No.
How about...
Image religions that adhere to the scientific method. Before you laugh and move on to read something else, stop to think about what that would be like. We've all heard religious gurus tell their followers that science doesn't have all the answers. They are correct. Science doesn't address a lot of questions. Questions of the supernatural or the metaphysical cannot be studied in science since science deals strictly with the natural world. Which of course begs the question. Is there really anything other than the natural universe? Clearly for some of us, we would say: No evidence for such things as of yet. But the supernatural operates on a whole different plane. There is no tangible evidence, no physical laws because it is by definition: not physical. This is spinning out of control before I've even started. Let me try to steer back on course fast...
For many of us that have even just barely used the scientific method in science class we have grown to fall in love with it. As children we built our foaming volcanoes in science fair. We watched the transit of Venus through blackened glass in pure amazement. We enjoyed "Planet Earth" on bluray, or rush to watch the new episode of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. I can only speak for myself but the discovery of the scientific method (as a tool) might be the greatest accomplishment of the human animal. Nearly everything we enjoy in this comfortable technological age we live in we have the scientific method to thank for it. The scientific method has given us everything from the discovery of common ancestry of all living organisms, to the mapping the human genome, to discovering habitable planets outside of our own solar system. It's yanked us out of the jungles as hunter gatherer beasts to civilized, altruistic masters of technology.
Religion was once science.
Historian of science, H. Floris Cohen and Peter Harrison have both argued science arose from a unique blend of Greek and biblical thought. Cohen states, "Greek powers of abstract reasoning and of thinking up idealized constructions" in combination with "the biblical humility toward accepting the facts of nature as they are, combined with a view of man as fitted out by God with the power to take nature on". Harrison explains that the Protestant approaches to scripture had significant consequences for early science books on the natural world. He goes on to say that the scientific activity in seventeenth-century England were motivated and legitimated by literal interpretations of the Creation and Fall narratives in the Bible. Science in the seventeen-century was used as a means of restoring the human right of dominion over the natural world. This was a conquered consequence of the Fall of Adam.
Oxford historian and theologian, John Hedley Brooke writes, "When natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes insisted that he was discovering the 'laws that God has put into nature'. Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the 'counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being'."However, Historian Ronald L Numbers has argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims." Regardless, it's clear that science was birthed through religion.
In the Middle Ages the leading thinkers in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism attempted to merge philosophy, religion, and natural sciences. They taught that if religious teachings ever contradicted direct observations of the natural world, then it was necessary to re-evaluate either the understanding of scriptures or scientific facts. Thus, the best knowledge of the universe was a better understanding of scriptures. These findings in the natural world were also not yet equal to the authority of the holy texts. The scientific method (in fields such as planetary orbits and optics) began to be applied by Christian and Muslim scientists in the 11th century.
Ancient beliefs gave way to many of the physical sciences. Astrology was once considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in the academic and political arena, and connected closely to studies, such as meteorology, medicine, alchemy, and astronomy. Alchemy produced a large range of contributions to the physical sciences and medicine. Science came from pseudoscience.
Even today we see a wide range of pseudosciences masquerading as science. There is a very large market for these concepts. Thus, if one is looking for a lucrative career it may be wise to jump on the money train of pseudoscience. Some examples of pseudoscience are L. Ron Habbard's famous engram theory, reflexology, applied kinesiology, astrology, rebirthing therapy, graphology, metoposcopy, ESP, biorhythms, physiognomy, acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, rolfing, ancient astronaut theory, cellular memory.
These however are not accepted theories or therapies in science. These fields have not yet met their burden of proof conclusively. In the first paragraph of this piece I submitted an idea for a thought experiment: What if religions adhered to the scientific method? Think about what that means. I gave examples in the previous paragraph of pseudoscience using scientific terminology to sound "scientific". That's not what I'm talking about. What I want us to consider is what it would be like to have religions/a religion/ that follows the rules of the scientific method. I'm also not trying to conjure up something that looks like Unitarianism. While a very liberal denomination of Christianity it is certainly not the idea of a church based off the scientific method. However, to their credit they do not give credence to a lot of the supernatural claims of the Bible. They also do not consider the Bible inerrant.
Imagine no dogma just data.
The Holy Books would have been revised multiple times to fit with the new evidence found with each discovery. Verses such as Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 44:24 would have to be scrapped and replaced due to a spherical Earth. The heliocentric view of the planets in our solar system would have to replace a geocentric view as stated in Joshua 10:12–13, Ecclesiastes 1:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30. The creation narrative in Genesis would be replaced to fit what we know in the field of modern genetics. There was never one man and one woman to start the human race. Of course the age of the earth would change from 6,000-10,000 to it's correct calculation of 4.54 billion years according to the scientific field of modern geology.
