Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed

Art48

On a Christian forum I frequent, the question was raised as to why Christianity has failed to spread across India and further Eastward. Here is my answer.

Gordon,

What you describe as “The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward” can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions.

Science offers objective truth because it employs a superior epistemological method to find truth. Religions’ epistemological method is inferior because it relies on the utterances and writings of alleged Gods, God-men, and/or prophets. The following excerpt expands on that point.

Old Theology: Divergence/Convergence
Old Theology’s way of knowing promotes divergence of religions. For example, in 1054 the Christian Church split into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Later, Luther and the Protestant Reformation brought more denominations. Yet all use the same scripture (plus or minus the deuterocanonical books).

Yet, they diverge; they do not agree. The Roman Catholic Church for centuries taught “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “[F]or there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark.” Some Baptists say Catholics and Mormons need to be saved. Some Christians believe baptism by immersion is essential to salvation. Ask Christians how to be saved and you will get different, contradictory answers. And, of course, Christianity and Islam have contradictory views on salvation.

Religions diverge. Old Theology religions have not converged to a single truth.

Today, distinct Christian denominations number in the hundreds. The number of the world’s contradictory religious sects is much higher. It could not be otherwise. Scriptures differ, interpretations differ, so religions diverge. Ask someone in Italy, Iran, and India what happens after death and you get three different answers. In Christianity, ask how to be saved and you get contradictory answers. But if God is a reality, shouldn’t religions converge? The universe is an objective reality and science has converged to a worldview that mirrors that reality. Ask a physicist, chemist, or biologist in Italy, Iran, and India a question and you get the same answer. Science proves every day that its understanding of the universe is correct. Whenever we use a cell phone or a computer, whenever we use a GPS satellite, or a thousand other devices, we see that science works. Science knows of what it speaks.

So, what should we conclude? If God does not exist, if the Gods of Old Theology are inventions, then we should expect contradictory religions and denominations. But if God is an objective reality, then why haven’t religions converged? If we assume there is one universal reality, we would expect different people of different times in different countries to have insights which converge. Shouldn’t religions “done right” converge? But they don’t. Might the reason be their faulty “way of knowing,” their childlike epistemological method?

New Theology: Divergence/Convergence
By the 1900s, Newton’s mechanics had given Western Europe unrivaled worldly power. The Congo was the Belgian Congo. There was French Indonesia. It was said the Sun never sets on the British Empire—and that was literally true because the sun was always shining on some part of the Empire: on India, on Australia, on Canada, or on Britain itself. Yet when Einstein said that Newtonian mechanics was faulty, was wrong, scientists didn’t condemn him as a heretic and burn him at the stake. After observations proved Einstein correct, science accepted his theories. Science has a superior epistemological method, a method that doesn’t rely on authority, or mere say-so. As a result, science has a superior grasp on truth. Science arrives at universal truth. Religions evidently do not. Thus, at least some beliefs of religions must be fantasy-based.

Religions have not converged. And due to their inferior epistemological method, probably never will.

From
Universal Theology: A New Theology
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

Joshs

↪Art48

I take it you are a believer in New Theology?

Art48

I take it you are a believer in New Theology? — Joshs

Yes. It's something I'm writing which I hope to publish someday.

Vera Mont

On a Christian forum I frequent, the question was raised as to why Christianity has failed to spread across India and further Eastward. Here is my answer. — Art48

Have you considered the other factors?
1. Those peoples had religions of their own which satisfy their cultural and spiritual needs.
2. Christianity was brought to them by brutal colonizing empires. 3. Christianity is based on a view of the world and of humanity which is bleak and mean compared to Eastern religions.

Science is omnivorous and voracious - it consumes and subsumes all knowledge, where and by whomever it's discovered. Religion is insular and exclusive. They have different parts to play in human life.

T Clark

Science is omnivorous and voracious - it consumes and subsumes all knowledge, where and by whomever it's discovered. Religion is insular and exclusive. They have different parts to play in human life. — Vera Mont

Well put.

Art48

They have different parts to play in human life. — Vera Mont

The parts being that science finds objective truth and religion offers comforting beliefs.

