Support NeoGAF

[rucury]

There's a difference between "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". It's subtle, and difficult to explain, but it's there.

That said, I never said it's a religion, but it is a belief.

you are correct, there is a difference between lack of belief of X and believing the contrary of X. mainly, the difference is that "believing the contrary of X" requires "lack of belief of X". In other words, lack of belief is not suffcient for believing the contrary but it is necessary.
therefore, there is a factor or set of factors that must occur for "I don't believe there is a god" to become "I believe there is no god".

Even so, strictly speaking, you are wrong about atheism being a belief. The set of factors I mentioned do not apply here. The strong definition of atheism only implies lack of belief. If you want to know more, look up "shifting the burden of proof" as relates to religious arguments.

Atheism is an opposing belief... Agnostic is the absence of belief (or rather, the belief it's not accessible to humans, so that you have atheist agnostics and theists agnostics, but well...).

(not sure where I stand between those twos, I mostly don't care, so I haven't think a lot about it...)

As hurricanes said on the last page, this is not correct. You're misusing the terms. Agnosticism is not lack of belief, but rather lack of knowledge. In the same vein, atheism is simply lack of belief. There are many different ways people adopt atheistic ideas, and I'm sure many people DO hold the belief that "There are no gods". But again, strictly speaking, that belief is outside the meaning of the word "atheism".

 

[BizzyBum]

I know lots of people say "If it weren't religion breaking apart the world, it'd be something else" which is probably true but this world would be so, so much better off if religion wasn't a thing, IMO. It does way more harm than good. I'm very happy to see this viewpoint gaining more appeal. We'll never see religion just go away, though.

 

[KernelPanic]

The thing with the Harper Conservatives was that they were opportunists. The only reason they got elected was because they used the sponsorship scandal to leverage a backlash against the Liberals, who were doing an otherwise competent job governing. When the Conservatives' popularity was going down the tubes they started throwing shit a the wall to see what sticks, and using pro-Christian/anti-Mulism rhetoric was one of those thing they tried. That it actually backfired on them says a lot about our society.

Harper was showing some dangerous almost Trump like characteristics by the end.

- silencing climate scientists
- robocalls
- renaming GoCanada to "Harper government"
- anti-immigration dog whistle politics

There was probably more

 

[Apathy]

As an atheist, you're in a religion.

You need to learn that words have a definition and what those definitions are

 

[TimeEffect]

I'm not saying Sympathize with them forever, just that by lumping all religious people as being not worthy of serious treatment is basically what you're complaining some churches do.

I just think judging someone based on something as broadly interpreted as faith/religion in any form is useless.

I dont know any group or persons that seriously "lumps all religious people as being not worthy of serious treatment". Do they refuse service to religious people? Do they oppress them in some way? Who are these people?

What are they disrespecting? Their belief? Because that doesnt deserve respect on its own.

Are they disrespecting religious people as human beings? Obviously, that's not right, but I can't imagine that makes up a significant number of atheists. I don't see them wielding any power over religious people. I don't need to respect religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I treat nice religious people any differently.

This whole "Don't disrespect religious people" often comes from religious people who take some privilege in oppressing non-religious people, which is why I find the whole conversation meaningless. It is often brought up to rile the idea that they are victims for believing in god, as if society actually oppresses religious people for simply believing what they do.

I dont see the sentiment that "religion is harmful" to imply anything about these people disrespecting religious people. Some religious folks are awfully sensitive to hearing that people dont respect their religion or that they mock their beliefs, which is when I often hear them talk about religious persecution.

 

[Gurthang]

WE WOKE AS FUCK FAM


my hair color is blue btw and I also voted liberals and have a nose piercing

 

[Lima]

Well I like 51% of Canadians. You guys are awesome.

 

[anaron]

Good.

 

[jstripes]

Harper was showing some dangerous almost Trump like characteristics by the end.

- silencing climate scientists
- robocalls
- renaming GoCanada to "Harper government"
- anti-immigration dog whistle politics

There was probably more

At some point Harper brought some conservative operative from Australia on board who specialized in some of those things.

 

[CazTGG]

Harper was showing some dangerous almost Drumpf like characteristics by the end.

- silencing climate scientists
- robocalls
- renaming GoCanada to "Harper government"
- anti-immigration dog whistle politics

There was probably more

Frankly, a worrying amount of Trump-like elements are still present in the CPC:
-An MP went on to Fox news and starting spewing "fake news" jargon
-The overall response to M-103, save for Chong, was peak "muh freeze peach en dangurz!!?!!"
-The Rebel, a right-wing propaganda organization that is closely tied to Andrew Scheer, the party's current leader, spends a good amount of time demonizing Muslims in Canada (See Shaun's excellent video on their "reporting" re: The Quebec mosque shooting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9dXSkZbTY)
-Speaking of Scheer, he's advocated for defunding universities who call out anti-choice, right-wing voices
-Literally all of their MP's responses to Omar Khadr's settlement have shown their unwillingness to own their mistake in fighting to keep a 15 year old in Guantanamo Bay

Given the results of the party's ranked ballot showed a surprising amount of support for anti-choice candidates, I fully expect him to swing the party further to the right, if only slightly more than Harper.

 

[Always-honest]

As an atheist, you're in a religion.

No. That dumb notion needs to die. In fact, the word atheïst gives too much credit to religion. It makes religion way more important than it actually is to a person who simply isn't involved with religion and doesn't have any desire for a religion. Religion is just completely absent in my life. I'd never call myself an atheist just as i would never call myself a non-knitter, just because i don't knit.

Then there are those people who say "well, science is a religion too". No it isn't. Stop justifying your own blind faith.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Sure they can. Japan for example isn't religious on the whole, and even among those that are religious it's seen as a personal thing and not something to proselytize and hold over others. But Japanese people are still great at othering others and discriminating, lots of the same bad effects as religion.

Japan is one of the most peaceful countries on earth. No one is saying getting rid of religion will create a utopia, the question is "Does religion do more harm than good?" Basically, the world would be better (however the degree) if there was no religion.

 

[gutter_trash]

Japan is one of the most peaceful countries on earth. No one is saying getting rid of religion will create a utopia, the question is "Does religion do more harm than good?" Basically, the world would be better (however the degree) if there was no religion.

Island nation.
Isolated.
Homogeneous.

Not a good example.

You can say the same about any homogeneous island nation like say Iceland

 

[jstripes]

Sure they can. Japan for example isn't religious on the whole, and even among those that are religious it's seen as a personal thing and not something to proselytize and hold over others. But Japanese people are still great at othering others and discriminating, lots of the same bad effects as religion.

Japan's an oddity. They're largely irreligious, but at the same time they love their religious imagery and ceremonies.

 

[black_13]

My issue is people always seem to focus on the negative aspects of religion. What about all the good it does? I know in many religions donations to charity are a huge positive aspect.

And people who go through tough times need something to give them hope. It's no coincidence that people get more religious as they get older and closer to death. Religion gives alot of people peace and hope that there is more to this life. I'm not even that religious but I clearly these aspects.

But of course with media always focusing on the negatives then it's no wonder more and more are thinking of it as a bad thing.

 

[Wilsongt]

All they have to do is look south to see they are correcy.

 

[Kelsdesu]

I agree. Good Jarb Canada.

 

[Korey]

As an atheist, you're in a religion.

I don't believe Harry Potter is real. What religion is that?

 

[y2dvd]

I had this argument with some friends who were religious and unfortunately that didn't end up well. If you claim religion can do good, you have to acknowledge it can also do bad, but a lot of believers cannot admit this.

 

[Cocaloch]

Let's all bask ourselves in the glory of Nietzsche.

You've miss read Nietzsche entirely if you think he sees this as a totally good thing. He isn't celebrating the decline of religion so much as attempting to deal with the major problem he thinks its decline is causing.

If it wasn't religion, it would be something else.

I see this argument, and I appreciate the sentiment that there are more causes of violence and strife than religion, but it seems pretty odd to claim that things would be the same without religion. There would still be strife, but unless you don't believe any religious conflicts have been earnest, then the strife that exists would be different.

On topic trying to judge whether religion on the whole has been a good or a bad thing is both pointless, and probably impossible. It's too hard, I lean towards impossible, to disentangle politics, religion, and culture until at least the 18th century.

Then there are those people who say "well, science is a religion too". No it isn't. Stop justifying your own blind faith.

