- “…there has been a long history of religions making claims of supernatural causation after which the actual cause was discovered to be natural.”
- “…examples illustrate how many phenomena initially attributed to supernatural causes by various religions have later been explained through natural, scientific means.”
- “…this historical shift from supernatural to natural explanations has indeed influenced religious thought and practices…”
- “…many religious groups have adapted their interpretations of sacred texts and doctrines in light of scientific discoveries.”
- “…the degree of acceptance of scientific explanations varies significantly across different religious groups.”
- “…the history of natural explanations supplanting supernatural ones has prompted a reevaluation of how the divine is understood in relation to the natural world, leading to a more humble and inquisitive approach among many religious believers toward the unknown.”
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- There has been a long history of religions making claims of supernatural causation after which the actual cause was discovered to be natural. Has religions’ exposure to this track record resulted a more humble disposition toward the unknown?
- To what degree is this reticence to refrain from invoking a God for the unknown due to 1) a perceived shame in saying “I don’t know” or to 2) the urge to assign one’s particular deity greater explanatory power than warranted?
- Create a hypothetical discussion set 500 years ago on the cause of epilepsy. A religious leader is invoking demons as the “obvious” cause and a methodological naturalist is suggesting it is fine to admit we do not know what the cause is without defaulting to divine causation.
- Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
There has been a long history of religions making claims of supernatural causation after which the actual cause was discovered to be natural. Has religions’ exposure to this track record resulted a more humble disposition toward the unknown?
Examples:
- Lightning: Once thought to be the wrath of gods, the natural explanation of lightning as an electric discharge was developed by scientists like Benjamin Franklin.
- Eclipses: Solar and lunar eclipses were often interpreted as divine omens. Today, they are understood as the result of the Moon and Earth’s positions relative to the sun.
- Earthquakes: These were frequently seen as the expression of divine displeasure. The development of plate tectonics provided a natural explanation based on the movement of Earth’s lithospheric plates.
- Rainbows: Seen in many cultures as mystical or divine signs, the natural explanation of rainbows as light refraction through water droplets was established by scientists such as Isaac Newton.
- Comets: Historically viewed as harbingers of doom or divine messengers, the study of comets today falls within the realm of astronomy and physics, explaining them as celestial bodies orbiting the sun.
- Diseases: Many diseases were once considered punishments from gods or the result of evil spirits. The germ theory of disease, developed in the 19th century, showed that many diseases are caused by microorganisms.
- Mental Illnesses: Mental illnesses were often seen as demonic possession or divine retribution. Advances in medical science have led to a better understanding of mental health as a product of brain chemistry and psychological factors.
- Volcanic Eruptions: Like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions were often interpreted as manifestations of angry deities. The study of geology has since explained them through natural processes within the Earth’s crust.
- The Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis): Often seen as spirits or ancestors in various cultures, today we understand these spectacular light shows as interactions between the Earth’s magnetic field and charged particles from the sun.
- Tides: The regular rise and fall of sea levels were mysterious and sometimes attributed to divine influence. The gravitational pull of the moon and sun are now known to drive tidal phenomena.
Throughout history, the relationship between religion and science has been complex and dynamic, particularly regarding explanations for natural phenomena. The examples you provided illustrate how many phenomena initially attributed to supernatural causes by various religions have later been explained through natural, scientific means.
This historical shift from supernatural to natural explanations has indeed influenced religious thought and practices, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the natural world among many religious groups. This change can be seen as a gradual but significant evolution in the disposition of some religious communities towards humility about the unknown. Here are some ways this shift has manifested:
- Adaptation of Religious Interpretations: Many religious groups have adapted their interpretations of sacred texts and doctrines in light of scientific discoveries. Rather than seeing science as a challenge to faith, these groups often interpret new scientific knowledge as a deeper understanding of the natural world that God, or a divine power, has created.
- Dialogues Between Science and Religion: There has been an increasing effort to foster dialogue between the fields of science and religion. Organizations and forums that promote discussions between theologians and scientists help both communities explore the implications of scientific discoveries in religious contexts.
- Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism: Concepts like theistic evolution and progressive creationism reflect an attempt by some religious believers to reconcile their faith with scientific explanations of the universe. These views accept scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution while maintaining that these processes are guided by a divine influence.
- Educational Changes: Some religious institutions have incorporated scientific education into their curricula, teaching both the religious and scientific perspectives on natural phenomena. This approach aims to prepare followers to engage with the world informatively and thoughtfully.