180 Proof

↪Art48

:up:

In other words, more broadly, science concerns forming explanations which we can mathematically agree on about nature in contrast to religion which is concerned with idols and superstitions, conformity and scapegoating. In hindsight, at least in the Western tradition, philosophy concerns – began with – critiques of religion (i.e. magical thinking) which, in effect, makes space for non-religious narratives and the defeasible, critical reasoning that underwrites the natural (& historical) sciences.

Vera Mont

religion which is concerned with idols and superstitions, conformity and scapegoating, — 180 Proof

That's waaay simplistic. It's accurate the way one piece of a jigsaw puzzle is accurate.

180 Proof

↪Vera Mont

Perhaps. Still, I challenge you, Vera, to name at least one major world religion that completely lacks idols, superstition, conformity and/or scapegoating (i.e. the stigmata of magical thinking). :chin:

Vera Mont

Still, I challenge you, Vera, to name at least one major world religion that completely lacks idols, superstition, conformity and/or scapegoating (i.e. the stigmata of magical thinking). — 180 Proof

Where did I say any of them lack something? What you cited is only a small part of all religion. Of-bloody-course all "major world religions" have idols and dogma. (Scapegoating is a readily misunderstood concept better left for another venue.) But then, the overlap of major world religions with spirituality is a mere sliver of moon, and the overlap of major world religions with social structure, nationalism, politics, economics and culture are huge, so the idols are lined up on a shelf against a wall in one room of a great big maze-like building. Or on three interlocking tiles of a 1000-piece puzzle.

Vera Mont

In any case, religion has not failed. It has always been and still is very successful. More than 80% of the sample of populations old enough to be polled identify as subscribing to a registered religion. Only 15% claim to be unaffiliated. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/ Other than biological structure, needs and urges, can you think of anything that many people have in common?
And it's successful for the same reason potato chips and cell phones are phones are successful: it offers something people want.

Art48

In any case, religion has not failed. It has always been and still is very successful. — Vera Mont

It has failed to find objective reality, as the OP makes clear. It's quite successful at several things, a few of which are actually beneficial to humanity.

Hanover

a Christian forum I frequent, the question was raised as to why Christianity has failed to spread across India and further Eastward. Here is my answer.

Gordon,

What you describe as “The abject failure of Christianity to break into India, expand, and continue Eastward” can be explained by comparison with the spectacular expansion of Western science throughout the world. Science offers objective truth; religion offers comforting fictions. — Art48

Your response is inadequate. The question was not why religion never found its way to India, but why Christianity didn't. If religion had not found its way to India (which is a false hypothetical), I suppose you could speculate that it was because science offered adequate explanation.

The problem is that there is religion in India, so the reason they've not accepted Christianity but they have accepted Hindu has nothing to do with science.

It's like asking why the Saudis reject Christianity. It's certainly not because they have found science and secular humanism satisfactory.

Hanover

It has failed to find objective reality, as the OP makes clear. — Art48

Religion doesn't empirically "find," to be sure, but it does assert objectives truths. This is unlike science which does not assert objective truth. The concept of a non-relativistic reality is incoherent in a scientific model.

180 Proof

↪Hanover

:up:

Vera Mont

It has failed to find objective reality, as the OP makes clear. — Art48

You can't fail at something unless you try to do it. No spiritual system ever tried to "find" objective reality. Objective reality never went missing in the first place; it was slapping people in the face and biting them on the ass every day; they didn't need to go searching for it. They were looking for an escape from it, a loophole in it, a consolation for its depredations, a promise that it would let up.

180 Proof

No spiritual system ever tried to "find" objective reality. — Vera Mont

Quite right! Religion has always just assumed – canonized – "objective reality", which is its most profound failing.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Am I right to say that science has room for religion, but the converse is false? In other words, the animosity/antagonism is one-sided.

