Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fishermans_Worf t1_it38azw wrote

Reply to comment by fencerman in [Peter Harrison] Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it by BasketCase0024

Religions do tend to make strong claims about healthy human behaviour.

While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy.

1

fencerman t1_it3bc53 wrote

> Religions do tend to make strong claims about healthy human behaviour.

Those tend to be claims about MORAL behaviour, which isn't a scientific question at all.

4

krussell25 t1_it63lu7 wrote

There are good reasons why all ancient civilizations had a religion. Uniting a population and imposing a 'moral code' was very beneficial to the wellbeing of the group.

The question I would pose is, is it still necessary for religion to be the basis for uniting people?

2

PrimePhilosophy t1_it9x36f wrote

"The question I would pose is, is it still necessary for religion to be the basis for uniting people?" - This question presupposes that united people weren't the basis for religion.

3

Fishermans_Worf t1_it3nwg6 wrote

In a religious context, what is the difference between moral behaviour and healthy behaviour?

I'm pretty sure all behaviour can be viewed from a scientific context. Science can't tell you which behaviours are moral and which aren't—but it can tell us which are healthy and which aren't.

0

iiioiia t1_it3mre2 wrote

> While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy.

Can science grant one the ability to see the future with accuracy, or might it be more true that it only reinforces that pre-existing illusion?

Science seems to grant humans little power in this arena (to be fair: it isn't really trying), but Eastern Religions have been working on the problem for ages and have many suggested approaches, many of which seem to work fairly well.

1

Fishermans_Worf t1_it3v2f2 wrote

I'm not entirely sure of your question. Are you asking if science is capable of accurate divination or are you questioning my seeming certainty that psychology can provide accurate guidance on human behaviour?

If you're asking about predicting the future with accuracy—science is more into predicting the future with probabilities rather than with accuracy. It appears to work pretty well within specific domains that we seem to understand well and poorly for general domains that we don't.

If you're asking how I can justifiably say psychology will be able to provide accurate guidance of human behaviour, it already does to a limited extent. We're only now gaining the tools we need in order to see what the problems actually are and the field faces a lot of stigma from religions and from it's youth and immaturity (including not a small amount of sheer lunacy), but there is solid work being done. It's successfully challenged many preconceptions of what drives human behaviour in fields of addiction and crime and it's shown that authoritarive structures are healthier and more effective than authoritarian ones. It does face structural difficulties that make it extremely difficult to get good science done and extremely easy to just see cultural bias reflected back—but give it time.

You'll probably find it interesting that it seems to be confirming collectivist views more than individualist ones. I think it's far more likely that psychology will simply confirm which aspects of religions and philosophies line up with actual human behaviour rather than invent new ones. A lot of people have been thinking on these things for a lot of time and we've got lots of good answers—science can eventually tell which ones don't work in practice.

0

iiioiia t1_it3ysmi wrote

> Are you asking if science is capable of accurate divination or are you questioning my seeming certainty that psychology can provide accurate guidance on human behaviour?

"my seeming certainty" is a nice way to describe your assertion of fact: "While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy."

Science can discover some things, but what percentage of the whole it discovers is unknown.

> If you're asking about predicting the future with accuracy—science is more into predicting the future with probabilities rather than with accuracy.

Scientific Materialist's claims about what science will or can do on the other hand....

> If you're asking how I can justifiably say psychology will be able to provide accurate guidance of human behaviour, it already does to a limited extent.

> We're only now gaining the tools we need in order to see what the problems actually are and the field faces a lot of stigma from religions and from it's youth and immaturity (including not a small amount of sheer lunacy),

Is your consideration comprehensive?

Are you describing religion as it is, or might you be describing your (subconscious) model of religion? What says science/medicine on the matter?

> but give it time

I will grant science as much leeway and consideration s as its disciples grant religion.

> You'll probably find it interesting that it seems to be confirming collectivist views more than individualist ones.

Religion has done that for far longer than science...granted, they don't walk the talk well, but give it time.

> I think it's far more likely that psychology will simply confirm which aspects of religions and philosophies line up with actual human behaviour rather than invent new ones.

"Confirm" is an interesting word. Nice and ambiguous.

> A lot of people have been thinking on these things for a lot of time and we've got lots of good answers—science can eventually tell which ones don't work in practice.

Science can assert which ones don't work in practice, but whether their assertions are accurate is another matter.

1