Can anyone list one concept or idea...

[NeoGreen]

...for which we had a scientific explanation but have subsequently abandoned for a religious explanation, derived from a theological method of inquiry?

(Negative points for proffering a science based answer replaced by another science based answer.)

Inspired by: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=281327

[PJMcK]

1. Good one!

Tip o' the hat, NeoGreen!

[unblock]

2. Hmm, probably something in the anti-choice area

For example, the notion that the union of two gametes is the moment at which a separate "person" arises that cannotceyhically be killed. Or, in spiritual terms, when a soul is created or enters a physical entity.

Science had a neutral explanation for the continuum of life, with various steps being mere milestones along the way in the propagation of species by means of sexual reproduction.

But the anti-choicers got fixated on the moment of conception, based largely, I think on scientific discoveries regarding dna and its significance, even though science has little to say about any ethical significance of that moment.

Yes, anti-choice was certainly a thing before Watson and crick, but scientific understanding of conception certainly has influenced the views of anti-choicers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. I think he's talking about acceptance by experts, not the general public.

The public has abandoned plenty of science in favor of woo, but the consensus among the experts is the science is still more or less correct.

What we don't see is scientists tossing out theories and hypotheses in favor of supernatural explanations.

[unblock]

6. Well, science has no process for that

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Has no process for determining the best explanation for a particular phenomenon?

Gonna disagree with you there.

[unblock]

8. has no process for accepting a supernatural explanation as being the "best" explanation

presuming "supernatural" to effectively mean "unsupported by experimental facts and observations".

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. Kinda sorta.

It has a process for determining the most likely explanation for a given phenomenon. Supernatural explanations are necessarily excluded because there's a height restriction on this ride and they don't meet the bar.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is the superiority of science as a means to understand and make predictions germane to the universe at large has several hundred years of precedent. The inferiority of praying, rolling chicken bones, or standing on one's head for, like, a really long time, has several thousand years of precedent.

[unblock]

10. thanks to my personal prayers, there have been no major volcanic eruptions in connecticut this year!

the evidence is all around us.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. Oh yeah?

You obviously haven't been my parents' house on taco Tuesday.

Myth busted!

[unblock]

12. .

[Major Nikon]

17. The best part is there's no proof that isn't true

So we must consider the possibility it is.

[Major Nikon]

16. Every sperm is sacred

[docgee]

3. You mean like when someone says god will make more oil

as an explanation of where oil comes from? People turn away from scientific evidence all the time either by force like the Inquisition, or peer pressure from the other cult members, for example.

[Cartoonist]

5. Evolution

Creationism is the new Explanation!

[NeoGreen]

13. Bueller...bueller...

Anyone...theological substitute for science...anyone...

[NeoGreen]

14. Kick...

...do all-ya-all need more time?

[NeoGreen]

15. Monday Kick (nt)

[NeoGreen]

18. Kick, because...

...false infallibility has reared its ugly head and...reasons...

[MineralMan]

19. Yeah, I'm coming up empty on that one.

[NeoGreen]

20. Monday kick...

[trotsky]

21. How odd that no one has come up with an actual response.

You'd think the pro-religious among us would jump at the chance to discuss the positive aspects of religion.

[NeoGreen]

22. Yes...

...how odd indeed.

Not even one concrete example.

The absence of any credible response is enough to make a thinking person go hmmmm....
..."I wonder why that could be?"

[MineralMan]

24. Why did nobody present the "Noah's Flood Formed the Grand Canyon" example.

There are whole websites out there promoting that idea. Why, the website below is just full of "scientific information" about that:

http://www.grandcanyonflood.com/

or here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood/

[NeoGreen]

25. I would hesitate to suggest a one reason: an adversion to...

...ridicule.

But, given some of the empirical evidence to be found in the threads around here in regards to ignoring ridicule, the avoidance of such is maybe insufficient reason not to post such an example.