Too, the OP doesn't mention that India has a homegrown religion - Hinduism. Give the Hindus another century or so and they'll start claiming Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu; this isn't something new to them - Buddha now figures as a Vishnu avatar in the Hindu pantheon. @Vera Mont "omnivorous and voracious". We're all Hindus, get it? :pray:

180 Proof

Am I right to say that science has room for religion, but the converse is false? — Agent Smith

I don't think so.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Really? I was dead sure you'd say yes to that.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

I'm neither a scientist nor a priest so what else could I say? Why even ask ...

universeness

You can't fail at something unless you try to do it. No spiritual system ever tried to "find" objective reality. — Vera Mont

Quite right! Religion has always just assumed – canonized – "objective reality", which is its most profound failing. — 180 Proof

The opening phrase of the ten commandments is: "I am the LORD thy God"
This is claimed to be the spoken word of god to Moses, is it not?
It what way are such claims not presented as objective realities?
The ten commandments are presented by Christians as applicable to all humans in all circumstances.
I think religious doctrines do make objective reality claims and they have failed in the attempts.
"God as the creator of everything." Why is such not an 'objective reality' claim in your opinions?
Calling religious tenets canonised 'assumptions,' seems like an irreligious judgement, I completely agree with but I do think that authentic theists do indeed see their religious tenets as objective truths and its unwise to dilute their fervour, as it does manifest in horrors such as suicide terrorism.

Vera Mont

This is claimed to be the spoken word of god to Moses, is it not?
It what way are such claims not presented as objective realities? — universeness

The word that doesn't fit is "objective". "I Am That I Am" is an entirely subjective claim. No proof is offered; no doubt is entertained. In the cited case, where Jehovah is talking to Moses, he just won the Jews in a contest with the Egyptian gods; adopted this small, insignificant nation for his own. Much bigger nations, empires, even, have their own gods. That's the point of the first four commandments, and about two third of Leviticus. It's a covenant, a relationship - personal and subjective.

Meanwhile, houses need to be built with wattle and stone; fields need tilling and livestock needs water, gold and silver have value, kings have power, babies are born, soldiers get killed - that's objective reality and Jehovah doesn't find it, doesn't explain it, he just messes with it once in a while to show off.

The ten commandments are presented by Christians as applicable to all humans in all circumstances. — universeness

And Christians know it's BS, since they disobey most of them most of the time, without showing the least fear of being struck down. But what has the bullying of Big Dogma got to do with reality?

I think religious doctrines do make objective reality claims and they have failed in the attempts. — universeness

They make lots of claims, yes. Very successfully. But making claims about reality is not the purpose of the religious impulse. The claims are a stratagem of power structures - all power structures, whether they are labelled as a religion, a political party or a corporation.
Objective reality isn't lost; none of them are looking for it; on the contrary, they're hiding it under layers and layers of "claim".
(That's why faith healers are not like medical healers. Surgery works whether the patient believes in it or not: it's objective. Faith healing works only if the patient believes; if it doesn't work, it's because he didn't believe hard enough: subjective.)

Joshs

↪Vera Mont

The claims are a stratagem of power structures - all power structures, whether they are labelled as a religion, a political party or a corporation.
Objective reality isn't lost; none of them are looking for it; on the contrary, they're hiding it under layers and layers of "claim".(That's why faith healers are not like medical healers. — Vera Mont

‘Objective’ vs ‘subjective’, ‘faith’ vs ‘reason’, ‘power’ vs ‘knowledge’. Have you read no Kuhn, Feyerabend, Latour, Foucault, Rorty, Rouse, Nietzsche, Varela? It’s like the past 60 years of philosophizing about science doesn’t exist for you. You’re still stuck in the Kantian-Popperian tradition of science as objective falsification., knowledge opposing itself to power and facts opposing values.

Art48

The comments so far discuss many issues peripheral to my original post. I’m partly responsible, as my central concern wasn’t Christianity and India (that’s merely what prompted the post). My main point is that science converges to what seems to be objective truth, and religion fails to converge to any coherent picture of the universe. Christianity has several contradictory views about how to be saved. After death, do we reincarnate or not? Religion has contradictory answers.

Science offers truth; religion offers something else.

Vera Mont

It’s like the past 60 years of philosophizing about science doesn’t exist for you. — Joshs

Corrrrrect!

