How are Sciences of Religion a no go in here...

How are Sciences of Religion a no go in here, when the Cognitive Sciences of Religion operate inside the borders of science?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=y-C4mzunu0o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Its not.

>

religion is based on faith alone, while science is based on observation and empiricism. saying "the sciences of religion" is an oxymoron. (do note im not saying people with a religion cannot study science)

>Sciences of Religion

The only "science of religion" I ever heard of was statistical attempts to measure the efficacy of prayer. When a Royal in some country is ill, millions pray for his/her recovery. Do they have better survival rates than people with comparable conditions who aren't prayed for?
No.

There are also studies where electromagnetic brain stimulation produces feelings akin to religion; a belief something awesome & comforting is in the room with you. The effect is reproducible, so I guess that's "science". But that just tells us about neurology.

As said, religion is only dependent on faith. Of course, a meme which tells you you'll suffer eternally if you don't follow the rituals and convince others to do the same is going to persist. It can be very convincing and many don't want to take the risk it's not true. See Pascal's Wager.

Don't you people in here have access to Wikipedia? Google what it is, read some pdf's it has so much potential.

Cognitive Science of Religion
*

Oh, you're asking "why do people believe?" Some answers in Name somewhat mis-leading. We thought you meant "is religion true?"

Analyizing what makes monkey brains believe in god is different from obsessively analyzing the shit written down in holy books by ancient kikes/arabs/pajeets/karl marx and presuming it is all true by default.

Yes and what and how and how can we make it useful, especially in boosting mental performance.
Some adherents claim practicing religion has mnemonic value, and is something innate in our thinking, if so engineering such systems might be useful.

>Some adherents claim practicing religion has mnemonic value, and is something innate in our thinking, if so engineering such systems might be useful.
It seems like common sense when you think abut it, so perhaps we should look into it more deeply.

I'm talking straight out my ass here but I suspect having a construct of god or whatever in the back of your head it's much easier to follow whatever moral system you subscribe to because the vague pressure of social ostracism and bad consequences in the future is replaced by a direct and immediate danger of divine retribution. Someone should test this.

Not every religion puts such a heavy emphasis on what comes after death as and most elements mught even concern ways to stay alive.
It alot more about such things as remembering a route, or agricultural technique, star formations, seasons...

That too, but what I'm saying is that I suspect it's much easier for people to remember "don't do X" when it's framed as "if you do X the spirits will gore your kids" than when it's "if enough people do X, trust levels in your society might hit a critically low threshold and cause economic recession"

>Science
*tips m'lady*
gtfo loser us Christians are superalphas

When you get food poisoning after eating at red lobster and are so salty that you prohibit it in your religion.

Chomsky claims authority must be able to justify itself, the assumption of the burden of proof is something echoing through the scientific community when confronted with religios premises.
A mental architecture such as the scientific method, or religion can be defined as a framework of operation, science seeks justification through results and would demand it from challengers to subsequently incorporate their ways when fruitful.
I'm about mental architectures and using the cosmos of religious content as a resource of experiences.

Haha, that's a thought.
Or for collectives that need an enemy to unite against, spirits would come so handy, or when you no gf and summon a succubi, that might be therapy.

Religion undoubted had a useful function in the past. "Fear of god" enabled ruling classes and priests to have the leisure to do more than scratch out a living. Otherwise, we'd still be living at subsidence level.

Is it useful today? Believers don't seem to be any more moral than non-believers (if you define "moral" as "don't cheat, steal, or kill" and not as "don't eat pork") and it certainly does a lot of harm.

Note: even things which seem unreasonable today might have made sense once. If you don't know about trichinosis, "the deity forbids it" is a good way of getting people not to eat pig. But times change. "Be fruitful and multiply" is good advice for a small, beleaguered tribe, not so good when there are 7 billion plus of us.
Most people never question whether their religion (or any religion) makes sense. They're indoctrinated as kids and believe what their parents believed.

Let's the discuss the scientific benefits of systematically mutilating the genitals of helpless newborn infants by the million.

This seems like a thread for desu.
Also religion isn't really a great tool for discovery of the natural world. Its super effective in creating an ethical and moral baseline for a people or society and a celestial hierarchy of authority that codifies the mundane hierarchy of authority. As the old saying goes, what good is a law if breaking it isnt a sin.

lol cutfags are so salty

Cognitive Science of Religion

Just read about it, in the sources of the Wiki you can read, there are also a couple of PDFs listed you can get. Just speed through it.
How is supposed to approach this field? They only dig out and put together historical assumptions.

please delete this picture of my gf, thanks

Who is this semen demon?

>Sciences of Religion
wat

some asmr channel
youtube.com/watch?v=y-C4mzunu0o

>while science is based on observation and empiricism

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here.