Science isn't a religion, but there are absolutely people that treat their, often incredibly flawed, understanding of it as similar to one.

That's more a problem with science education and legitimacy in epistemology than anything else though.

No. That dumb notion needs to die. In fact, the word atheïst gives too much credit to religion. It makes religion way more important than it actually is to a person who simply isn't involved with religion and doesn't have any desire for a religion. Religion is just completely absent in my life. I'd never call myself an atheist just as i would never call myself a non-knitter, just because i don't knit.

I'm also not sure you're right on this front either. The importance of religion historically alone, makes being the word atheist have quite a bit of meaning. This is even ignoring the clear social impact religion still has to this day. I don't think it's possible to completely divorce yourself from being greatly affected by religion, regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter.

I do see where you're coming from though.

 

[Acerac]

I can imagine that being stuck next to the good ole' USA would do that to a country.

 

[rucury]

No. That dumb notion needs to die. In fact, the word atheïst gives too much credit to religion. It makes religion way more important than it actually is to a person who simply isn't involved with religion and doesn't have any desire for a religion. Religion is just completely absent in my life. I'd never call myself an atheist just as i would never call myself a non-knitter, just because i don't knit.

Then there are those people who say "well, science is a religion too". No it isn't. Stop justifying your own blind faith.

i wish more people were like you in this regard. i believe the world would be a much better place

 

[TheUzukiLives]

I'm actually skeptical of the religion does more harm than good idea.

it tends to ignore that many of our moral systems or even parts of our language stem from religious ideas. Some would argue morality necessitates religion (I wouldn't go that far though)

And while I sympathize with those harmed by the undoubtable evils of religious organizations, religion still remains an incredibly important part of people's lives. You could argue MLK or Ghandi don't do what they did without religion.

Mostly I have a hard time envisioning humanity without religion. That isn't something you just mandate away or ban. Far as I can tell we're basically stuck with it.

Same here. As much as we can tote out whatever crusade or shitty actions of political leaders have done under the name of whatever religion, we also have to keep in mind the good it has done too. We wouldn't have modern day science or art without religion. Exploration and obtaining knowledge would probably have been put on the back burner if not for missionaries and envoys travelling and communicating with other countries. We could argue that the world would be even further back on a technological and knowledge level without religion.
Plus not everyone can handle the idea that their actions are almost inconsequential and that there might not be anything after death. Ideas like that have drove the average person mad and is something most people can't cope with. So it's a bit of dick move to say that religion is complete garbage and no one should have it.

 

[boiled goose]

Believing made up stuff is at best neutral (usually bad) so yeah

 

[Cocaloch]

Believing made up stuff is at best neutral (usually bad) so yeah

What if people do good things because of that belief? Moreover, what about good things happening because of some widely held beliefs that are clearly religious in origin. For instance, I have a hard time seeing science coming about without the infrastructure of religion, and the priestly/intellectual class it creates.

I have no doubt that for some people religion has done more harm than good, but I have no doubt the opposite is true. As someone who considers them self in the former category for a number of reasons, I think it's important we acknowledge that the latter exists as well. Moreover, I think for most people its going to be a mix of the good and the bad that makes a definitive answer meaningless if not impossible.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I think it's important to note how religion over the last few thousand years has played a role in shaping us and giving us our humanity. It gave people a sense of morality before secular discussion ever did, and it also was basically the most fulfilling thing in people's lives for a long time. In the midieval ages, for example, the life of a peasant was quite horrible. You worked from sunrise to sundown, you had very little in the way of art and entertainment, being cold and being hungry was regular. The hope offered by religion, and the anticipation of Heaven was really the only thing motivating these people.

Of course, now it isn't doing us much good. But something to think about.

That's one way to look at things. Another would be that religious organisations such as the Church kept people in line and continued to make generations suffer through miserable lives precisely because they dangled the fear of hell and that false hope of a mystical reward constantly to better control them.

But sure, religion's great because it gave false hopes to cold and hungry peasants. Yeah, OK...

 

[gutter_trash]

Picking up a book on paleontology (dinos) before a Bible was the earliest moment in my childhood that crystallized the absurdity of religion

 

[Cocaloch]

That's one way to look at things. Another would be that religious organisations such as the Church kept people in line and continued to make generations suffer through miserable lives precisely because they dangled the fear of hell and that false hope of a mystical reward constantly to better control them.

