Religion
In reply to the discussion: Queen's study finds religion helps us gain self-control [View all]MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)I am merely pointing out that there are many myths, fables, anecdotes, wive's tales and "traditional beliefs" that have no scientific basis, and are perhaps as often false or misleading.
I want sincerely religious believers to be able to employ the scientific method, rigorously, and honestly, and not rely upon their presumptions, their "beliefs" nor to assert that there their "hypotheses" are now "scientific theories".
Here is an example of an hypothesis: "The widespread nature of religion suggests that there is some natural selection for it. (Just as there appears to be for altruism.)"
That is all it is. There is no evidence offered for the truth of the matter. It is an hypothesis, a "suggestion".
Now one has to link that with the evidence in order to arrive at a truth. That is what the scientific methodology would require , in contrast to a widely held "belief" in the truth of the "suggestion". By use of the term "natural selection", you are employing what is a scientific concept, in a suggestive way, not a scientific way. The statement you have made begs the question: how do we "know"? The answer is: we do not "know", but some people simply want to "believe" it's true
NO I cannot see this assertion you have made:
" but, certainly, you can see that those deists who believe in a deity who rewards those who faithfully follow the ethic, and/or punishes those who do not, might reinforce the tendency to follow it, benefiting the group. "
History is replete with hundreds of examples of people whose belief in a deity led them to sacrifice a child on an altar, to go to war, to seek deadly and disastrous retribution against other tribes or other cultures. Hitler, himself, claimed a belief in god, so no, your assertion is not anywhere close to a truism, and certainly NOT scientifically based. It is only your assertion, based upon selectively chosen historical evidence. You are free to believe it, but it is not scientific fact, nor anything close to a "fact".
This is the intention on my post, not to be "incensed", I wish to point out foggy thinking and belief systems are nowhere near the level of rigorous and disciplined kinds of thinking that actual scientific investigation and discovery requires. I hope many religious believers can learn to employ the scientific method of thinking, and learn to distinguish between what is their "belief" and what might be "scientific fact".