You’re still stuck in the Kantian-Popperian tradition of science as objective falsification., knowledge opposing itself to power and facts opposing values. — Joshs

Not even close.

universeness

The word that doesn't fit is "objective". "I Am That I Am" is an entirely subjective claim. No proof is offered; no doubt is entertained. — Vera Mont

The 'I am that I am,' god words, as you know, were just an attempt to make god seem ineffable but omnipotent so compliance is required on threat of hell and damnation. You confirm this yourself with 'no doubt is entertained.' This is very pernicious as it is intended to be applied to all humans. God as an objective fact is not open to any form of subjectivity the rational human mind can manifest.
Apostacy is still punishable by death under such horrors as sharia law.
The 'objective' claim is foundational to most religions in the sense of their exemplifications such as; there are many other false claims but 'our tree' is the only 'true tree' in a vast forrest of 'subjective trees.'
There script that they preach from, offers them many confirmations of this position, such as:
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God but Me. I will equip you for battle, though you have not known Me, I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, I am the LORD; there is no other God.
Or
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

These are not presented as subjective claims.
I know what you mean by the idea of theists who follow a creed for a mix of their own reasons and probably a 'localised doctrinal fear,' not to, a kind of Pascals wager. BUT there are far too many, whose belief borders on fanaticism and it is unwise to handwave that very dangerous aspect away by referencing 'sensible' examples of everyday human need and activity.

It's a covenant, a relationship - personal and subjective. — Vera Mont

I don't see why you use the word 'subjective' in the quote above Vera. I would suggest the covenant mode by Christians is presented more like a sacred vow than a subjective agreement open to revision.

And Christians know it's BS, since they disobey most of them most of the time, without showing the least fear of being struck down. But what has the bullying of Big Dogma got to do with reality? — Vera Mont

I agree and that's the hypocricy, that has to be constantly pointed to. The"do as I say! Not as I might choose to do in secret." approach to life, that is used to measure theists against, since the god posits began. I don't see why you would disassociate or downplay the affects that 'the bullying of big theistic dogma,' has on the everyday lives of people involved in those communities. Look at how they choose to treat outsiders such as trans people or how such affects peoples view on abortion rights and so on.

Objective reality isn't lost; none of them are looking for it; on the contrary, they're hiding under layers and layers of "claim". — Vera Mont

I agree, but imposing their theistic doctrine as a global objective reality that governs or strongly guides almost every action a human takes on a day to day basis is their wet dream. We should never lose sight of that. My concern is that you don't find theism as much of a threat as I do, especially when it is used in the political world.

Vera Mont

My main point is that science converges to what seems to be objective truth, — Art48

That's its function: to investigate the external, physical world; to ferret out how it works and figure out how it can be made to work for us.

religion fails to converge to any coherent picture of the universe. — Art48

It doesn't fail. It doesn't want to converge on a coherent picture picture of the physical universe. Various religions want to impose their own fantasy on people's internal, metaphorical picture of the universe. A lot more people accept the picture their native religion paints than reject it.

And most people who have an internal, subjective idea of the spirit world don't stop doing or using physical things according to the same physical laws as all the other animals that have no spirit world in their heads. They keep using tools and walking on solid surfaces; a lot of them even do sciency stuff all week and go to church on their holy days with no sense of conflict. It's not a contest, until an organized groups decides to take political power. But that is not about religion, science or reality: it's about power.
Mixing those things together makes for confusion.

universeness

Science offers truth; religion offers something else. — Art48

Science offers an unbias search for truth imo. Religion offers comfort to help to sate primal human fear.
I think some prefer religion as it offers you some protections. The truth can scare many, especially when they don't or can't see the possibilities for a better future.

Vera Mont

I don't see why you use the word 'subjective' in the quote above Vera. I would suggest the covenant mode by Christians is presented more like a sacred vow than a subjective agreement open to revision. — universeness

Sacred vows, like the ones at a wedding or citizenship ceremony, are very subjective indeed. And of course they're open to revision, and breakage and cheating and dissolution.
As physical laws are not.

Hanover

Quite right! Religion has always just assumed – canonized – "objective reality", which is its most profound failing. — 180 Proof

It's not a failing. It's an admission that the foundational elements of reality are unknowable, and you either start with Cartesian doubt that ultimately leads to solipsism, or you accept something as being an objective reality that is knowable, as opposed to noumenal.

Why Science Has Succeeded But Religion Has Failed

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions