Main question:
The primary question that was asked within his philosophical expositions pertaining to the domain of religion was that can science study religion, but in order to explicitly respond to this question, we must first ask that is religion out of bounds with science?
Explanation:
It is profusely answered by the following Statements that religion comprises various essential activities, important historical events, as well as structures and symbols with signs, which are of tremendous importance for the homo sapiens as well as their society. Then we come across religious ecstasy, this situation as well as the drug induced hallucination. Both of the situations are equally studied and examined by the clinical psychologist and psychiatrist.
Then we come across to the aspect that is very essential in order to answer this particular question, which is in itself of contemporary relevance for academic purpose, It says that the cognitive competency as well as the memorizing capabilities are tested and examined and are equally applied while learning the complex rules and regulations of mathematical theorem and scientific postulates and equally applied while memorizing the religious hymn And traditional prayers.
In order to touch on the more contemporary standpoint, he refused to this question by providing the following resolution that selling books and selling bible both are of the view that is surrounding economic regulations and economic conditions. Therefore, religion is a natural phenomena.
Main Idea:
Daniel, even points about rock of the ages, author, Stephen Gould; Stephen deserts that religion and science are two non-overlapping magisteria And they can remain in peaceful coexistence. Firstly, they are having their questions and topics which are completely different to each other, and they can remain in that coexistence. Only when one religious or scientific realm does not purchase into the other’s domain. There was another set of opinion that is science is the realm of truth in all matters, whereas religion becomes the realm of morality as well as the finding pertaining to the meaning of life- This opinion was harshly criticized by secularists as well as religionists alike.
In order to provide a peaceful solution to this tremendous problem, Daniel provides the alternative that even though there are certain domains in life and world which are best answered and suited to the domain of religion. Religion as a domain is much Provident as well as Prudential and answering and substantially, providing with resolution aspects in those sections, which are not following under the domain of science, however, this does not make the case that science cannot study religion. Now there has to be a problem which must be highlighted by Daniel before providing this idea and that was the very fact that the problem is not neutrality, the problem was “assumption”. The people who are investigating religion testing are either hostile, aggressive, polite, fearful, biased, or prejudiced towards the religion which they are trying to study. As a matter of fact, he goes to the length for saying that even the people who are neutral in their approach, their neutrality is hostile, simply in the sense that if you are not for us, that means you are definitely against us.
He says that there are various types of prejudices, presumptions as well as notions held by the people who are trying to study religion. All of these buyers, our perception towards religion and substantially influence our neutrality. However, the philosophy of religion aspect is devoid of all of these presumptions and prejudice takes into account a very secular and an open minded approach Their endeavor to scientifically investigate religion.
Conclusion
Religion is a “social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent whose approval is to be sought.”
To conclude this along a long conversation, we can rightly infer from the aforementioned passages that the fact that we are having and storing large economic records for the sake of better economic forecasting, we must apply the same approach for the same mindset and the same reason to the section of religion as well. The fact that the world is currently grappled with tough economic problems that are there to disrupt the world, their social and economic conditions disfiguring our planet and we are trying to go up with such problematic situation situations we must keep in mind that we cannot have a blind spot towards religion because all of our efforts then would result in failure or even much worse circumstances. We must be full of our approach as well as mechanism while dealing with religion. In conclusion, it can be rightly pointed out that what Daniel wanted to achieve from this question was simply the fact that there must be a mutual agreement over all the religions becoming an object of study of scientific investigation. By talking about religion, he came to the importance of the realm of scientific investigation and Evidentialism.
References:
Daniel Dennett (2006); Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Muller, J. Z. 1995. Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society. Chapter 12. Applied Policy Analysis: Smith’s Sociology of Religion pp. 154-163. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome
