Religion
Related: About this forumWhy Science Can’t Replace Religion
Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/24/why-science-cant-replace-religion/By Keith Kloor, a freelance journalist whose stories have appeared in a range of publications, from Science to Smithsonian. Since 2004, he’s been an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University.
Myths about the Hero Twins, one of whom is shown holding a bow here, are an important part of Navajo identity.
In certain circles, there is a violent allergic reaction whenever someone suggests that religion and science are compatible. A particular type of atheist is especially vulnerable to this immune disorder. For example, P.Z. Myers, the evolutionary biologist and pugnacious blogger, became famously symptomatic at a 2010 gathering of atheists. After one participant suggested that non-religious people could still be spiritual, Myers nearly wretched:
I hope Myers didn’t have too much to eat before reading the headline from this week’s commentary in Nature: “Sometimes Science Must Give Way to Religion.” The column, by Arizona State University’s Daniel Sarewitz, suggests that rational explanation of the universe’s existence, as advanced recently by discovery of the Higgs boson, can’t match the feelings evoked by spectacular religious symbolism, such as that found in Cambodia’s ancient Hindu temples, which Sarewitz explored this summer. He writes:
Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it.
But in the words of Time magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger, “our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring.” Religion is the antidote our evolutionary history created. And even if you don’t buy that particular theory, you can’t simply dismiss the psychological and cultural importance of religion. For much of our history, religion has deeply influenced all aspects of life, from how we cope with death and random disaster to what moral codes we abide by. That science should (or could) eliminate all this with a rationalist cleansing of civilization, as a vocal group of orthodox atheists have suggested, is highly improbable.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)need to support themselves by denying the opposite exists. If you have to do that, you really are not a strong in your beliefs. If you were strong in your beliefs, what others believe doesn't matter to you.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)do not need to support themselves by denying the opposite exists.
I agree with you that those that feel the need to reject or best others who's POV is different than their own are exhibiting a fragile hold on their own beliefs or lack of beliefs.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
brewens
(13,567 posts)way of trying to make sense of things. I've always kind of known this but never have put it all together really. I haven't read all that much about it either.
Before people had the time to have progressed to the point of understanding weather, geology or any other science, what were the supposed to think? Everything that happened in their lives seemingly was caused by the sky, the ground, other people or animals. Why not a really powerful man or beast in the sky somehow making things happen?
All the explanations and rules they came up with in their religions also served as the earliest form of law. Some identical to what we live by now because they worked. Following that was better than having the toughest guy take over and run things his way, and then starting all over when he was knocked off.
I can see how spirituality would somehow be wired into us through evolution because it worked so well. That still wouldn't make any of the beliefs people came up with true.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think the *truth* of whether a god exists or not is even on the table. That's basically up to each individual to embrace or reject.
But the question of how religious beliefs have impacted our own evolution and continued development is pretty fascinating, imo.
brewens
(13,567 posts)our evolution. Kind of a natural selection of religion/laws. Some form of sacrifices may have done an otherwise very successful population in. I could have been anything. Maybe they were forbidden to go into some land for reasons long forgotten when that would have been the way to escape being wiped out?
We'll never know about some of the most important decisions our ancestors made. We could all be descended from one tribe who's leader made a decision based on a spiritual belief that saved everyone.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)Literally.
rug
(82,333 posts)MineralMan
(146,285 posts)It needn't be. Some people become atheists, after considerable thought and study. That's me. Other people, however, are natural atheists, and just simply reject the whole idea of supernatural stuff from the beginning. Their atheism is simply nothing. It's not something they think about. It just is.
I've known both types of atheist. For those who simply lack belief, it is nothing. You might not be able to imagine that, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Belief is something. A simple lack of belief is nothing. Have a nice day.
rug
(82,333 posts)It order to hold you do not believe this or that, you must first have a belef that you reject. Nonbelief is specific. It is not the default. Ignorance of the belief is the default. Once you know what is, then you can say I don't believe this or that. Nonbelief should be the result of consideration, not ignorance.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)You just keep saying it.
rug
(82,333 posts)MineralMan
(146,285 posts)But, if you need my permission, you're welcome to it.
Then I have an infinite number of things.
A nonIphone,a nongreat job,a non Porsche,a nonWinnebago ,hell a whole heard of nonWinnebagos!
Thanks I feel better now.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Stryder
(450 posts)In order to not have something I do not need to know that there is that something.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nonbelief is specific. Before that is simply ignorance. They are different things.