- Philosophical and Theological Development: The exposure to scientific explanations has spurred philosophical and theological developments within religions. Thinkers within these traditions often explore questions about the nature of God, the role of divine action, and the purpose of human existence in ways that incorporate scientific understandings.
However, the degree of acceptance of scientific explanations varies significantly across different religious groups. Some remain more literal in their interpretations of religious texts and may view scientific explanations as conflicting with their faith. In contrast, others may see science as a valuable tool for understanding the world that complements their religious beliefs.
Overall, the history of natural explanations supplanting supernatural ones has prompted a reevaluation of how the divine is understood in relation to the natural world, leading to a more humble and inquisitive approach among many religious believers toward the unknown.
You’re absolutely right. There is a long history of religion attributing phenomena to supernatural causes, followed by scientific discoveries revealing natural explanations. This has had a mixed impact on religions’ disposition towards the unknown.
Here’s a breakdown of the different responses:
- Accommodation: Many religions have shown an ability to accommodate scientific discoveries. They reinterpret their scriptures and teachings to coexist with new knowledge. For example, some Christians might view God as the creator of the laws of physics that govern phenomena like lightning.
- Conflict: Some religions view scientific explanations as a challenge to their authority. This can lead to conflict, as seen in debates about creationism versus evolution.
- De-emphasis of the Physical World: Certain religions emphasize the spiritual realm over the physical world. Scientific explanations might be seen as irrelevant to their core beliefs.
Overall, there isn’t a single, universal response from religions. It depends on the specific religion, its interpretation of scripture, and the broader cultural context.
Here are some additional points to consider:
- Science and religion can be complementary. Scientific discoveries can provide a deeper appreciation for the complexity and wonder of the universe, which some may view as evidence of a divine creator.
- The unknown will always exist. Even with scientific progress, there will be mysteries beyond our current understanding. Religion can offer comfort and meaning in the face of the unknown.
So, while religions have been exposed to a track record of overtaken supernatural explanations, their response varies. Some adapt, some clash, and some see the realms of science and religion as distinct.
To what degree is this reticence to refrain from invoking a God for the unknown due to 1) a perceived shame in saying “I don’t know” or to 2) the urge to assign one’s particular deity greater explanatory power than warranted?
The reluctance among some religious groups or individuals to refrain from invoking God to explain unknown phenomena can be influenced by a combination of psychological, social, and doctrinal factors. The two reasons you’ve outlined—perceived shame in admitting ignorance and the desire to attribute greater explanatory power to a deity—are both significant, but they operate in different contexts and can vary greatly among different faith communities and cultures. Here’s a closer look at each:
- Perceived Shame in Saying “I Don’t Know”:
- Cultural Attitudes Toward Knowledge and Ignorance: In many cultures, admitting ignorance can be seen as a weakness. This perception can be particularly pronounced in religious contexts where leaders or communities are expected to have answers about the world’s workings as part of their spiritual wisdom or authority.
- Fear of Uncertainty: Human beings generally prefer certainty to uncertainty. The discomfort associated with not knowing can be psychologically distressing. In this context, invoking divine intervention or will provides a comforting certainty that fills the gap of unknown phenomena.
- Identity and Cohesion: For some communities, strict adherence to doctrinal certainties helps maintain a sense of identity and cohesion. Admitting ignorance might be seen as opening the door to questioning other aspects of their faith, potentially leading to doctrinal instability or loss of community cohesion.
- Urge to Assign Greater Explanatory Power to One’s Deity:
- Theological Imperatives: In some religious frameworks, the omnipotence and omniscience of a deity are central doctrines. Thus, attributing unknown phenomena to divine action can be a way to reaffirm these attributes, maintaining a consistent theological narrative.
- Evangelistic or Apologetic Motives: Some believers may feel a duty to promote their faith as encompassing all aspects of life, including explanations for natural phenomena. In this light, attributing events to divine will can be a way to witness to others or defend their faith against secular explanations.
- Integration of Worldviews: For many, integrating all experiences and phenomena under the umbrella of divine action is a way to maintain a coherent worldview where everything has a purpose and place under divine governance. This can make experiences more meaningful and comprehensible within the context of their religious beliefs.
These factors are not mutually exclusive and often interact in complex ways within religious communities. Additionally, the impact of these motivations can vary dramatically. Some religious groups are very open to scientific explanations and see no conflict between science and faith. Others might feel that scientific explanations diminish the role or power of the divine, leading to a stronger reliance on religious explanations for unknown phenomena.
Understanding these dynamics requires a nuanced approach, recognizing that each religious tradition and community may respond differently based on their doctrinal emphases, historical experiences, and cultural contexts.