So we see now that the Holy Books would turn into a blend of science (and philosophy??) books that are ever changing with each new discovery. A.C. Grayling has put out a revision of the Bible called "The Good Book: A Humanist Bible" that resembles what a new "Holy Book" based on sound reason and updated information would look like. In this book he lays out (in chapter, verse format) a humanist approach to living well.
What would a church that followed the scientific method look like? Would there be praise and worship? What about clergy? What about pastors? What about sacraments or rituals?
The church (adhering to the scientific method) would steal from the best parts of church. It would be a social gathering. But instead of clergy it would be full of scientific experts (with upper level degrees) and philosophy professors sharing ideas. It would be more interactive than the usual "shepherd preaching down to the flock" format from a pulpit. The congregation would be participating in the debates and discussions. It would be more interactive than most church services. The sacraments or rituals wouldn't be a part of this church as to evidence proving the wafer you eat doesn't in fact turn into the body of Christ. Same goes for the wine.
I thought about the praise and worship question for a bit and contemplated how interesting it would be to have a religion that worships scientific discoveries and those people that made them. Can you image going to church and singing the praises of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, or Galileo? We could replace "Amazing Grace" with the hymn "Amazing Gravity" ... "Amazing gravity, how strong the pull that saved a mass like me." Some consider Carl Sagan on the same level as a saint. He was, after all, the head of Science PR in last last few decades. The books and PBS series he gave to the world were life changing for many of us. They were beautifully written and marvelously presented. He was brilliant and we loved him like the Catholics love Mother Theresa. (*See Christopher Hitchens book, "The Missionary Position") Sagan would be an example of the religion's (adhering to the scientific method) missionary. A modern day example would be Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye.
So it's obvious how this church (adhering to the scientific method) would be spreading "the good news" ... Mission Statement: To guide each human being on this planet to scientific literacy. There could be community humanitarian organization to feed the hungry and build shelter for the homeless, etc. The best parts of the old books such as "love your neighbor" and "do good unto others" would be followed but that's mostly it. There isn't much in those ancient books that can apply to today and the best parts? Well, we can take those and leave the rest behind to fade into oblivion. (*We'll leave the curing of diseases to modern Western medicine... but thanks anyways, Leviticus 14)
We could replace "laying hands" to heal with treating those members with ailments or illnesses with modern medicine. We could replace prayer with conversation and communication via internet or the magic of cell phones. We could replace psychics, prophets, and mind readers with neurologists. We could substitute lent with eating nutrient rich fruits and vegetables or baptism with proper bathing to promote hygiene. We could replace tithing with charity or Wednesday night "Bible Study" with Wednesday night game night with the family.
We could replace Sunday school for our children with science class, with mathematics class, history class, physics class, chemistry class, biology class, cosmology class. There is a YouTube channel I subscribe to called philhelleneshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk&feature=share&list=UUh9g56Xhr_OKqZKxN4b4KrQ He rightly points out that "Religions tell children they might go to hell and they must believe; while science tells children they came from the stars and presents reasoning they can believe." Isn't that the truth? Do not teach children things there is no evidence for. The Church that Adheres to the Scientific Method would not approve.
In reality this wishful thinking on an evolved church adhering to the scientific method in all it's functions is highly unlikely. Obviously. Religions over time tend to turn moderate and let go of some strict dogma from their holy books. That's in some ways encouraging. If we have to live with these mass delusions at least let them be peaceful. However, for a religion to behave like science behaves would be a miracle to say the least. Each of the big monotheistic religions would die before turn into something that resembles science or a practice that uses scientific methodology.
Some would argue that the reason for this is because at the very core of each religion is something that is profoundly NOT science. I would have to agree. Religions reward faith, guilt, scapegoats, and control where a church that would adhere to the scientific method would reward evidence, reason, logic, evidence. (I thought I should state that one twice). So in rethinking John Lennon's famous song lyric we can say keep "religion" minus the "no" part of the lyric add "science" to the equation and you get to imagine a new type of religion. A religion that adheres to the scientific method.
* Just for the record, I've been doing nothing but algebraic equations for a class so this type of blog would happen. Also, I do realize the irony of writing a blog that imagines science as a religion since all believers say to us non-believers is that we worship science. You know what they say, they don't "have enough faith" to believe in evolution and calling Charles Darwin a saint and imagining worshiping him probably doesn't help our cause. Oops. Oh well.