Stryder
(450 posts)What would you say if I were raised in a vacuum,so to speak,and never taught the concept of a God?
Would my non belief still be something?
rug
(82,333 posts)Was Jefferson a nonbeliever in radio?
This is why I said nonbelief is still something, as opposed to nothing.
If you say you have that invisible dragon in your garage(Sagan)
and I don't believe you,my disbelief is still something?
rug
(82,333 posts)If nobody did, then no.
A thought, unthought, does not exist.
Stryder
(450 posts)I sometimes think of my disbelief but I'm not certain thoughts are things.
Are electrochemical reactions things or actions?Is an action a thing?
If they are things I can see your point.
In any case I have enjoyed thinking about this.And that's the important thing.Thinking.
Doh, I just called thinking a thing!
Just keep on thinking whatever you do.
Peace,
Stryder
rug
(82,333 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Oh yeah, these guys:
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Their are still things that are unexplainable and religion, conspiracies and myth will fill the void that fear leaves.
Fear is a powerful weapon when authority needs to control the masses. It is also a convenient weapon considering the
percentage of human beings who believe in omnipresent beings and magic.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)Does the link still work for you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a search for the page and it seems to work now.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Why Religion cannot replace Science.
Religion absolutely requires ignorance of the way the world works. Wherever science shows that a religious precept cannot exist (the Firmament, for example) then religion has to abandon that previously firm belief or deny the science or propose excuses by the trick of special pleading.
Look at what the concept of "deep time" which allows the vast timescales of elemental production, stellar evolution and even geological ages; religious response has been either
1) denial (fundamentalists such as Ken Ham); or
2) acceptance thus denying the literal truth of the holy book; or
3) special pleading, e.g. holy writ is entirely true but our perception of holy truth is at fault.
The problem is that science is making inroads into the areas that religion has come to regard as its heart, morality and spirituality. The simple assertion that the discovery of the Higgs cannot cannot produce the same magnitude of feelings as religious architecture is insulting to those who do find that discovery hugely uplifting. It ignores the awe inspired by the machine that enabled that discovery. Vast numbers of people find the entirely technological achievement of Curiosity Rover enormously uplifting.
Essentially the article is making a number of blind assertions without one speck of evidence - but that's religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the opposite claim many times.
Religion does not require ignorance at all. Religion has been used to explain the unexplainable and some religious concepts have been abandoned once a scientific explanation has been discovered. But there still is, and always will be, things that can't be explained, imo.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)Fewer than there used to be, but there are still such things. I don't insist that they be explained, though, as part of my atheism. I don't need them to be explained, and probably wouldn't understand the explanations completely if they were. I not a stupid person, and can cope with high-energy physics just fine, although I cannot check the mathematics used in such explanations. Others can, though, and I trust they are being rigorous about that. In reality, busting a scientific theory is a good path to fame, too.
Personally, I cannot conceive of the events that occurred in the first 10 milliseconds of the Big Bang. We won't ever be able to get to the zero point. We can't stand far enough back to observe it, as a practical limitation.
I love the theories that have developed around cosmology. They've been fascinating to follow. But, in the end, I don't know exactly what happened, and that's not really a concern of mine. I don't need an explanation, really. I understand a lot of the sciences very well. They've fascinated me since I was about 8 years old, and I'm smart enough to comprehend journal articles in most fields, except maybe the extremes of high energy physics, which I understand only conceptually.
Religion has offered to explain many things over the millenia. For those who need simple explanations, it's just fine. For those who can't see beyond the contradictions posed by some of those explanations when held up to actual knowledge, that's fine, too. I don't care if people are satisfied with a "godditit" explanation. It matters not to me. But, when you do study the sciences and discover that most of the religious explanations of so many things are just mumbo-jumbo, it gets more and more difficult to accept the basic premise of most religions: that there is some supernatural entity that can speak things into existence or wave a hand and make things from nothing.
It's a logical process. For some, the "symbolic" explanation works OK. For me, it simply doesn't. I can't, under any circumstances, believe that Noah and his family loaded the animals on a homemade boat and survived some flood that supposedly killed every other living thing. I can't do that. I can't do it symbolically, either. Clearly, the event did not occur. It is an impossible event. So, how does one decide which things are true and which not? For me, after so many things believed by that particular religion were thoroughly debunked, it didn't matter any longer whether any of it was true. Logic dismisses the whole thing. And then, since each religion deals with all that stuff in similar ways, they all fail that basic logic test. Very colorful, those religions are. All of them. Very imaginative. But not convincing.
By the time I was 20, it was no longer possible to believe any of it. That's a step that, when taken, cannot be reversed.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Science does not replace religion - it just renders it obsolete.
You state, with no supporting evidence, your opinion but you fail to identify in what areas the things that cannot be explained are to be found.
Morality? Mathematics, neurology, population genetics and behavioural science are closing in on that problem.
Feelings of spirituality? again neurology but also psychology and developmental biology all seem to be opening that door.
Consciousness, personality, identity are all starting to be examined with some results.
Where does that leave religion? Examining the unsolved problems of mathematics? Finding more slender cracks between the keys? Or does it just proclaim the triumph of ignorance and state "there are questions which can never be answered so don't try to answer them!"
rug
(82,333 posts)If its explanation for human behavior is that it is a result of measurable phenemenon and reaction, it either fails to explain morality or eliminates morality as something real.
It it attempts to explain what morality is, it is incompetent. Science has no good and no bad.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)Sometimes it's religion-based, but mostly it's society-based or culture-based. Actually, so is religion. Oddly enough, most religions have come up with very similar moral codes. So have most cultures and societies. Long before the Judeo-Christian deity was created, societies had well-develop ethical and moral systems. Societies and cultures never exposed to those Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, oddly enough, had very similar ones, developed by their own culture, along with their religions.
Humans are able to understand causal relationships. All humans. It stands to reason that humans discovered very early, say, that stealing some other human's food brought a response that made it clear that stealing wasn't an acceptable thing. Same with adultery, at least within the boundaries of whatever that culture found to be normal. Murder? Same thing, really, and even today, killing the "others" isn't considered to be morally wrong by many. We're still doing it, willy-nilly.
No, science doesn't explain morality. It simply describes it and points to factors that play a role in it. No explanation is necessary. Every culture of humans has an ethos and moral standard. It's a human thing. So, it's a natural thing to study. But no explanation of how it all started is necessary. It's inherent in human society, and independent of religious mythology.
A lot of science is descriptive. Indeed, most of science is descriptive. Religion is prescriptive. Huge difference.
rug
(82,333 posts)Morality then becomes a term affixed to complex biological reactions, a sort of human photosynthesis.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)I generally don't even use the word, frankly, because it has so many interpretations. Same with "sin." I prefer the word "ethics."
rug
(82,333 posts)Morality has a commonly understood definition, as does science. They are ships passing in the night.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Or don't you have one?
rug
(82,333 posts)It is the ability to distinguish what is right from what is wrong, although that does not necessarily mean making the right choice between them. I'll add that there are many sources of morality. It is neither simply a religious concept nor is it the inexorable result of complex biochemical reactions.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The dictionary does not identify "right and wrong" making the definition meaningless. The sense you seem to take from morality is the idea that it is a code of behaviour, either of individuals or of groups, specifically religious groups. Here is the problem of that overly simplistic view; using your definition makes morality relative to faith and what is worse relative to a particular brand of faith.
Examples:
Consider the Thugee, worshipers of Kali Durga, were they moral in their behaviour? Remember, they believed that what they were doing was "right" and that not to sacrifice travelers was wrong. Similarly the reported actions of the maenads, followers of Bacchus/Dionysus? What of the morality of the early Mormons? What the early European settlers in the USA who branded women with the scarlet letter and went into anti-witch rampages? All of these people considered their actions to be both "right" and "moral".
Now there is an alternative and that is to consider morality "normative", a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it, applying equally to all affected by this "code". What is more all who interact with this code recognise these qualities in that morality. In this definition the actions of those faiths mentioned above become "immoral" and the definition opens the door to asking, "what do all people regard as moral?"
The opening of that question allows reasoned study. For example the principle of equal reward for equal input is regarded as being moral and people breaking that rule (either the donors or the actors) cause upset and anger. Guess what, that moral principle is found to apply not just in humans but also to other social primates. It seems that for monogamous species cheating on your partner seems to cause distress. The death of a member of your species causes retaliatory action; I have seen seagulls react to such deaths with violence toward the perpetrator.
Because, with the normative view, morality can be seen in many creatures some simple rules of a universal human morality can begin to be ascertained. These seem to have their origins in the the social organisation of humans and that organisation is founded in the biology of our species. Here is where the physical foundations of morality can begin to be seen, examined and made reasoned.