But sure, religion's great because it gave false hopes to cold and hungry peasants. Yeah, OK...

Well any power structure will do the sorts of things you're talking about. At some level that's what they are, and at some level that's a good and necessary thing. Moreover you'll find hell was a pretty small part of Christianity until at least the 17th century.

On your latter point, religion in political implementation generally feed those peasants and prevented them from starving as well. Very few people starved in 17th century Britain, and it's undeniable that religion had a big hand in that. Very many people starved in 19th century Ireland, and it's undeniable that religion, along with science and political economy, had a big hand in that as well.

Again it's a mixed bag.

 

[boiled goose]

What if people do good things because of that belief? Moreover, what about good things happening because of some widely held beliefs that are clearly religious in origin. For instance, I have a hard time seeing science coming about without the infrastructure of religion, and the priestly/intellectual class it creates.

I have no doubt that for some people religion has done more harm than good, but I have no doubt the opposite is true. As someone who considers them self in the former category for a number of reasons, I think it's important we acknowledge that the latter exists as well. Moreover, I think for most people its going to be a mix of the good and the bad that makes a definitive answer meaningless if not impossible.

Haha. Science only developed partially through religion because it was oppressed by religion all the way throughout history. Just ask Galileo. Hell even today modern science is held back by religion.

No doubt? That's hilarious.

Moreover, even "harmless" good believers provide cover for extremists. You promote societies that point to ancient texts for doctrine and you promote faith (believe without evidence) as ways to make decisions.

Reason does good. And religious people have done good because of reason and in spite of religion.

 

[Always-honest]

What if people do good things because of that belief?

Depends on the religion i guess. As long as they don't do anything as stupid like claiming empathy.
To do good out of fear of hell isn't empathy.

 

[Koren]

I swear some people never even bother to look up the meaning of words they spill out.

Agnosticism is unknown/unsure of the existence of God.
Atheism is the absence of belief.

I disagree with your definitions, but I'll grant you that it depends to who you ask.

My dictionnaries/philosophical books rather use the narrower definition that atheism is the belief that there's no gods.

The Oxford dictionnary of philosophy accepts both:

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none.

But Rowe says

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

 

[TimeEffect]

What if people do good things because of that belief? Moreover, what about good things happening because of some widely held beliefs that are clearly religious in origin. For instance, I have a hard time seeing science coming about without the infrastructure of religion, and the priestly/intellectual class it creates.

I have no doubt that for some people religion has done more harm than good, but I have no doubt the opposite is true. As someone who considers them self in the former category for a number of reasons, I think it's important we acknowledge that the latter exists as well. Moreover, I think for most people its going to be a mix of the good and the bad that makes a definitive answer meaningless if not impossible.

religion naturally came before science. So to say religion created science is misguided.

Religion existed in parallel to early civilization. That is something any civilization does to explain the world around them. It is only after that we can replace religious explanations with actual facts

 

[Koren]

As hurricanes said on the last page, this is not correct. You're misusing the terms. Agnosticism is not lack of belief, but rather lack of knowledge.

See my parenthesis: I said that strictly it's the belief that the knowledge is out of human reach. Per se, it's a belief that we will always lack knowledge about this.

In the same vein, atheism is simply lack of belief.

See above, it depends on the author.

 

[Cocaloch]

Haha. Science only developed partially through religion because it was oppressed by religion all the way throughout history.

Uh is that true? You ignored the very example I gave you in that post. It clearly at least played a central role in the creation and support of a large class of intellectuals. Not only that if we look into the ideas of the people that were instrumental in what people call "the Scientific Revolution", it's impossible to not see the motivating factor of religion in their work. What were Boyle and Bacon doing through promoting experimentation? Where did Newton's view of a mechanistic universe come from?

No doubt? That's hilarious.

I mean you aren't even engaging with what I'm saying, though you have a history of doing that with discussions on science so it makes sense that you'd do that here.

Moreover, even "harmless" good believers provide cover for extremists. You promote societies that point to ancient texts for doctrine and you promote faith (believe without evidence) as ways to make decisions.

Reason does good. And religious people have done good because of reason and in spite of religion.

