What’s the difference between scientific and religious knowledge, anyway?

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 04:35:24 644ba6 No.814347

What’s the difference between scientific and religious knowledge, anyway?

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 04:40:49 cb5381 No.814350

>>814347

I think this link can help you a bit: https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 04:48:15 644ba6 No.814351

>>814350

So “science is as the scientist says.” Wow. So profound. Why should I care what a scientist says?

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 05:04:55 a3023c No.814354

>>814347

actual mystical 'gnosis' (not in the heretical sense) is non discursive and without dialectic or duality.

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 05:12:10 644ba6 No.814355

>>814354

Gnosis=science? I’m confused. Isn’t what you said true of religion too?

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 09:23:23 cef5f8 No.814380

Nothing. Theology was considered a science for a long time. A distinction was created by Enlightenment philosophers who wanted to promote their new philosophy of materialistic naturalism over theism.

>During the High Middle Ages, theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named "The Queen of the Sciences" and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought.

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 11:35:10 cb054d No.814392

>>814380

big difference between theology and actual experiential mystical knowledge of God which is ineffable, suprarational and empirical of which theology can only outline which is only granted to the most spiritually developed individuals.

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 13:54:52 0ba7e3 No.814403

File: 7e20b5d57b4c7e9⋯.jpg (83.88 KB, 750x710, 75:71, Exist.jpg)

>>814347

People say that science seeks to explain the world without resorting to the agency of gods, but in fact science has a more comprehensive goal; science truly wishes to explain the world without ever resorting to human agency either.

It's not so much that science sees consciousness as a lie, it's more that science can't find a reason consciousness exists, since it is committed to reductive materialism. Science's ultimate goal is not so much to disprove religion, it is to understand religion as a medical phenomenon.

Religion on the other hand, like philosophy was originally, is all about self-knowledge, and in this way religion and philosophy are supportive of one another. God is a personal God, and hence He is accessible by prayer and known more fully with greater self-knowledge; the whole meaning of religious knowledge is to gain wisdom.

So in short, religious knowledge and scientific knowledge are both profitable in two different ways. Religion benefits the soul, science benefits your wallet.

But I have great difficulty telling you how they are different, or where the standard of knowledge rests in each.

Christanon 06/14/19 (Fri) 13:55:31 cb5381 No.814404

>>814351

No. I think you could say that science as in "the study of the natural world" is:

-A TYPE of knowledge and not the only one (scientism)

-Must be testable in a lab

-Only has jurisdiction over the natural world and it's phenomena.

That's my two cents.