You can, of course, stick with your "right and wrong" definition but you will forever be at the mercy of those who define right and wrong - like priests and politicians.
rug
(82,333 posts)Speaking of dictionaries, look up mores.
You appear to believe that morality is some universal, objective norm existing independently of the individual or the group. I'm surprised you didn't invoke Yahweh and tablets. I suppose you believe it can then be scientifically analyzed, like gravity.
Morality has a much more subjective view than that. Different groups do indeed have different notions of morality and the morality of a given particular action within a particular group is determined by the morality of that particular group.
Interestingly, it is the natural law argument, which you are essentially making, which is the basis for the most rigid religious arguments, particularly in the areas of sex, abortion and marriage.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)First I used your definition and demonstrated that it is a nonsense. You also make an assertion in your headline that is false then build your argument upon that foolish misconception.
You want to change the goalposts again? Fine
You choose the word Mores which is "customs and conventions of a community". The Thugees were communities and they obeyed the customs and conventions of that community. It also implies "moral attitudes" - how does this change my arguments regarding your non-definition of morals?
You still have not defined morals. Indeed you will continue to fail to do so because you have no definitions which do not involve meaningless imponderables.
Next where did I state that morals are a "universal,objective norm"? I used the word "normative," the standard description of actions not dependent either upon authority and interpretation nor on immutable physical compulsion, but upon usual (normal) behaviour. Usual does not mean "universal". The fact that usual behaviours are similar across a wide range of social species and communities does not grant them the status of "natural law" but it does grant the insight that there may be sound reasons for such behaviours in the underlying biology of creatures examined. The only "natural laws" in this are those of chemistry
You continue with the idea that "morality has a much more subjective view than that". That sentence is rendered meaningless by its construction (morality has a view? Is morality a creature as well?) but I suppose you mean that you and others of your ilk view morality as subjective; which is precisely what highlighted when I pointed out that you and those of your view are entirely at the mercy of those who instruct you or others in right and wrong and morality. This renders your morality completely without foundation. I believe the NT mentions the problem of building a house upon sand.
So please do not falsely interpret my words to mean what you want them to mean. Natural law argument ...
rug
(82,333 posts)Instead, you adopted some Platonic ideal notion of morals, which is wrong.
Had you read, rather than snarked, you would have found the definition: right and wrong as defined within a community.
Now before we go on, please let me know whether you want to discuss or insult. I can do either.
Let's start with "others of your ilk". Elucidate.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I pointed out that your definition of morality depends upon meaningless terms. Utterly meaningless because they depend solely upon relative and undefined terms. By your lights "right and wrong" are wholly relative thus making your morality wholly relative. You refused to clarify, merely saying right and wrong are defined within a community but not even attempting to explicate those terms or how communities might so interpret those terms. By doing so you run away from the argument piling an Ossa of assertion upon the Pelion of false opinion.
I have offered nothing Platonic, just established reasoning and the possibility that morals might be based upon real effects. If you still consider my reasoning platonic then remember Augustine used Platonism when it suited him. You again insert your unjustified assertion, say it is mine and then argue against that falsehood.
So what do I mean by "Others of your ilk"? I mean people who mendaciously misinterpret others views. People who ignore all valid objections to their objectionable opinions. People who offer blind assertion and call it argument. People like you who ignore established fact, who ignore even the opinion of their church, when it suits them. People like you, - apologists.
rug
(82,333 posts)
I am too modest to allow myself to be placed among the ilk of Titans.
Since you're reduced to repeating "people like you" I can see there is no more discussion to be had.
I'll be around if you want to swap insults. Try to keep them in the realm of classic Greek references.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)People in deep and pathological denial about anything that disrupts their little worldview.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)MineralMan
(146,285 posts)We're learning more all the time, even though it's difficult to study people. They're a disparate group, and do not necessarily all respond to the same things in the same way. Hard to pin humans down.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)what a load of absolute whargarble.
Mathematics can examine complex behaviours that produce quantifiable outcomes - do you deny this?
Can you understand that morality may not just be a philosophical concept but also a desirable trait for a social species?
Do you deny that there is evidence that morality is not just a human trait but is also present in other primates?
Given these simple truths then an examination of morality becomes not just possible, but inevitable.
Of course you deny it for you are just interested in ignorance. your statement is, essentially, "Morality cannot be defined, therefore we cannot examine it"
rug
(82,333 posts)It is incompetent.
The scientific method does not incorporate philosophical concepts.
Please be more succinct.