This is exactly the simplistic arguments that I'm taking issue with here. People have done good because of reason and in spite of religion, people have done good because of religion and in spite of religion. I'd agree that making decisions based on faith is something that we need to try and avoid, but I'd argue it's borderline impossible to totally do away with that. Moreover certain strains of religion, mainline Calvinism in particular, have been fairly central in pushing aside making decisions based on faith in favor of those based on rationality in specific spheres.

Again it's an incredibly complex issue and acting like it isn't is childish at best.

Depends on the religion i guess. As long as they don't do anything as stupid like claiming empathy.
To do good out of fear of hell isn't empathy.

Fear of hell is not the only, and often not even a major, motivator. For instance fear of hell isn't something that can promote good works in mainline Calvinism.

religion naturally came before science. So to say religion created science is misguided.

This doesn't follow really. Civic republicanism came before science, and I'm not arguing that created science. There are reasons, which I gave some obvious ones, that religion was the cradle of science.

Religion existed in parallel to early civilization. That is something any civilization does to explain the world around them. It is only after that we can replace religious explanations with actual facts

It didn't exist "in parallel" to early civilization. It was a key part of civilization until very recently, that was totally entangled with every other aspect of society until at least the 18th century. And sure it seems that most societies have created religious sentiments, I'm not sure what you point is there. Meanwhile your final point isn't saying much to what I was saying, but sure we've pushed religion in a number of fields, most notably politics. I don't think this is a bad thing.

 

[killer rin]

religion naturally came before science. So to say religion created science is misguided.

Religion existed in parallel to early civilization. That is something any civilization does to explain the world around them. It is only after that we can replace religious explanations with actual facts

Eh, technically wouldn't science have come first. I mean, we're talking feats of engineering like the creation sharp sticks with pointy stones, tools, fire and all of those essentials which even allowed humanity to thrive and ultimately reach the point of developing the idea to read the stars, figuring out the seasons and agriculture, navigation, artificial shelter, language itself.

Then once those are out of the way, that's when we hit the point where we can start doing religion as we know it today. Before that it was pagans believing in what was essentially elemental and animistic "gods"

 

[S-Wind]

He's not entirely wrong. Atheism is a belief.

Atheism is a belief the way not Not Stamp Collecting is a hobby.

 

[TimeEffect]

Eh, technically wouldn't science have come first. I mean, we're talking feats of engineering like the creation of Fire, Spears, Sharp, Sticks and all of those essentials which even allowed humanity to thrive and ultimately reach the point of Reading the stars, figuring out the seasons and agriculture, artificial shelter, language itself.

Then once those are out of the way, that's when we hit the point where we can start doing religion as we know it today.

I consider that to be much different than the science the poster was talking about.

This isnt some game where we are awarding points to religion either. You cant expect something like science or hosptials to not develop without religion, because religion was always around

No one is denying the social development that came about, but to award that to religion as if we couldnt have come up with it without religion is absurd

 

[Cocaloch]

Eh, technically wouldn't science have come first. I mean, we're talking feats of engineering like the creation of fire, sharp sticks and stones and all of those essentials which even allowed humanity to thrive and ultimately reach the point of developing the idea to read the stars, figuring out the seasons and agriculture, navigation, artificial shelter, language itself.

If we define knowledge of the natural world as science, then religion is part of science sometimes. If we define "true" knowledge of the natural world as science, then we run into some massive epistemological issues and sometimes religion would still be part of science. This isn't a very good definition, it's far too broad.

 

[Cocaloch]

You cant expect something like science or hosptials to not develop without religion, because religion was always around

Sure you can. I'm not whiggish enough to assume our current society was inevitable. Even if I was I would acknowledge the centrality of religion in history to where we are today. I'm not saying you can't argue it wasn't important. I'm just saying that claim isn't just true by default. You'd need a positive argument here.

No one is denying the social development that came about, but to award that to religion as if we couldnt have come up with it without religion is absurd

Giving points to religion and calculating its utility is exactly what I'm saying is absurd. We seem to be agreeing here.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Jesus didn't like religion, why should anyone else?

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." ~ James 1:27

 

[Always-honest]

Fear of hell is not the only, and often not even a major, motivator. For instance mainline fear of hell isn't something that can promote good works in mainline Calvinism.

.