Both factors you mentioned likely play a role, but to varying degrees depending on the situation and the specific religion. Let’s break it down:
- Shame of Saying “I Don’t Know”:
- Cultural Influences: Many cultures, especially historically, valued certainty and divine explanations. Admitting ignorance could be seen as weakness. Religions often provided comfort and a sense of order in an uncertain world. Saying “I don’t know” might go against this ingrained cultural need for answers.
- Religious Authority: Some religious leaders might be hesitant to admit the limitations of their knowledge, fearing it undermines their authority or the religion’s credibility.
- Explanatory Power of Deities:
- Filling the Gaps: When faced with the unknown, attributing it to a powerful deity offers a seemingly complete explanation. It can be easier to say “God did it” than to grapple with complex scientific concepts.
- Importance of Deities: Many religions see their deities as all-powerful and all-knowing. Assigning unknown phenomena to deities reinforces their central role in the universe and the lives of believers.
Here’s how these factors might weigh in:
- For a recent scientific discovery: A more progressive religion might be more comfortable saying “We don’t know yet, but science is helping us understand.” Shame of admitting ignorance would be less prominent.
- For a core tenet of the religion: It’s less likely deities would be readily removed from explanations for something fundamental to the faith’s narrative (e.g., creation of the universe). Explanatory power of deities would be more important.
It’s important to remember:
- Not all religions are the same. Some actively encourage curiosity and exploration.
- Individuals within religions can have varying degrees of comfort with the unknown and the role of science.
Overall, the reticence to abandon supernatural explanations likely stems from a combination of cultural need for certainty, the desire for a complete explanation, and the importance of deities within specific faiths.
Create a hypothetical discussion set 500 years ago on the cause of epilepsy. A religious leader is invoking demons as the “obvious” cause and a methodological naturalist is suggesting it is fine to admit we do not know what the cause is without defaulting to divine causation.
Certainly! Let’s imagine a discussion set 500 years ago, focusing on the cause of epilepsy. The participants are a religious leader who believes that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession and a methodological naturalist who advocates for a careful, empirical approach to understanding phenomena without jumping to supernatural explanations.
Characters
- Father Ambrose, a well-respected priest who holds traditional views on spirituality and health, viewing epilepsy as a form of demonic possession.
- Dr. Leonardo, a physician and early advocate of the methodological naturalist approach, who believes in observing and studying natural phenomena to find explanations.
Setting
A public debate in a community hall in a European town, attended by local villagers and scholars.
Dialogue
Moderator: “Welcome, esteemed guests. Today we gather to discuss the distressing affliction known as epilepsy, which many in our community have suffered from. Father Ambrose, please share your understanding of this condition.”
Father Ambrose: “Thank you. It is clear to those of us who have studied the holy scriptures and witnessed the suffering of those afflicted that epilepsy is a manifestation of demonic influence. The suddenness with which the fits take hold, the convulsions — these are surely the signs of an unclean spirit. It is our duty to address this through spiritual means, including exorcism and prayer.”
Dr. Leonardo: “While I hold great respect for Father Ambrose and his spiritual leadership, I must advocate for a position of humility in our understanding of such complex conditions. The human body is a complex system, and the workings of the brain are still largely a mystery to us. To ascribe epilepsy to demonic possession is to claim knowledge we do not possess. It might be more prudent to admit that we simply do not know the cause at this time.”
Father Ambrose: “Dr. Leonardo, how do you address the immediate need for explanations and solutions that our people seek? They look to us for answers and for comfort in their afflictions.”
Dr. Leonardo: “Indeed, the need for answers is great, but must we not be cautious not to offer false comfort? By admitting our ignorance, we open the door to genuine inquiry and investigation. Perhaps instead of looking to ancient texts for a diagnosis, we could observe and document the conditions under which these fits occur, seek patterns, and slowly build understanding. This does not diminish the role of spiritual support but enhances it with a commitment to truth.”
Father Ambrose: “But Dr. Leonardo, are you suggesting that until we have answers, we do nothing? How do we minister to those in distress?”
Dr. Leonardo: “Not at all, Father. We provide care and compassion, we comfort and support, we pray and we also study. By all means, let us use every tool at our disposal—both spiritual and observational—to aid those who suffer. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is not a sign of weakness but of strength. It is the first step on the path to knowledge.”
Moderator: “It seems we are at a crossroads of belief and inquiry. Father Ambrose speaks to our spiritual needs and traditions, while Dr. Leonardo advocates for a cautious and open-ended approach to understanding. Perhaps there is room for both perspectives as we seek to comfort and to cure.”