Thank you.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)please learn to read
Or does the word "not" confuse you?
rug
(82,333 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)also because something is a philosophical idea does not mean that it cannot be similar* to reality. Atomic theory was, originally, a philosophical concept
++++++++++
* similar does not mean the same.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nope, you're conceding philosophical concepts.
And while Democritus did indeed wonder about the erosion of the temple statues, monads remain pure philosophical notions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Are we the top of the food chain? Are there beings or life forms in the universe that we can't even begin to imagine?
What is love? Where does the inspiration to create come from? Why do so many belief systems developed in completely unconnected places have so much in common? What happens when you die? Is there a spirit or soul that is separate from the physical self?
Religion does not claim to have the answer to all questions and science can not either. Science will and should keep searching, but to definitively state that science can and will answer all questions is foolish, imo.
What religion gives to those that embrace it may not be something you want or need, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to those that do.
It is possible for both to be real and for them to exist in absolute harmony.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Science does not claim to have the answer to all questions and it never has done. That is the point of science, it is a journey not a destination. At no point have I claimed that "Science" provides all answers and only fools would assert that scientists make that claim. Essentially science provides the questions for which, at the time of formulation, there are no answers.
Religion on the other hand claims, with no evidence whatsoever, to be the destination and that all things should be subverted to arriving at that destination. Religion by definition, claims to be "THE ANSWER" and that all things are made clear when you meet the deity or the deities or achieve transcendence. Religion claims that, by modifying your behaviours, you will find all answers, but only after you die.
Now your last assertions
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Your assumptions about me do as well. You can try to pigeonhole me for whatever reasons you have, but it doesn't make me what you want me to be. I and I alone am the only one with the right to define myself.
I in no way denigrate your non-belief. Why would I? You are missing nothing. What I say is that others would. Your not wanting it or needing it means nothing to anyone but yourself.
You have attempted to explain things with the knowledge that you have. I maintain that your knowledge is limited and always will be. None of us have all the answers.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You are a believer, because you have no arguments, no logic, no reasons. You refuse to examine what you believe. Every atheist I have ever met or corresponded with constantly examine their beliefs and usually discard them. You see we do not have all the answers and we know that. The reason that your arguments appeared so simplistic and so wrong is because is because they are arguments I and others have examined 10s or 100s of times.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Continue to assume anything you like about me, what I am and whether I examine my beliefs and lack of beliefs. If you find me simplistic, so be it.
I really have nothing else to say to you.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You are a highly intelligent person and would be a welcome addition to whatever community you choose the associate with. You have views but you do not dare to have them challenged. You are uncritical of those you favour. Because of that you live in the margins neither entirely one thing nor another.
All matters of faith are personal, not universal; although a need for faith does seem to be based in biology.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)without the least critical examination, and your refusal to engage in any meanngful discussion outside of your established and limited comfort zone tells otherwise. Volumes. Face the fact that he's got you pretty well pegged.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if this was just the way a person chose to live their life privately. But when they come onto a busy public discussion board and try to influence and poison the thinking of as many others as possible with their fallacious notions, that's an entirely different matter, and one deserving of all of the criticism it gets.
LTX
(1,020 posts)is mathematics invented or discovered? I ask because you have so many wonderfully pat answers to so many nagging questions.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)My view? Essentially mathematics is discovered, but not because it exists as a platonic ideal. Relationships are always discovered and mathematics deals with relationships. Troll maths, in the Discworld novels is about such relationships even though it is described as just being "one, two, many, lots,". My belief is that at first math started from conversations like;
"Ugg will give you lots of grains but you need only give me many arrowheads".
"That is not lots of grains that is only many grains, I will give Ugg less lots arrowheads,"
You can hear the beginnings in songs like Jake Thackray's Molly Metcalfe (video below)
Eventually the rules and symbols governing the relationships began to be played with independent of the actual reality of the relationships.
If you have read Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" you will know he regards math as having some kind of platonic reality. I hesitate to disagree with him - but I do
Video "Old Molly Metcalfe"
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)though you might be closer if you said "defined" instead of "invented".
truebrit71
(20,805 posts):confused:
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and it had nothing to do with heaven or money.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Some of the ideas that came from it just need to go away. Like the Animal Farm like insistence that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. The notion of eternal punishment, this is from a loving god? The Pandora theory that women let loose all the evil things in the world. Some would call that the Eve theory. The idea that murder is a good solution for adultery. There are many other ideas that should also be refuted, but that is beyond my scope as I haven't been inside a church for a couple of decades now.
