Ask Lemmy

Religion is made up by people. Stop trying to support religious psychosis.

Yes, but it's not what you're thinking, and they could be known at the time, just not through scientific method, but we had to rediscover them.

In Abrahamic religions the eating of pork is prohibited because pork is an "unclean" animal, and indeed pork is one of the most dangerous meats to consume when not cooked properly. This could be divine knowledge, or people simply realizing that those who ate pork got more sick than those who didn't.

Another example is about meditation and other mental health from oriental religions. The science to back up that is very recent but they have been doing it for thousands of years and have been claiming all of the benefits that we're now discovering. But also this could have slowly evolved by observing yourself which is a lot of what meditation is about, so who could have thought that self inspection would allow you to understand yourself better?

So at the end of the day I don't think there's any example of what you're looking for, because anything we know now they could have guessed back then and would not necessarily be divine knowledge. Accurate precognition would be an example of something we would have no explanation for, but that has never happened, most prophecies are abstract and open to interpretation.

The reason for this is simply that the people who wrote those books were ignorant.

Well, the Bible says, the sun was created after Earth. So fuck that.

No. There's far more examples of scientific advancement discovery being shot in the knees by theocratic groups than the alternative. Religion is a social tool used for shaping human interpretations of their role within human society, not a legitimate way to enhance our understanding of the world.

I would go as far as to say that having a strong association with a religious organization is an incredible detriment to any technological or scientific advancement.

Science is effort following the scientific method. Hypothesis, observation, analysis, reproducibility, etc. So no.

Not sure if I'm following you correctly but the two main problems, for lack of a better word, getting in the way of religion adopting science is that it requires 1) change the already "proven to work" model they already had for ages and 2) some critical thinking and openness to new ideas. As for point 2, it not be much required, but it's population averages we're talking about, so that makes it more difficult.

House of Wisdom in Baghdad brought about some of the foundational texts of Islamic and European medicine till the 19th century.

Mystical experiences concern themselves with the relationship of the finite to the infinite. Tolstoy wrote about this in Confession:

I had asked: what meaning has life beyond time, beyond space and beyond cause? And I was answering the question: ‘What is the meaning of my life within time, space and cause?’ The result was that after long and laboured thought I could only answer: none.

In my deliberations I was continually drawing comparisons between the finite and the finite, and the infinite and the infinite, and I could not have done otherwise. Thus I reached the only conclusion I could reach: force is force, matter is matter, will is will, the infinite is the infinite, nothing is nothing; and I could go no further than that.

It was somewhat similar to what happens in mathematics when, trying to resolve an equation, we get an identity. The method of deduction is correct, but the only answer obtained is that a equals a, and x equals x, or o equals o. Precisely the same thing was happening with my reasoning concerning the meaning of life. The only answers the sciences give to this question are identities.

And really, strictly rational knowledge, such as that of Descartes, begins with complete doubt in everything and throws aside any knowledge founded on faith, reconstructing everything along laws of reason and experiment. And it can provide no answer other than the one I reached: an indefinite one. It was only at first that I thought knowledge had given an affirmative answer, Schopenhauer’s answer that life has no meaning and is evil. But when I went into the matter I realized that this answer is not affirmative and that it was only my senses that had taken it to be so. Strictly expressed, as it is by the Brahmins, Solomon, and Schopenhauer, the answer is but a vague one, an identity: o equals o, life presented to me as nothing is nothing. Thus, philosophical knowledge denies nothing but simply replies that it cannot solve the question, and that as far as it is concerned any resolution remains indefinite.

Having understood this, I realized that it was impossible to search for an answer to my questions in rational knowledge; that the answer given by rational knowledge simply suggests that the answer can only be obtained by stating the question in another way, by introducing the question of the relation of the finite to the infinite. I realized that no matter how irrational and distorted the answers given by faith might be, they had the advantage of introducing to every answer a relationship between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution. Whichever way I put the question: how am I to live? the answer is always: according to God’s law. Or to the question: is there anything real that will come of my life? the answer is: eternal torment or eternal bliss. Or, to the question: what meaning is there that is not destroyed by death? the answer is: unity with the infinite, God, heaven.

In the same way as Nostradamus predicted events? Probably. In the same way as what we define as science? No.

I suspect you might get examples of things that sort of resemble a later discovery that someone believing the religion in question might interpret as divine revelation of that thing. Some of the christians in my family like to take the "let there be light" thing and claim that it's talking about the big bang, anecdotally.

I think I remember some religion out there having a concept that resembles microorganisms, before such organisms were discovered, I think Jainism but I'm not confident about that.

The problem with "prophecy" is that its impossible to check before it's useless information. Unless the holy book used specific descriptions, you'd be left with Nostradamus type language that can't be identified until after it comes "true".

I knew a guy who thought some of the mythical beasts in revelation were a prediction of helicopters. So suppose he's right, there would be no way to understand or predict helicopter technology using scripture, you have to wait until after helicopters are known to make the connection.

