> Religion (like philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to Science
Or the universe was created and science is a way to explore the Creator by observing Creation.
Science was invented so that people could reach consensus about reality through dispassionate and rational procedures. These procedures are absolutely underpinned by induction (observable and reproducible results). Things that are not observable (spirits) or not reproducible (miracles) are logically outside the domain of scientific exploration.
To assume there is no supernatural because we've observed no supernatural phenomenon in the natural world is begging the question. In other words, to insist on the metaphysical claim that 'this reality is it', leaning only on Science, is to attempt to prove a negative.
So, I very much disagree with the description of 'Science' as a rational progression from metaphysical belief systems.
Anyway, all of that is a philosophical discourse, so I also disagree that philosophy is a 'precursor' to 'Science'. Early scientific inquiry was described as 'natural philosophy', after all.
Most of these concepts and discussions could be unique to humans to begin with, or a result of being human.
As I said in another post, an intelligent species with a true hive-mind or a strictly hierarchical queen/worker biology may have completely different ideas about these things; ideas which would be unrelatable to us if not incomprehensible.
For example they may not need morals and laws.
An species without biological genders may not produce lofty treatises on Love. Species that live for a very long time or are medically immortal, or inherit memories, may have radically different ideas about Creation and Death.
We can't know how universal our ideas are until we meet someone else.
Or the universe was created and science is a way to explore the Creator by observing Creation.
Science was invented so that people could reach consensus about reality through dispassionate and rational procedures. These procedures are absolutely underpinned by induction (observable and reproducible results). Things that are not observable (spirits) or not reproducible (miracles) are logically outside the domain of scientific exploration.
To assume there is no supernatural because we've observed no supernatural phenomenon in the natural world is begging the question. In other words, to insist on the metaphysical claim that 'this reality is it', leaning only on Science, is to attempt to prove a negative.
So, I very much disagree with the description of 'Science' as a rational progression from metaphysical belief systems.
Anyway, all of that is a philosophical discourse, so I also disagree that philosophy is a 'precursor' to 'Science'. Early scientific inquiry was described as 'natural philosophy', after all.