Let us think why humanity developed several religions but only one science?

[Nishant]

This is a food of thought that humanity developed several religions but only one science? Devotees of different religions follow different customs, rituals, prayers, attributes of gods, etc. Each religion has quite a few sects; these sects are further divided as per the geographical locations. Thus, religious concepts of different people are altogether different.

For example, the devotees of one religion sacrifice animals to appease their gods: whereas, the followers of another one propitiate their gods through the service of those animals. To take another example, the idol worship is core of one religion: however, the other one has imposed a taboo over idol worship. Most devotees explain that the discrepancy among religions is because religions originated in different geographical locations.

Apart from religions, science was also conceived by the scientists of diverse origin; however, they discovered similar principles. There is no existence of Indian science, British science or American science. All over the world, many pioneer scientists discovered their principles, and later others performed several experiments to help establish those. If some principle was found to be incorrect, soon its inventor accepted the truth. This system of experimentation in the quest for truth was rarely followed by the draftsmen of religions. This fundamental mistake facilitated the birth and the continuance of several religions in the world.
There is one concrete reason behind the existence of many religious concepts and only one science on the earth. About one thing or concept, there is only one truth but there can be many lies. Today, humankind has to conceive a global religion with a humane core. All countries have to write a new Bible of international rules and regulations. 

This is an excerpt from a non-fiction The Evolution of Gods: The Scientific Origin of Religions and Divinity by Ajay Kansal   

Moderator Notice
Removed link in violation of the 30/30 rule

[account_inactive]

---->> https://atheistforums.org/forum-11.html <<----

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Good post, but I would have liked it more if you had posted your own thoughts, rather than just excerpting Kansal's book.

LOVED your introduction post, btw,

Boru

[Alex K]

Dear Nishant,
Welcome to the forum! Why don't you open an introductions thread and intruduce yourself to the community!

It is not clear which parts of your post are yours, and which are quoted verbatim, and simply posting quoted content without your own opinion or discussion is discouraged.
Please mark more clearly what is what, for example using the quote function.

[Nishant]

Good post, but I would have liked it more if you had posted your own thoughts, rather than just excerpting  Kansal's book.

LOVED your introduction post, btw,

Boru

---

Thanks, because I liked this article from this book that is why I posted it here.

[Redoubtable]

I think it's because science can substantiate itself with tangible proof that it works and there's no reason for "alternative sciences" since the search for facts naturally coalesces into certain core principles in the scientific method that serve as the most efficient way of gathering evidence that we know of.

Religions on the other hand don't really need to provide tangible proof that they "work". The product they're selling (salvation or damnation) only gets delivered (conveniently) once you're dead. Other aspects of religion like moral rules and rituals can continually be reformed and broken. You CAN'T break scientific laws, you CAN break religious laws and prohibitions, and the consequences for breaking a particularly religious prohibition are often imperceptible. For example, we know getting cancer has visible consequences, sins on the other hand, often do not; they are invisible maladies. So for example, in Catholic moral theology, indulging in a sexual fantasy is a sin that will send you to Hell. But does anything observable actually happen to you that would convince you that such an action has such a negative consequence? No. But if you are a believer you accept that it does have some invisible consequence in the next life.

So religions can basically be as numerous and diverse as human beings are because once you have bought into the bedrock claim that the goal you are striving towards or the penalties you want to avoid, are basically imperceptible in this life, then that just opens the door for any and all kinds of belief systems. You can't do this in science because theories and experiments have perceptible outcomes and consequences, and the faulty theories and experiments get found out by their inability to produce what they claim to demonstrate.

[vorlon13]

Well, there have been a few instances of alt science;

Lysenkoism was gestated in the 1950s Soviet Empire, and of course, we still have Jewish Physics.

(and yes, your vor is still channeling from his vast reserve of sarcasm)

[Astonished]

Because science is based around objective facts and religions is based on subjective interpretations. Subjectivity doesn't matter in science so it can't be corrupted by it without becoming pseudoscience. Religion can't say the same. Simple as that. Not really much of a big discussion topic, though I'm not trying to diminish the validity of the idea. But because religion pretends to be the truth, the absolute and unquestionable truth at that, it claims to be objective when it is very clearly not and yet those claiming it have such a warped way of looking at things, they can't see that.

[Minimalist]

Yes, gods are a dime a dozen but science leads only to facts.... something religitards can't grasp.

[Astonished]

Yes, gods are a dime a dozen but science leads only to facts.... something religitards can't grasp.

Which is extremely disingenuous and even more aggravating when they claim to have the moral high ground, or the monopoly on where morals come from. If they can't even be honest about their beliefs, or honest about what's actually in that book they hold up when they scream at gay people (thank you, Bill Maher, for that zinger), then not only can they not be taken seriously, but they look like absolute lunatics in need of psychiatric counseling.