religion, which she never did.

I then went on to say Buddhism counts as a religion because it believes in the supernatural and the afterlife. She in turn replied ...

The only reason she mentioned that Buddhists become annoying with Christians telling them what to think was because I said no reputable source on Buddhism agrees with her description. Even the other atheist users like Redac and Wiccan_Child asked her to clarify whether she meant Buddhism in general or just her particular sect.

Quite a difference, n'est ce pas. Redac and Wiccan Child asked her to clarify what she meant. You did not. You stated what you could find she should believe, according to a site. As I already pointed out, Zen buddhism edges more in the direction of philosophy rather than religion. The beliefs you cited are not universal to buddhism, although they are among some of the more commonly believed tenants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually what she said (on page 2) was:

I responded by saying that the West isn't the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion, and that "stricter" (older) forms of Buddhism reject the belief that there is no afterlife, using a definition found on a Buddhist dictionary.

And here we again run into the dilemma. You assumed that stricter means older. But that is your assumption, not something you got from her.

She herself didn't mention she was Zen until page 3. Furthermore Zen Buddhism is still a religion - which was my main objection in the first place.

And as I pointed out in my post, I agreed with that point of yours. I will assume that I do not have to quote myself verbatim on that?

While your main objection was fairly obvious, the problem was that instead of criticizing her for what she actually believed, you brought along a whole lot of assumptions on what she believed and criticized her on those assumptions. You could have made your point with a whole lot less assumptions made so painfully obvious.

Tom80 if you're going to start whiteknighting for other users at least read everything they've said actually first. Suddenly jumping into a conversation which doesn't involve you is rather annoying, especially when you get it wrong.

And again with your assumptions. I read everything she and you wrote, multiple times. I am perfectly capable on following a conversation along and determining who is making assumptions where. I pointed out some places where you made assumptions, rather than asking her for clarification, both in this post and my previous one, and quite clearly pointed out where your assumptions differed from hers. Have you forgotten that you made the exact statements I criticized you on. Do I need to quote them again?

Have you actually done with my single post what you asked me to do with your entire conversation?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Actually what she said was ...

I responded by saying ...

I then went on to say Buddhism counts as a religion because it believes in the supernatural and the afterlife. She in turn replied ...

The only reason she mentioned that Buddhists become annoying with Christians telling them what to think was because I said no reputable source on Buddhism agrees with her description. Even the other atheist users like Redac and Wiccan_Child asked her to clarify whether she meant Buddhism in general or just her particular sect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually what she said (on page 2) was:

I responded by saying that the West isn't the ultimate authority on what counts as a religion, and that "stricter" (older) forms of Buddhism reject the belief that there is no afterlife, using a definition found on a Buddhist dictionary.

She herself didn't mention she was Zen until page 3. Furthermore Zen Buddhism is still a religion - which was my main objection in the first place.

Tom80 if you're going to start whiteknighting for other users at least read everything they've said actually first. Suddenly jumping into a conversation which doesn't involve you is rather annoying, especially when you get it wrong.

Once more, no acknowledgment that you failed to clarify things. No apologies for being wrong.

Are you a cannibal? If not, you're not a Christian. Precisely what you're doing.

You are reading into my post what you wish to see. Typical, really. And who brought up the whole, "Christians are so oppressed! Secular Japanese leaders oppressed us a few time!"

Jumping to conclusions and claiming to know what everyone else knows isn't exactly a sign of humility.

And I repeat, did you ask any questions? Did you look for clarifications? Nope. You just blithely announced I was wrong. And given your definitions, Zen isn't a religion, either.

Or are you going to once more claim that you alone know what other people believe and think? That you have the right to call others liars because you are quick with google?

Did you ever wonder what it was that Hideoyoshi and Ieyasu got so annoyed about? Try a little self examination.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Sounds like a bit of a loaded question: even if God showed us how to cure AIDS through devine revelation, the actual method used to create that cure would require using the scientififc methods, and therefore counts as science. Sorry for being snippy (again) but this really sounds like you're moving the goalposts:

Religion has never helped advanced science.
Religion helped create the scientific method? No, people who happened to be religious helped create the scientific method.
Religion helped develop the concept of natural laws required for using the scientific method? No, that was just the intention. The scientific method itself gave us the results.