[MineralMan]

27. Perhaps so. Still, one would think that someone

would make at least some attempt to present something. Perhaps they could find nothing to offer.

[MineralMan]

23. Not even a lame attempt to respond, actually.

I mean, one can find a number of "creation science" websites, where arguments are made of that nature. Normally, we see quoted material from such websites here occasionally, but usually on other subjects.

Apparently, nobody is going to offer any examples.

[NeoGreen]

26. None-the-less...

...I will continue to ask, on the off chance that a credible answer may be found, which would be profondly interesting in the extreme.

And, to make a point.

[MineralMan]

28. I salute your continued challenge!

[NeoGreen]

29. Thank you,

and return the favor...

[zipplewrath]

30. Sorta nonsensicle

Even if I drew my inspiration from faith for something, in essence the next step would be to find evidence or a testable hypothesis, at which point one would be back within the realm of science.

[NeoGreen]

31. So what your are saying is that there are no...

...rational methods of theological inquiry?

[zipplewrath]

32. No scientific ones

Theological inquiry usually rests upon faith and theological writings from the past.

[NeoGreen]

33. So...

...'yes'.

[NeoGreen]

34. Kick (nt)

[guillaumeb]

35. Recommending your own thread for visibility?

Revealing.

[uriel1972]

36. can't help yourself, g?

[NeoGreen]

37. Not in the slightest...

...not "Rec'ed" at all, just 'kicked'.

And for your simple edification, a kick <> Rec'ed.

Just so we're clear on the basic concepts.

Have a glorious/godless day

And be nice to the next nihilist you meet, she maybe more optimistic than anyone you have yet to meet.

[NeoGreen]

38. Oh, and...

...thanks for your help with the thread visibility.

[guillaumeb]

39. Thank you for the admission. eom

[NeoGreen]

40. Admission?...

...not so much, more akin to Acknowledgement of Reality.

If you wish to conjure some fantasy 'admission', go for it, such is your wont (apparently).

Your beliefs are there to make you feel better, regardless of whether they comport to reality or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. He admittted the thing... you accused him of... that he didn't do.. and didn't admit?

Someone forgot to carry a one here.

[Voltaire2]

48. Revealing of what?

What has been revealed in your post is perhaps not what you intended.

[NeoGreen]

41. Kick...

....anyone...anyone?

[NeoGreen]

42. Kick (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Vaccines, sadly.

[edhopper]

45. could you explain?

[NeoGreen]

46. By what mode of Theological Inquiry was this...

...discovery found? My understanding is that the genesis of this social position (i.e. discounting the efficacy of vaccinations) was derived from a debunked/false paper, mascerading as peer reviewed science, on autism.

But, I do acknowledge your sentiment.

[edhopper]

47. There are many scientific ideas

discounted by some because of quack science.

This does not negate the negative effect of religion on science.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Certain religious sects forbid it.

Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists for example. They are not numerous, but they certainly exist.

However the metaphysical claims of various anti-vaccine groups are often indistinguishable from deistic metaphysics. And they number much more than the JW's, CS's and 'dutch reformed church' and other explicitly theological groups that forbid vaccines.

Edit: I may have somewhat misinterpreted your original question. Re-reading it, it looks like you are looking for an example that is much more broadly accepted, rather than the example I have given, which is a minority.

[NeoGreen]

50. I'm realy trying to zero in on...

...a theological mode of inquiry that could rival the Scientific Mode.

It's easy to just deny a finding of an apparent fact, but at least with a proper Scientific mode, you can replace/alter that apparent knowledge of fact based on empirical evidence, i.e through a (recursive) logical process.

How does one do that via a theological method?

Is it merely, "because I believe it to be so"?
Is that all it is?

If so, 'weak'.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Ah, yes I clearly misunderstood.

I am aware of precisely zero instances of any theological model supplanting the scientific method on any issue whatsoever. At no time has any theological opinion/proclamation/idea better described the universe and our place in it, than has scientific inquiry

[NeoGreen]

52. Still...anyone?...

...