- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Hundreds of authors, both religious and scientific, have compared the intellectual content and commitments of religion and science, but, until now, no one has compared their cognitive foundations. Read More














Good point
And the cognitive difference is clear, at least to me: for centuries, we've approached religious teaching as scientific teaching...that is, teaching "facts" based on "evidence." That's the wrong way. We should approach religious teachings as art...that is, expressions of that which cannot be adequately expressed through rational explanation.
Author doesn't answer the question
The article does not explain why religion is natural--nor whether it is more natural than science. And if it is natural, whatever that means, is that good or bad or indifferent? In short, what difference does it make?
We will see that science
We will see that science tries to explain something that it cannot. We will desperately seek consolation in a religion, but we will never find it with our rational abilities. What science gives us does not satisfy our innate urge to believe there is a life after death, or that life has a meaning other than passing down our genes.
I predict we will find very different patterns of brain activity when comparing religion and science cognitively, and I urge you to remember that science is nothing else than a tool to systematize the material world. It has significant shortcomings when compared to religion if it is used to explain the previously mentioned innate urges.
The irrational vs the rational
I tend to agree with Roger that the author doesn’t seem to answer the question posed, perhaps because of my preconceived ideas about the subject, i.e., I thought I knew the answer. I also agree with Zarathustra; religion is a mythology created by people to account for (in some sense) the things they don’t understand and fear. Religion provides magical stories that seem to provide answers that people find satisfying, like there is life after death, that we will again be with those we love, etc. My answer to the question is that religion is natural because it has an emotional, irrational basis; it responds to basic superstitious (natural) fears and ways of thinking. Science is unnatural because it depends on rational analysis which requires one to give up what comes naturally, a basic fear of the unknown and a desire for answers that are emotionally satisfying.
Post new comment