I know some Muslims claim the Qur'an gave scientific foreknowledge: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_foreknowledge

there has been jesuit scientists, like descarte, and other jesuit scientists that produce astrophysics/astronomy works, and some catholics. Just not the crazy fundamentalists, where everything can be explained by "god" or because of god is moral, never heard any good things come out of evangelicals or some protestants.

Can't say I'm aware of any examples of our modern scientific understanding being present in a religious text. I did a painfully in depth bible study class in highschool and we sometimes discussed that a lot of old testament (and thus the Torah) is very very old and likely comes from people doing their best to understand their world and merging it with myth over the ages. That's probably the closest you'll get, depending on what you consider "science."

One other possibility is that stories like the flood could essentially be "recordings" of historical events. Someone correct me, it's been yonks since I read into it, but as I recall there are a number of different flood stories that come from the same region (ancient Mesopotamia? if we're talking Judaism), so it's entirely possible that it's based on a real one, perhaps even multiple.

Buddhists probably had figured out a lot of things about the workings of the human mind way before science did.

Wouldn't it be effective to convince followers of legitimacy if a religion could accurately predict a scientific phenomenon before its followers have the means of discovering it?

No, those were called witches and they burned them out of fear.

That was also just never the purpose of religion. Religion fills gaps in our knowledge and addresses the existential crisis by promising us some form of afterlife because humans really struggle to accept that they're random and meaningless and that their consciousness just dies with the body.

There's theories that the talking burning tree was probably a weed tree and they were just tripping balls, and that wouldn't be the first religion spawned from accidental or intentional use of psychedelics.

It's also very likely the origin stories are just that, stories. Most likely because storytelling was just how language worked: like the Darmok episode of StarTrek TNG. Or just kids: we don't infodump on kids, we tell them stories because stories bring context and narrative.

My belief is that at least all the judaic religions are just a metaphor so far detached its true meaning is lost to time, and interpreting any of those further is a complete waste of time. Any scientific prediction is equally likely to just be a coincidence than evidence of divine knowledge.

No. By definition of what you're asking, some person practicing the religion would have to know it already.

If God is talking to bronze age goat herders, what kind of knowledge is going to be useful to them? What will they manage to pass down to future generations without mangling it horribly? If they were to be given information about scientific concepts so advanced that only God (or aliens or time travelers) could have given it to them, they wouldn't have the foundation of knowledge to grasp it, the vocabulary to explain it, or the technical means to exploit it. Anything they can actually understand and act on is necessarily going to be something that is not beyond their means, and therefore we are right back where we started with stuff they could have figured out on their own.

Suppose God did explain something far beyond human understanding, and they wrote it down as best they could. Even if it wasn't completely incomprehensible to the guy writing it down, it's still going to be totally lost on future generations if it isn't anchored in a more comprehensive understanding of how things work. Without context, it will lose all meaning and will be reinterpreted by later scholars who will try and find a meaning that they can understand. It would become a part of mythology and folklore, and would be unrecognizable by the time science catches up to the original ideas. You might have people point out similarities, but they'd probably be taken as seriously as the ancient aliens guys.

I've heard it speculated that certain religious dietary restriction such as Kosher and Halal prohibit many of the foods that would have been most difficult to render safe with the available technology. Without anything resembling modern germ theory, they couldn't articulate any scientific justification, so it was just "God says these lobsters aren't food." And yet, the people who believed that probably got less food poisoning than the people who didn't.

The Talmud says there are evil spirits that cause sickness and I'll fortune, and for each person there are a thousand on their left and a thousand on their right. That sounds like bacteria to me. People back then didn't have a use for numbers bigger than a thousand or a word for microbes.

I have a few thoughts on this. For context, I'm a Christian with equally big interests in science and theology.

A. Remember that scripture wasn't written to us 21st century people. It was written in a context, in a language, at a time, for a culture, all different from what we have today. So for us to understand scripture we have to understand the context surrounding when it was written. This means hypothetical differences also need to go through this filter. For your examples of Native Americans or bacteria, what would the early Israelites have done with this information? I'd say it would have been seen as a weird side detail likely wouldn't have survived being part of an oral tradition. Especially the bit about bacteria, since they didn't have a word for it.

B. I don't think that's the point of the Bible. The way I describe it is "God's biography". A bunch of authors all wrote their part to try to communicate who God is and what he has done. These authors all had the chance to live close to God, and got pointers on topics to write about, then they all write about God.

C. I've had a similar conversation with some of my friends. We were playing "that's a question" (party board game about guessing what answer this specific player will choose), and the question of "would you prove God's existence/nonexistence?" came up. We're all Christian, so we were talking about proving that God does exist, and we basically came to the answer that God has clearly built the world in a way that does not absolutely prove his existence, so he must have chosen to not prove it for some reason. Our best guess was that if it was proven, a lot of people would follow him out of obligation instead of love.

As a kid I was always fascinated how people thousands of years ago could otherwise know that the upper end of human life is 120 years.

I’m an old, and I keep waiting for modern medicine overcome Genesis 6.3.