Is Religion Considered a Theory

I was watching CNN and they brought up a topic about science books using Darwin's Theory of evolution, and it made me and my friends think. We talk about religion in our school, but we do not bring up that Religion could be considered a theory. What do you guys think, could Religion of any sort be considered a theory?

Yes, I belive so. More alongt the lines of deffinition 6.


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

m-w.com...

[edit on 15-1-2005 by wiggy]

Not in the context of science.

The history of the world is theory and thus so is religion. Understand how our history and our religion are all based on written text and written text is subjective and based on translations that are questionable at best. The world was a much much different place 100-500 or a 1000 years ago and there were a great number of influances on those writings and their translations thereafter. I have read a great deal on the history of various religions and world history and depending on who and what you read there are many variations even in recent history. So yes Religion is theory.

I think if you have to go all the way to definition six to find something that correlates with religion, something may be wrong. Notice that religion doesn't fit the earlier definitions very well. Religion isn't scientific either. Comparing it to Darwin's scientific theory of natural selection doesn't make any sense.

I suppose that would all depend on who you're asking. IMO it should be considered a theory. If nothing else, thinking of Religion as Theoretical might at least keep people from killing each other over who's 'God/Faith' is the Most True.

As for the part about having to use Definition #6, I don't see why you have to go that far down the list. IMO the only one that is somewhat questionable would be #1. The rest seem to fit just fine.

What purpose has religion/spiritual thought served both in the past and present?
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
Yeah, I'd say this one qualllifies.

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
Yeah, I'd say that if nothing else it would fit within the 'art' portion of this one.

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Whether or not the ideas of Religion seem Plausible or Acceptable is up to the individual of course, however, as for them being used to explain phenomena, well, that is exactly what it has always been used for.

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Not in the context of science.

Exactly, a theory is testable, reproducable etc. Religion at best is a hypotisis and one not based on any scientific evidence. Simply because our science has not discovered things does not point to divine intervention.

I have to said that in my opinion religion is more of a myth, a theory on God is the only thing you can come out with from religion.

Been religion more of a believe is hard to prove or disproved and because is only a matter of choices, religion per say can not be theorized.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Not in the context of science.

Exactly, a theory is testable, reproducable etc. Religion at best is a hypotisis and one not based on any scientific evidence. Simply because our science has not discovered things does not point to divine intervention.

This is why I highlighted definition 6.

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject


It is an unproved assumption.

Depends on whom you ask. A scientist would burn himself before accepting that it is not, while a religious fanatic would also burn the scientist for saying that it is.

If we look from a neutral view, which no on truly can, we might see that everything is a theory. No one knows anything for sure, nor do they not know anthing not for sure.

So bascially YES and NO.

Surf

Originally posted by surfup
Depends on whom you ask. A scientist would burn himself before accepting that it is not, while a religious fanatic would also burn the scientist for saying that it is.

If we look from a neutral view, which no on truly can, we might see that everything is a theory. No one knows anything for sure, nor do they not know anthing not for sure.

So bascially YES and NO.

Surf

As complicated or confusing as all that sounded, you're basically correct. Although I think that may be going deeper into some ideas that are beyond the scope of this topic.

Like most everything, there is always some degree of Duality as well as some troublesome Paradoxes. You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument.

So when you say, "No one knows anything for sure, nor do they not know anthing not for sure." You certainly hit the nail on the head!! While many people find this to be a troublesome aspect of which to deal with, I think it should simply be accepted or better yet, enjoyed. For without some degree of UnKnowable & UnControllable aspects within our lives, we would be forced into living an inflexible reality of fixed, invariable & unalterable facts.

I dnt think u could class religion as a theory because a theory needs something to give it credibility doesnt it

The beauty of science is that it's open to anyone. Religious or not, you can form a hypothesis and test it.

Even if a theory is shown to be false, it's still a theory - just a false theory. In this way, yes, I could see how the false theory that God spoke the universe into existence could be considered a false theory.

Zip

No, I don't think so. Although there may be credible evidence that the people responsible for religions may have lived at one time, the spiritual aspect cannot be scientifically quantified.

Religion is a matter of faith, pure and simple.

When I criticize the theory of eveolution, its not from a creationalist standpoint but from a criticle scientific standpoint but more often than not, I get lumped in there because even though these same people ridicule the "with me or against me" attitude, they seem to employ it quite often.

I simply assert that this theory is too young to accept that we know everything there is to know so lets cast it in stone. I think the research is warranted and needed but I'd allow my files to be editable for a few more decades.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I simply assert that this theory is too young to accept that we know everything there is to know so lets cast it in stone. I think the research is warranted and needed but I'd allow my files to be editable for a few more decades.

Ah, sounds like you've discovered another great thing about science - theories and postulations can be updated if necessary...

Zip

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by JTMarlin What do you guys think, could Religion of any sort be considered a theory?

What a fabulous and thought provoking question! Why, if there was such a thing as the way above vote for the year plus the 5 months from last year dating to my membership entry, this question would deserve all of mine.

Yes, it is. Since religion is a belief as is theory; neither can be claimed as fact until proven; both are subject to varying hypotheses.

Don't go too far.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

I wouldn't even call "God speaking the universe into being" an "educated" guess.

Zip

Religion is generally blind dogma with no theoretical underpinnings at all.

Fire and brimstone and the promise of eternal reward can guide the young impressionable mind in many directions, no scientific thought required at all.

Originally posted by Zipdot
Don't go too far...

I wouldn't even call "God speaking the universe into being" an "educated" guess.

You gave me reason to pause an ponder. After all, to whom would he be speaking when there was no one to hear?

I'd say it is a theory, a little rediculous but still a theory, but if you ask someone religious about it, they will be convincing u that it is a fact.
though when u ask them for prof(sientific) they tend to get off the subject.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by belorus]