Similarities And Differences Between The Scientific Method And The Religion Method - Essay Example

Religion and Theology # 9th April, Similarities and Differences between the Scientific Method and the Religion Method This paper seeks to answer the following question: Which do you believe to be most fundamental, the differences or the similarities in the methods of science and religion? In an attempt to answer this question, I have presented both the similarities and the differences in the methods of sciences and religion. Before making a comparison of the methods of science and religion, it is better to first look at the phenomenon of religion and the methods used in religion, and then look at the phenomenon of science, and the methods used in science. After looking at the methods used in these two different fields of study, we will then make a comparison of the differences and the similarities of the methods used in these two disciplines. Before we look at the religion method, let us look at the descriptive definition of religion given by Joachim Wach. Wach conceived religion as a phenomenon characterized by three universal expressions. These expressions are the theoretical, the sociological and the practical expressions. The theoretical expression of religion refers to the aspect of religion that explicates the belief system of religion. The theoretical expression of religion encompasses the myth and the doctrine elements of religion. Wach understood myth as a primal theoretical expression in religion, while the doctrine is the rationalization of the myth. On the Sociological expression of religion, Wach argues that religion is a social phenomenon and it always takes place with the society. And on the practical expression of religion, Wach contends that every religion involves doing something so as to get in touch with the sacred. Having looked at the Wach’s descriptive definition of religion, let us now look at the phenomenology of religion. The phenomenology of religion examines the aspects of religion that are common to all religions. The five aspects of the phenomenology of religion are: myth, sacred time, sacred space, symbol and Sacrament. Myths generally are stories that seek to answer the questions of who we are as human beings, and our purpose in the world; myths also seek to answer questions on the origin and the nature of the world. Examples of myths in religion are the creation myths and the hero myths. The sacred time refers to the time when the sacred manifested. Every religion has sacred time and sacred time is considered a very important element of religion. Examples of sacred time are Easter, Yom Kippur, and the Ramadan. On the sacred space, the sacred manifest in space, for this reason, every religion recognizes different places as sacred. Examples of the sacred space are the Hindu Temples, Christian Cathedrals, and the Islam Mosques. Religious symbols on the other hand refer to a physical thing that point to a sacred reality. Symbols refer to the use of symbols, action to get in touch with the sacred. Having looked both at the definition of religion and also at the phenomenology of religion, let us now look at mysticism, as the methodological heart of religion. Many fundamental truths in religion are perceived through mysticism “The main aim of mystic perception is to disclose the deepest structures of the world, and to reach the hidden ground of being, that one might abide at the true centre, the still point of origins” (Class notes).Through mysticism, the religious people have a direct experience of the sacred. Through mysticism, the mystics discover that all things are grounded in one, and that each of us is intimately connected with the one. The one is given different names in different religions; for instance, the Christians call the one God, while the Muslims call the one Allah. The mystics teach us that approaching union with the one is the most satisfying thing a person can do. The mystics also teach that the one transcends time and space, and that the one exists in, under, and through all things. The mystics also teach that it is only through a union with the one that we can have true knowledge of the world. The mystics use symbolic and metaphorical language because the mystical experience that they seek to explain is ineffable since it is a spiritual/sacred reality that cannot be explained through the ordinary language that we use in explaining the physical reality. As we have already said, mysticism constitute the core of method of religion, mysticism claims to yield greater knowledge of the universe through a direct, intuitive, encounter with the world. Whereas the religious theory, doctrine and Theology rely more on deductive method in their proceeding, the mysticism method is more complex since it involves a direct contact with the sacred. The mysticism method is a deductive method from the first principles, but it also claims empirical grounding in the deepest structures of reality and of the human heart (Class notes). A close look at the writings of the mystics shows that the message that the mystics seek to communicate is perceptive and quite sensible. This fact therefore shows that deduction and intuition can actually yield true knowledge. Mathematics also uses the deductive and intuition methods, and through the mathematical knowledge, we are able to know more about the physical world. This fact shows the intuitive and the deductive methods are valid methods of gaining knowledge of the physical world. There are many scholars who support the view that mystical experience yields true knowledge of reality. One of these scholars is Robert Ellwood. Ellwood claims that mysticism is a religious experience that connects one directly, and unmediated, with the ultimate divine reality. For Ellwood therefore mysticism is a valid method to gain knowledge of the world. Evelyn Underhill on the other hand claims that mysticism is the process through which the soul moves to toward an ineffable union with the absolute. Just like Ellwood, Evelyn also sees mysticism as a valid and legitimate method of gaining knowledge of the world. Having looked at the Religion method, let us now look at the Scientific Method. Scientific method refers to the method used by all the empirical science disciplines. Different scholars have offered different theories of scientific method. One of these theories was offered by Frederick Dessauer. The following is the Frederick Dessauer’s workup of the inductive methodology of the scientific inquiry; Dessauer saw development of