Setting: A sparsely furnished chamber within a castle, sunlight streams through a narrow window. Tomas, a man clad in severe black robes, paces before Elara, a young scholar with a satchel overflowing with herbal remedies and strange tools. A young woman, frail and pale, lies unconscious on a cot in the corner.
Tomas: (booming voice) Demons! Undoubtedly, demons are the cause of this poor girl’s affliction! Her body convulses, her eyes roll back, a clear sign of possession by malevolent forces!
Elara: (calmly) Hold, Tomas. While the cause may be unknown, attributing it to demons serves no purpose. Perhaps it is a distemper of the humors, an imbalance in the body’s fluids.
Tomas: (scoffs) Humors? Foolish talk! This girl needs an exorcism, not leeches and potions!
Elara: But Tomas, have you considered the possibility that we simply… do not know the cause yet? Perhaps with careful observation and study, we can find a way to alleviate her suffering.
Tomas: (eyes narrowing) Are you suggesting we turn our backs on the teachings of the Church? This is a clear case of demonic possession, and the only cure is to drive out the foul entity!
Elara: (stands her ground) The Church also teaches us to care for the sick, Tomas. Surely, driving out a demon that may not exist would do more harm than good. Perhaps a gentler approach, based on observation and reason, might offer some hope.
Tomas: (frowns) Reason? You speak dangerously, woman. The only reason we need is the divine will. This affliction is a punishment for sin, and only the Church can offer redemption!
Elara: (kneels beside the young woman, checking her pulse) But Tomas, what if this is a physical ailment, not a sin? What if understanding the cause can help countless others who suffer similarly? Isn’t that a worthy pursuit, even if it means admitting we don’t have all the answers now?
Tomas: (hesitates, a flicker of doubt crossing his face) To deny the divine is heresy… but to offer solace to the afflicted…
Elara: (looks up, her voice firm) Tomas, true faith does not fear the unknown. It welcomes the quest for knowledge, even when it leads us to unfamiliar paths. Perhaps, by studying this affliction, we can not only help this young woman, but also glorify God’s creation by understanding the human body he has so intricately designed.
Tomas: (remains silent for a moment, then sighs) Very well, Elara. You may proceed with your… examination. But remember, the Church’s teachings remain paramount.
Elara: (bows her head) Thank you, Inquisitor. I assure you, I will conduct myself with utmost respect for both science and faith.
Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
Quiz on the Discussion of Science and Religion in Historical Context
- What natural phenomenon was historically viewed as a sign of divine displeasure or punishment by gods?
- Which figure is noted for their work with electricity that helped demystify the phenomenon of lightning?
- How did the religious community historically interpret comets?
- What is the germ theory of disease, and who developed it?
- What does the concept of theistic evolution attempt to reconcile?
- According to the dialogue set 500 years ago about comets, what does Master Gilbert suggest as the proper attitude towards unexplained phenomena?
- In the discussion on epilepsy 500 years ago, what alternative explanation does Dr. Leonardo propose instead of demonic possession?
- What did Brother Dominic suggest as the cause of epilepsy in the hypothetical discussion?
- How does Master Gilbert in the comet dialogue view the relationship between religious and scientific explanations?
- What did Dr. Leonardo emphasize as important when admitting “I don’t know” in understanding natural phenomena?
Answers
- Earthquakes
- Benjamin Franklin
- As harbingers of doom or divine messengers
- The germ theory of disease explains that many diseases are caused by microorganisms. It was developed in the 19th century.
- Scientific explanations of the universe with religious beliefs.
- Saying “I don’t know” is not a defeat but an invitation to deeper understanding.
- Observing and studying the conditions under which epileptic fits occur to find natural explanations.
- Demonic possession
- He argues that scientific explanations do not negate the divine but seek to understand the tools and methods of the Creator.
- It opens the door to genuine inquiry and investigation.
Quiz: Religion and the Unknown
This quiz covers the ideas discussed in the thread about the response of religion to scientific discoveries and the concept of admitting “I don’t know.”
- Throughout history, many religions have attributed natural phenomena to what unseen forces?
- The development of the scientific method has led to a(n) _______ response from religions regarding the unknown.
- Which of the following is NOT typically a response of religion to scientific explanations?
- When faced with the unknown, some religions may emphasize the importance of the _______ realm over the physical world.
- In the example about lightning, what scientific discovery replaced the explanation of lightning as the wrath of gods?
- The germ theory of disease is an example of how science has explained what was once believed to be caused by _______.