But I disgress. I've already mentioned prophecies, but I think it got lost among all the comments about Buddhism (LINK). The only examples that I can think of which involves gaining knowledge through divine intervention, but without using the scientific method to actually develop this new knowledge, would be miracles.

Miracles are quite common among tales of Saints; the story usually goes that the Saint renounced their old way of life, gained their new power through either faith or grace, and were able to help (or sometimes curse) people simply by touching them or speaking to them. But like I said earlier I think it would be almost impossible to actually verify whether or not they really happened.

If god showed how us to cure aids, then we would not be developing that cure through the scientific method. That's his whole point.

And your point about the saints seems irrelevant. You don't indicate that they've acquired new knowledge; merely that gain magical powers. None of which have ever been verified to be more than natural occurrences.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Which confirmes my suspicion that atheists will always believe that religion and science are incompatible, even when religion actively contributes to science.

But you've not shown that it does. Did revelation give us the scientific method? No. Did revelation give us the polio vaccine? No. Did revelation give us the theory of general relativity? No.

The list goes on.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yes, which was in no way, shape or form related to the direction you started to send the discussion in. You made the statement that the blamed all bad things on religion, which she never did.

No, what I said was ...

You can't make blanket statements like "So many Buddhists [are] hostile to Christianity on these boards because we're tired of the ignorant telling us what we believe" as though Christianity alone is responsible for every bad thing that's ever been done in the name of religion.

As I said before, my original criticism against her was that she said "Buddhism in it's stricter forms is certainly NOT a religion as the Western world understands it" without saying what "stricter" actually means or why the Western world gets to decide what counts as a religion.

While your main objection was fairly obvious, the problem was that instead of criticizing her for what she actually believed, you brought along a whole lot of assumptions on what she believed and criticized her on those assumptions. You could have made your point with a whole lot less assumptions made so painfully obvious.

And I repeat, did you ask any questions? Did you look for clarifications? Nope. You just blithely announced I was wrong. And given your definitions, Zen isn't a religion, either.

I was not making assumptions. She explicitly said "I'm the Buddhist, I know. No belief in an afterlife, no supernatural beliefs." That is atheism, but Buddhism, and I've used sources from Buddhist websites to back up my argument.

Furthermore if I had made a mistake Rilke's Granddaughter should have clarified what particular version of Buddhism she adhered to, rather than saying I'm wrong without explaining why I'm wrong - especially since I try to be careful with what sources I use.

And again with your assumptions. I read everything she and you wrote, multiple times. I am perfectly capable on following a conversation along and determining who is making assumptions where. I pointed out some places where you made assumptions, rather than asking her for clarification, both in this post and my previous one, and quite clearly pointed out where your assumptions differed from hers. Have you forgotten that you made the exact statements I criticized you on. Do I need to quote them again?

The fact that you keep saying I'm making assumptions when I have posted quotes (both hers and mine) and page showing which argument we've used makes me doubt that. I suspect this has less to do with debating whether Buddhism, particularly zen buddhism, is a religion and more to do with proving your opponent wrong no matter what.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

nce more, no acknowledgment that you failed to clarify things. No apologies for being wrong.

Are you a cannibal? If not, you're not a Christian. Precisely what you're doing.

You are reading into my post what you wish to see. Typical, really. And who brought up the whole, "Christians ate so oppressed! Secular Japanese leaders oppressed us a few time!"

Earlier I wrote that I wasn't debating whether you were a "good" or "true" buddhist, only that saying Buddhism is not a religion was a factual error.

I take that back now: I think you are a pretty poor Buddhist. You seem to be completely ignoring the concept of Right Speech, which argues against being intentionally antagonistic.