scientific knowledge taking the following steps. First, a tentative hypothesis, obtained through induction from experience and from previous knowledge in the field, offered for proof. Secondly, the hypothesis is refined to assume the mathematical or the physical model. Thirdly, a logical conclusion and predictions are drawn from the structured hypothesis; the predictions must have promise of experimental verification. The predictions are then checked against experience, either through experimentation or through observation. If the predictions are verified through the experimentation or observation, the hypothesis then can be said to be scientifically verified or established. A look at the Dessauer’s scientific method shows that this method is completely different from the religion method that we have looked above. Unlike the religion method, Dessauer does not make any a priori commitment and he is guided only by facts, and careful process of induction. However, Dessauer’s method is not completely free of deduction. The source of original might have been intuitive and esthetic. There might be also an element of deductive and intuitive method in the selection of the hypothesis and in the interpretation of the results. Thomas Kuhn also offered a theory of scientific method. Kuhn built his scientific method on the theme of paradigm. He understood paradigm as a global organizing model or theory with great explanatory power. According to Kuhn, the development and growth of scientific knowledge follows the following steps. The first stage of scientific knowledge development is the preparadigmatic stage, at this stage, the science is immature for it lacks paradigm. Slowly, the science grows and becomes paradigmatic. Paradigms are not always true but they can easily be tested and verified. The paradigm change can be precipitated by scientific crisis which challenges the existing paradigm. Kuhn therefore saw all scientific hypotheses as tentative, because, through scientific crisis, the hypotheses will be challenged in the future, leading to paradigm change. For Kuhn, this is the method through which scientific knowledge develops and grows, and for this reason, Kuhn regarded humanities and religion as unscientific because they do not follow this method. Just like the Dessauer’s method, the Kuhn’s method is not without some element of deductive and intuitive method. This is because in the formulation of the hypothesis and in the selection of the data, there is always an element of subjectivity. This fact therefore shows that Kuhn’s method is not completely objective as Kuhn would want to make us believe. The other scholar who offered a theory of scientific method is Mario Bunge. Mario Bunge’s theory is on Pseudoscience and Parapsychology. Bunge offered the following criteria for Pseudoscience. First, Bunge argued that Pseudoscience is based on subjevistic theory of knowledge, and that its aspects are accessible only to the initiated. Secondly, the formal background of Pseudoscience is modest, with little logic or mathematics. Thirdly, the Pseudoscience hypotheses are untestable, and are often in conflict with larger body of knowledge. Pseudo-science methods also are neither testable by alternative methods, nor justifiable in terms of well-confirmed theories. Also, the Pseudoscience has no overlap with another field of research. Again, the Pseudoscience has no background of well-confirmed theory. The pseudoscience also is a worldview with elusive immaterial entities. For Bunge therefore these are the eight criteria of distinguishing the science from the pseudoscience. Bunge applied these eight steps on parapsychology and he concluded that parapsychology is actually a pseudoscience. A comparison of the Religion method and the Scientific method shows that these two different methods have both similarities and differences. On the similarity, both of these two methods have an element of subjectivity or deductive reasoning. With mysticism, which is the main methodology of religion, being a direct contact with the sacred, there is indeed an element of subjectivity in the mystic knowledge because it is based on intuition; also, mysticism is purely based on deductive method. Every scientific method also has an element of subjectivity because, formulation and selection of data is not without personal interests and biases; also, formulation of original hypotheses involves some form of deductive reasoning. Also, both mystic method and the scientific method lead us into the knowledge of the world. Although mysticism is based on intuition, mysticism however helps us in knowing some subtle truths about the world that we cannot know through empirical sciences. This fact therefore shows that these methods of knowledge are complimentary for they both help us in knowing our world better. On the differences, the main difference between these two methods of knowledge is that the method of religion is based on deductive and intuitive reasoning, while the scientific method is based on inductive reasoning. Although we have said that both these two methods have an element of deductive reasoning, the two methods of knowledge, however, proceed on different methods. The mysticism proceeds through drawing conclusions from general and abstract premises, while the scientific method proceeds through drawing conclusions from specific and empirical data. This fact therefore shows that these two methods are indeed different. Again, although mysticism indeed does help us in knowing our physical world better, the mysticism experience however aims at uniting us with the one, God, Nirvana, Allah, as we have already seen. Mysticism therefore gives us spiritual knowledge. The scientific knowledge on the other hand gives us empirical knowledge, and we cannot know any spiritual reality through the scientific method. This fact therefore marks the second major difference between the religion method and the scientific method. Looking at the similarities and the differences between the religion method and the scientific method, I am not sure which is most fundamental. This because on the one hand, the similarities between the two methods of knowledge seems quite significant; and the two methods seem complimentary in helping us to know the world and ourselves better. On the other hand, the differences also seem quite fundamental because the two methods of knowledge are based on completely different methodology, the mysticism method use deductive method while the scientific method uses the inductive method. Work Cited Class Notes Read More