The Role of Science and Logic in Determining the Truth of Religions

Is it possible to use science and logic to determine which religion is correct? The answer is straightforward: no, and here's why.

Science and Logic in the Western World

No, religions are not bound by science or logic. However, in the Western world, religions often attempt to be logically consistent. When they encounter logical errors, they typically label these as ldquo;mysteries beyond human understandingrdquo;.

Science and Empirical Evidence

Science has nothing to say about the existence of a god or Jesus being a god. It cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Science is a tool for empirical evidence, not faith or belief. Ancient texts often contain logical contradictions, and different religious interpretations exist depending on one's belief system. Liberal believers tend to interpret these contradictions metaphorically, while fundamentalists brush them aside.

The Divergence of Religions

Religions diverge over time due to a lack of a method to determine what is true. There are frequent schisms over doctrines, charismatic leaders, and political factors. Real knowledge converges towards a provisionally accepted model of reality, which can change when new evidence is found. Religions would never admit to being overturned by new knowledge.

New Thought and Non-Profit Religions

Some people look to New Thought as a way to determine which non-profit religion offers the best answers. The book As a Man Thinketh by James Allen is often referenced in this context.

The Soul: A Metaphysical Concept

The concept of the soul is deeply troubling to many. It is assumed that a soul is a component of an individual, but this assumption is problematic:

Humans are not born with sapience; it takes time for this to develop. The soul is often described as an eternal entity, which is difficult to reconcile with the cycle of life and death. The idea of an eternal 'me' is non-intuitive, and the concept of an 'aether passenger' is equally unsettling.

This conceptual idea, deeply rooted in many religions, is illogical and at odds with empirical evidence. It's far harder to disprove an assertion than to make one. Asserting the flatness of the Earth is easier to claim than proving the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

The Empirical Perspective

A tree provides a useful analogy for understanding life and the soul. Trees grow from seeds, drawing from the elements of the earth and sky. They are not separate from their environment but are deeply interconnected. Similarly, humans are simply one aspect of a larger, interconnected reality.

This perspective highlights that the idea of a soul as a distinct entity is arbitrary and comforting, perhaps to ease our anxiety about death. However, it is a construct that complicates our understanding of life and nature.

Religion and Logic

Religious assertions are often beyond the scope of science and logic, as religions are not concerned with empirical evidence. Scientific methods cannot address metaphysical questions. This is why religions are functionally wrong, as there is no methodological or metaphysical framework to determine their correctness.

Religions often insert the concept of a soul to mitigate their contradictions and create an illusion of continuity beyond death. However, this is purely metaphysical and ill-defined, making it difficult to either refute or verify.

Ultimately, science and technology cannot save us or identify problems in religion because religion is not concerned with the laboratory of empirical evidence. If a religion were proven, it would no longer be considered a religion but a factual science.