I before anyone complains about what a narrow-minded, self-righteous Christian I am, I'd like to point out I see similar comments directed at Christians all the time. Because apparently lambasting people of other religions is only wrong when Christians do it.

But you've not shown that it does. Did revelation give us the scientific method? No. Did revelation give us the polio vaccine? No. Did revelation gives us the theory of general relativity? No.

The list goes on.

Actually my original argument back in page 1 was that I could not think of any examples of scientific discoveries which had been made through divine revelation (link). I mentioned prophecies, but even then said I think they would be almost impossible to actually verify.

Did you ever wonder what it was that Hideoyoshi and Ieyasu got so annoyed about? Try a little self examination.

I hope you're not suggesting that arguing that Buddhism is a religion would be enough to justify executing Christians.

 

[Tomk80]

Sounds like a bit of a loaded question: even if God showed us how to cure AIDS through devine revelation, the actual method used to create that cure would require using the scientififc methods, and therefore counts as science. Sorry for being snippy (again) but this really sounds like you're moving the goalposts:

Religion has never helped advanced science.
Religion helped create the scientific method? No, people who happened to be religious helped create the scientific method.
Religion helped develop the concept of natural laws required for using the scientific method? No, that was just the intention. The scientific method itself gave us the results.

But it is not a moving of goalposts. The OP was clear enough that it was talking about religious methodology.

Your cure for AIDS example actually demonstrates this quite well. If we would have come by the knowledge on how to cure AIDS by revelation, we would have acquired that knowledge through other means than science. Even though we would subsquently use science to produce the cure, the method of curing would not have been a scientific discovery.

But I disgress. I've already mentioned prophecies, but I think it got lost among all the comments about Buddhism (LINK). The only examples that I can think of which involves gaining knowledge through divine intervention, but without using the scientific method to actually develop this new knowledge, would be miracles.

Miracles are quite common among tales of Saints; the story usually goes that the Saint renounced their old way of life, gained their new power through either faith or grace, and were able to help (or sometimes curse) people simply by touching them or speaking to them. But like I said earlier I think it would be almost impossible to actually verify whether or not they really happened.

The problem is that in none of these cases we have actually gained knowledge, even if those cases actually happened. You are talking about a single person gaining an ability, not about someone acquiring an insight in the world that we objectively know is true and can be passed on to future generations.

The problem about the revelations you allude to is that they are so vague as to be completely useless.

 

[Tomk80]

I suspect this has less to do with debating whether Buddhism, particularly zen buddhism, is a religion and more to do with proving your opponent wrong no matter what.

Yes of course. That must be it.

I see no reason to further this line in the discussion if this is the way it is going.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The problem is that in none of these cases we have actually gained knowledge, even if those cases actually happened. You are talking about a single person gaining an ability, not about someone acquiring an insight in the world that we objectively know is true and can be passed on to future generations.

Wiccan_Child mentioned that any knowledge gained through divine revelation would have to be verified using the scientific method, and so would count as science. The only possible example I can think of would be miracles, which work either through faith or grace. You on the other hand are saying that without using the scientific method, we can't confirm that these miracles are actually based on knowledge.

So in other words asking "What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?" is a moot question, because without using the scientific method we cannot prove that we have gained any knowledge.

I'd rather wait for Wiccan_Child to come back and clarify, but it sounds like you and Rilke's Graddaughter are intentionally re-phrasing his question to make it impossible to answer.

I see no reason to further this line in the discussion if this is the way it is going.

Good. I'm much rather the thread remain on topic rather than become about defending the honour of another user ...

 

[Tomk80]

Wiccan_Child mentioned that any knowledge gained through divine revelation would have to be verified using the scientific method, and so would count as science.

But that is not what Wiccan Child stated:

Suppose my faith tells me to cure children of HIV/AIDS, and I go out and actually find a cure. Wonderful! But, is that knowledge acquired by science or religion? That the intention is religious, that the motivation is religious, is irrelevant. It's the method that's important.

Note that the method Wiccan Child mentioned here is not revelation but science. The motivation is religious, but that does not mean the method is.

