

Can a religion be created to force people to think logically and scientifically? - amichail


======
jyhg
That's what religion is already, in some sense. Any time you honestly question
it, and poof - it's gone and you've learned something. The problem is getting
people to honestly question that which feels comfortable, religion or
otherwise.

------
wmf
This would be a good question for Less Wrong. I suspect the answer is that you
can't use irrational means to encourage rationality.

------
skowmunk
There is already such a religion: Science.

~~~
amichail
But people are not forced into it with threats of eternal punishment.

~~~
skowmunk
Whichever religion it is, the typical one or the atypical, whether the threat
is of eternal punishment or something else, it all boils down to whether one
_chooses_ to succumb to those threats or not.

~~~
amichail
People are indoctrinated as children. Overcoming the threats later on in life
is very difficult.

~~~
skowmunk
Difficult is not impossible.

And most of than not, nothing that is really worth,... is easy.

------
zeynel1
Interesting question. Since I define science as "curiosity to understand
nature by asking questions" I wonder if you need a religion to practice
science.

When you say "science" you may mean "organized science" controlled by
professional practitioners. In that sense, I agree with skowmunk; organized
science and organized religion have a lot in common.

~~~
skowmunk
Though I had meant it in a different way, I do agree with the similarity you
have pointed out, regarding organization of both religion and science in
general.

Regarding the questioning aspect:

I would say that all religions originated out of questions, they were early
attempts at science (that is,.. attempts to answer questions on natural
phenomena and the unknown - at that time), but over time they just evolved
into ideologies that no longer tried to answer phenomena.

Why I say this?

without going into a monologue - all current religions, monotheistic or
polytheistic, were predated by earlier polytheistic versions which were more
or less dominated by deity worships. The deities were more often than not the
powerful and frightening phenomena that people couldn't explain back then. It
wasn't different from culture to culture neither, the Norse had their Thor and
Hindus had their Indra, both for thunder, the Egyptians had their Ra(sun god)
and so on.

If the ancients had better tools for the analysis of phenomena, I am sure they
would have come across better conclusions, just like JJ. Thomson would have
come up with a better model than the watermellon model for the atom, if he had
better tools for investigation.

~~~
zeynel1
"...they were early attempts at science..."

True. May I add that; as these attempts at science evolve into ideologies;
mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies as well.

Instead of ideology; we may say; tradition. Tradition corrupts science from
within. We can see this in modern physics in its insistence that all new
discoveries must conform to the existing laws of physics.

"... Thor ... Indra ...Ra ..."

And Zeus; he is another representative of the tradition of thunder gods.

~~~
skowmunk
"....mature sciences deteriorate into ideologies...."

That is true.

Thinking about why this happens.... could it be the vanity of people that
causes this? Sticking to ideas or practices because its 'their'
ideas/practices/traditions (irrespective of if they have been passed down or
been indoctrinated themselves) instead of looking at the logic behind them or
their relevance to the present or future or a situation? and then decide if
they should be still held on to or not?

What if we define 'ideology' as the thought/belief equivalent of 'tradition'
as 'tradition' is to practices/rituals - both being 'holding on to something'
irrespective of its relevance? I guess that would make both of our statements
mean absolutely the same.