- In the fictional discussion between Father Clement and Alistair, what is the main point of contention?
- In the discussion between Brother Thomas and Alistair, Brother Thomas suggests that true faith involves _______ the limits of human knowledge.
- Abbess Helena, in the discussion about comets, suggests that science can be seen as a way to appreciate _______ of creation.
- Elara, in the fictional discussion about epilepsy, argues that admitting ignorance can be a form of _______ to the complexities of the universe.
Answers
- Supernatural forces (demons, gods, etc.)
- Varied (acceptance, conflict, de-emphasis)
- Eagerly embracing all scientific explanations
- Spiritual
- Benjamin Franklin’s explanation of lightning as electricity
- Punishment from gods or evil spirits
- Whether comets are celestial phenomena or divine messages
- Acknowledging
- The intricate clockwork
- Respect
Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
- How have historical interpretations of natural phenomena like comets and eclipses influenced modern religious thought?
- Discuss the impact of scientific discoveries, such as the germ theory of disease, on religious explanations of illness and health.
- How do concepts like theistic evolution demonstrate a merging of scientific and religious worldviews?
- What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of religious communities adapting their teachings in light of scientific discoveries?
- How does the concept of admitting “I don’t know” contribute to both scientific inquiry and theological humility?
- In what ways can the dialogue between science and religion be enhanced in modern educational systems?
- Explore how different religions have historically responded to scientific explanations that contradict their doctrines.
- Discuss the role of cultural attitudes toward knowledge and ignorance in shaping responses to scientific explanations within religious communities.
- How can acknowledging ignorance be seen as a strength rather than a weakness in both religious and scientific communities?
- What are the ethical considerations in balancing faith-based and scientific explanations in public policy and education?
- How has the interpretation of phenomena like epilepsy evolved from spiritual to scientific explanations, and what does this tell us about the evolution of medicine?
- Evaluate the role of dialogue, as depicted in the hypothetical discussions, in resolving conflicts between science and religion.
- Consider the historical context of 500 years ago: How would the debate about the nature of comets or epilepsy differ if it occurred in different parts of the world?
- How does the fear of uncertainty influence the preference for divine explanations over scientific uncertainty?
- What practical steps can religious and scientific leaders take to foster mutual understanding and respect for each other’s methodologies and insights?
Discussion Questions: Religion and the Unknown
- Historical Perspective: How has the relationship between religion and science evolved over time, particularly regarding the explanation of natural phenomena?
- Spectrum of Responses: What are some of the different ways religions have responded to scientific discoveries that challenge their traditional explanations?
- Science vs. Faith: Can science and religion coexist, or are they inherently at odds when explaining the unknown?
- Comfort and Control: How does attributing phenomena to supernatural causes provide comfort and a sense of control in the face of the unknown?
- Limits of Knowledge: In what ways can admitting “I don’t know” be a valuable approach to understanding the universe and our place within it?
- The Role of Curiosity: How can religious institutions encourage scientific curiosity and exploration while still maintaining core beliefs?
- Shame and Authority: How might cultural pressure and religious authority discourage individuals from questioning traditional explanations?
- Science as a Tool: Can science be seen as a way to glorify God’s creation by understanding the world more deeply?
- Predicting vs. Interpreting: Is it more important to predict natural phenomena or to interpret their meaning within a religious framework?
- Ethics and Science: When scientific discoveries have ethical implications (e.g., cloning), how can religion guide discussions and decision-making?
- Modern Examples: Are there any current scientific debates where religion and science are in conflict? How are these discussions unfolding?
- Personal Beliefs: How do your own personal beliefs influence your understanding of the relationship between religion and the unknown?
- The Future: How do you think the relationship between religion and science will evolve in the future?
- Interfaith Dialogue: Can open communication and collaboration between different religious traditions be beneficial in confronting the unknown?
- Art and Imagination: How can art and creative expression bridge the gap between scientific understanding and religious faith?
Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)
- There has been a long history of religions making claims of supernatural causation after which the actual cause was discovered to be natural. Has religions’ exposure to this track record resulted a more humble disposition toward the unknown?
- To what degree is this reticence to refrain from invoking a God for the unknown due to 1) a perceived shame in saying “I don’t know” or to 2) the urge to assign one’s particular deity greater explanatory power than warranted?
- Create a hypothetical discussion set 500 years ago on the cause of epilepsy. A religious leader is invoking demons as the “obvious” cause and a methodological naturalist is suggesting it is fine to admit we do not know what the cause is without defaulting to divine causation.
- Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
- Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
Byteseismic Philosophy 
Leave a comment