The only possible example I can think of would be miracles, which work either through faith or grace. You on the other hand are saying that without using the scientific method, we can't confirm that these miracles are actually based on knowledge.

The question was whether we gained knowledge. A miracle is an action, it is not knowledge. It is not a fact that you can pass on to other generations, or a method that you can teach others.

So in other words asking "What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?" is a moot question, because without using the scientific method we cannot prove that we have gained any knowledge.

That this knowledge would be verified through science does not mean it would be acquired that way.

I'd rather wait for Wiccan_Child to come back and clarify, but it sounds like you and Rilke's Graddaughter are intentionally re-phrasing his question to make it impossible to answer.

It would seem to me that post #5 already clarifies this in exactly the way I used it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds like a bit of a loaded question: even if God showed us how to cure AIDS through devine revelation, the actual method used to create that cure would require using the scientififc methods, and therefore counts as science.

I disagree. As I clarified on the first page (I may need to edit the OP), knowing something through science doesn't preclude it from being known through religion. If someone claimed that God revealed unto them the chemical that would cure HIV/AIDS, and then science verified that this hitherto unknown chemical does indeed cure HIV/AIDS, that would fall into both categories as religious and scientific knowledge.

It's 'religious' knowledge because it was acquired through religious means - God genuinely did beam the knowledge into someone's head.
It's 'scientific' knowledge because through science we have indeed shown that the chemical works.

The tricky part is that, before science has verified it (or if it can't verify it at all), it's imposible to know whether a claim regarding divine revelation is true or not. In the HIV/AIDS example, though the claimaint really does have religious knowledge, we don't know it until scientific analysis confirms that the chemical works.

The question, then, is whether any such religious knowledge - spontaneous revelation from God, a divine voice answering prayers, a statue of the Virgin Mary weeping blood that coagulates into the form of words that detail when and where the next earthquakes will hit, etc - exists.

Sorry for being snippy (again) but this really sounds like you're moving the goalposts:

Religion has never helped advanced science.
Religion helped create the scientific method? No, people who happened to be religious helped create the scientific method.
Religion helped develop the concept of natural laws required for using the scientific method? No, that was just the intention. The scientific method itself gave us the results.

I disagree that the first statement was ever made by me. In the OP I explicitly talked about how religion can act as motivation for science, and explained why that isn't what the OP is asking for. Rather, the OP (and the thread title) asks for knowledge acquired not through the scientific method but through the religious method. Science can of course confirm the knowledge after the fact, but it has to have been revealed unto humans via religious means (prayer, revelation, oracles, miracles, etc).

But I disgress. I've already mentioned prophecies, but I think it got lost among all the comments about Buddhism (LINK). The only examples that I can think of which involves gaining knowledge through divine intervention, but without using the scientific method to actually develop this new knowledge, would be miracles.

Miracles are quite common among tales of Saints; the story usually goes that the Saint renounced their old way of life, gained their new power through either faith or grace, and were able to help (or sometimes curse) people simply by touching them or speaking to them. But like I said earlier I think it would be almost impossible to actually verify whether or not they really happened.

If it's almost impossible to verify, do you believe it ever happens?

I'm not aware of any saint being gifted with the power of knowledge (foreknowledge of earthquakes, famine, etc), though such a thing could certainly be verified (obviously the saint is either right or wrong, and we can tell if he's just lucky or not), and, if verified, would certainly satisfy the OP.

Wiccan_Child mentioned that any knowledge gained through divine revelation would have to be verified using the scientific method, and so would count as science.

Ah, no, it would count as both (and thus would satisfy the OP); perhaps my response above clarifies that.

To reiterate, knowledge acquired through religious means would almost certainly have to be verified by science for us to know whether it's genuine or not. But, ultimately, the original method of acquisition is still religious.

This is different to religion merely being inspirational; I'm interested in whether religion and its various rites and rituals and all the claims of knowledge revealed through prayer, divine revelation, prophecy, etc, are true; whether anyone really has acquired knowledge through religion.