Never claimed this.
Most people have basic human empathy due to human interactions and own experiences.
This is the same for religious people. Though they also get this negative motivation with hell and damnation. It's a shame it even plays a role.

 

[Cocaloch]

Never claimed this.
Most people have basic human empathy due to human interactions and own experiences.
This is the same for religious people.

Right, but I'm saying hell isn't even always a major component of religious motivations. There are others, including actual empathy.

 

[Always-honest]

Right, but I'm saying hell isn't even always a major component of religious motivations. There are others, including actual empathy.

I know. I said most of those people have actual empathy.
Though i can't exactly guess/ estimate how big the influence of that (the hell and damnation part) is.

 

[Cocaloch]

I know.
Though i can't exactly guess how big the influence of that is.

Right, which is part of the reason all of this is a rather bad question. We probably couldn't actually assign points and figure out if it was a good or bad thing in some platonic sense. Even if we could do it in theory, I'd clearly also be impossible, not to mention not particular useful, in practice.

 

[TimeEffect]

Sure you can. I'm not whiggish enough to assume our current society was inevitable. Even if I was I would acknowledge the centrality of religion in history to where we are today. I'm not saying you can't argue it wasn't important. I'm just saying that claim isn't just true by default. You'd need a positive argument here.



Giving points to religion and calculating its utility is exactly what I'm saying is absurd. We seem to be agreeing here.

Im not sure what you are saying

Its often the case that catholics, for example, claim religion is good and point to something like the creation of hosptials

Yet religion is so engrossed in culture at that point that you cant really credit religion as if society wouldnt develop things like hospital or the scientific method eventually regardless of religion

 

[Gnome Scat]

That's one way to look at things. Another would be that religious organisations such as the Church kept people in line and continued to make generations suffer through miserable lives precisely because they dangled the fear of hell and that false hope of a mystical reward constantly to better control them.

But sure, religion's great because it gave false hopes to cold and hungry peasants. Yeah, OK...

Morality cannot be explored in the scientific realm for it is a construct of society, culture, and civilization. Religion provided a useful tool in the implementation, enforcement, and study of morality, allowing it to take root in how we as humans act and think over the course of millennia. Religion played a significant role in the crafting and establishment of the concept of human rights as they stand today, dating back to the early 13th century from works religious thinkers like Aquinas. Now of course, one could argue that philosophy could be a different means to the same end, but is it realistic to say that philosophy has the structure, organization, and power to influence the world entire?

 

[Man God]

My grandmother got to watch Ireland go from one of the most religious first world countries to basically the rest of Europe in about five years first hand. It was crazy. The laws don't quite match up yet with the public sentiment as there are still a few wacky Catholic laws on the books but man, it's like a whole different country in that regard.

 

[HiredN00bs]

The problem isn't religion per se, it's faith, or put another way, holding beliefs for which you do not have good evidence. Atheists can be just as susceptible to this as religious people.

 

[KernelPanic]

Religion is fine until they start forcing their beliefs on others, persecuting others who believe differently and try to infest government and laws with their ideals.

 

[killer rin]

I consider that to be much different than the science the poster was talking about.

If we define knowledge of the natural world as science, then religion is part of science sometimes. If we define "true" knowledge of the natural world as science, then we run into some massive epistemological issues and sometimes religion would still be part of science. This isn't a very good definition, it's far too broad.

Someone still had to have the idea to take a stick and fasten a rock to it. The idea to sharpen a stick and use it as a weapon. Just because we take it for a given and classify it as knowledge of the natural world doesn't mean that at the time it wasn't groundbreaking science. Someone had to know that a pointy stick hurts and had to build one and test it before going to the tribe and telling them "Guys, this works"

When it comes to fire, whether accident or not. Someone had to realize the processes involved in making that fire and that using food on it equals better tasting food.

Ancient humans looked at the sky way before telescopes and realized that there were patterns that began to emerge. They used those patterns to learn more about predicting the seasons and with that knowledge to grow crops more efficiently. Agriculture.

Even if they didn't understand why they were doing it or how the things worked. Someone still had to invent the process and come up with the idea for it and put it into action, learning from the results. I'd say that is early science. Sure it resembles nothing close to what we are doing now post-scientific method and now with us entering into the Digital-AI Age. But it is still Science, even if we classify it as something different now.