-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Jon Johanning
That's the difference between science and religion, IMHO: the scientist has "faith" in her suppositions, until a better theory comes along and is substantiated rationally/empirically (often, but not always, by a revolutionary genius, such as Einstein or Darwin). Religions hang on to their creeds whatever evidence there may or may not be for them, as long as those creeds are emotionally satisfying. When a religious faith "dies," another one may take its place, but there is no systematic replacement process comparable to that of one scientific theory replacing another -- it's a purely emotional leap from one unsatisfying faith to a more satisfying one. (For example, from Saul to Paul, or from a religion like Christianity or Judaism to Marxism :-) ).
** The idea that religion and science are both "scientific" belongs to the Edward Tylor and James Fraser. Both argued, via animism or magic, that religion was just bad science. Magic = primitive attempt to grasp the world (you want it to rain, pour water through a filter over a bucket). Of course, they had no evidence of this but that didn't really seem to bother them (their consistent inability to distinguish between religion and magic is an indication that they weren't sure about this themselves). It is good to know that Tylor and Fraser argued this because it is a VERY tenuous position. If I might be so bold --> perhaps you mean theology, not religion. Theology is the science of God... Theology has much to do with science. Religion is something quite different.
What we call "religion" is a particular way of being in the world, owing to the intensification of feelings in the presence of certain objects or states of mind. If anything - I would say that "religion" is the "primal' experience of what we moderns experience as secular hygiene. "Religious adherents" (in quotes because I'm making a ridiculous generalisation here) perceive the world as dirty and clean in a supernatural sense (pure and impure, sacred and profane). We moderns perceive it similarly, but in a secular sense. It is religious, but we don't perceive it as such (I would lean toward an anthropological definition of religion). Our most vivid reactions are modifications of this anthropological response to our cognitive classifications.
More relevant though: not all religious traditions have creeds. In fact, most of them don't. The concept of a creed is something that works well with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. There are no Shinto creeds. There is no Hindu creed (although within some customs there are statements like creeds). Indigenous traditions very rarely have written statements of belief. In short, for you to say that religions hold on to their creeds like scientific assumptions is false for most religious traditions (even if numerically Christianity and Islam are able to claim a great deal of adherents). There are no "emotionally satisfying creeds" in Shinto. This leaves "religion" in Japan unexplained, or, non-religious (ouch). And while, yes, there is no systematic replacement process comparable to that of a scientific theory (hence, a further kink in your analogy) historical we know that no religion is created ex nihilo. New religious movements are parasitical on existing norms and values. The leaps are usually very small and don't often change the habitual context of its adherents. Many who converted to Sikhism in the 19th century (Sikhism is monotheistic) also worshipped the Hindu goddess Devi and engaged in sorcery. That's what people do. It is pragmatic. If you need your crops to grow - creeds, doctrine, ideas, theology, etc. are the first thing to go. The entire emphasis on belief and believing usually has only a little correspondence with what people are actually doing. If you need food --> you grab the shaman, do the dance, eat the green-blue stuff, and then repent (if you "officially" belong to a repentance styled tradition) later.
For instance: The Hindu festival known as Divali is celebrated by the Jains, but for reasons different from those of the Hindu tradition. Jains believe that on this day Mahavira (enlightened one) reached nirvana. During this time of festivity, the goddess Laksmi, an important deity in the Hindu tradition, is worshipped by the Jains. Laksmi is the goddess of wealth and the bestower of good fortune (Laksmi is the consort of Vishnu). Many Jains are business people and worship her with reverence. This time also marks the Jain new year and new account books are started on that day. Jainism is typically an extraordinarily austere religious tradition, but in 1987 in the north-west city of Jaipur India, Jains celebrated Divali, a celebration of wealth and riches, with Hindus. In terms of "creed" this is entirely inconsistent with most of the Jain precepts. Nevertheless, it is a mother-of-a-blow-out (to use a Monty-Python expression) and certainly is not to be missed. Besides, because the celebration of wealth is followed by a celebration of austerity and the mixing of elements, the combination of the celebration of wealth and the ideals of renunciation, make the experience of both increasingly vivid. That's emotionally satisfying, the ritual extremes --> not the creedal adherence.
ken