The only thing I see religion offering is a place of fellowship every Saturday or Sunday and on Wed, or Thursday depending on your place of worship. This could be replaced by community centers or Unitarian churches or even something else that would act as a community gathering place.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But that is not all it means to many others, and a community center or Unitarian Church would never meet what they want or need.
MineralMan
(146,285 posts)It serves many of the same functions as the church, really. There, you can find forgiveness, sustenance, and fellowship. And after a pint or two, often peace of mind.
And, all you have to do to understand it is to go to your neighborhood pub or tavern on a regular basis, and you'll see that it is so.
stopbush
(24,395 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)MineralMan
(146,285 posts)It will not go away. It will simply become less and less relevant. It is already happening in Europe to a large degree, and is also happening here in the US. Drop in on Sundays on a variety of churches. They didn't build them to have all those empty seats. Truly. The more you visit, the more you'll understand. 
Jim__
(14,074 posts)... not of rationality."
The original commentary in Nature is worth reading. An excerpt:
Why does this matter? Challenges to the cultural and political authority of science continue to rise from both ideological and religious directions. It is tempting to dismiss these as manifestations of ignorance or scientific illiteracy. But I believe instead that they help to show us why it will always be necessary to have ways of understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational.
I am an atheist, and I fully recognize science’s indispensable role in advancing human prospects in ways both abstract and tangible. Yet, whereas the Higgs discovery gives me no access to insight about the mystery of existence, a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Good article.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Why do some people have this uncontrollable need to religify science, and to try to make science as much a matter of "faith" as religion? And why do such supposedly intelligent people need to resort to the same trick of blatant intellectual dishonesty OVER and OVER and OVER?
I would not have religious "faith" that something like the Higgs boson exists, if indeed the scientific community searching for it announced that such existence had very strong evidence in its favor, any more than I have "faith" that electrons, antibodies, tsetse flies and Brunei exist. I have confidence in the self-correcting mechanisms for gathering checking and reporting such information, even in cases where I cannot personally and directly verify the information myself, based on their past performance.
Apparently this author desperately needs his "other ways of knowing" as much as some people here do, while being just as unable to show us what they are, or what objective understanding they have produced.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)It's not even the same as belief in electrons. That should be obvious.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to call it "belief" for some unknown reason. I don't "believe" in things like that...I have to be convinced of them.
So tell us then, Obviousman, how would accepting the existence of the Higgs boson be fundamentally different than accepting the existence of an electron...or a muon...or a neutrino..or a quark? On what objective basis do you draw the line between what you claim are two totally different kinds of "belief"?
Jim__
(14,074 posts)... tests for the existence of electrons are easily repeatable - meaning just about anyone can do the tests and see the evidence. Evidence for the Higgs boson? You need to understand the theory (the math) to even understand what's going on - which of course was Sarewitz' point.
Lily Asquith works on data from the LHC. Here's ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2012/jun/22/higgs-boson-particlephysics ) a bit of what she has to say about the Higgs boson:
But, it is not capable of directly observing the Higgs boson. We can't take a picture of this thing: no detector can. The Higgs boson's existence is fleeting: it is given the opportunity of existence by the high collision energy of the proton beams in the LHC, and the instant it finds itself in existence, it decays.
...
When we talk about any "fundamental" particle such as the Higgs, the reason for its decay is actually much more simple. Such a particle is not an 'object' in the sense we usually imagine, I think it is more accurately described as a 'possibility'. The question of 'what is real?' is one that I have avoided whole-heartedly since a particularly bad headache I had about three years ago, but a very general idea is that we can't describe anything without some well-defined properties, and in particle physics these properties are quantum numbers. A set of quantum numbers, combined with some additional information, gives you a descriptive quantity called a wavefunction, which completely describes a state of "matter" in its most fundamental form. The decay of a particle such as the Higgs CAN happen if its wavefunction is identical to the combined wavefunction of two other particles. It is always two: it must be because of the possible configurations of the quantum numbers.
...
So, the Higgs boson "is" also a pair of Z or W bosons, a pair of photons, or a pair of quarks or leptons. We cannot predict whether a single Higgs will decay to a pair of photons or to a pair of something else, we can only give a probability of each decay type.
...
We don't directly observe electrons, but we, anyone, can easily put together the tests that demonstrate their existence. The Higgs boson? Even particle physicists cannot directly observe it, or the evidence for its existence. They observe statistical anomalies that indicate it may have decayed.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)believing wine unleavened bread literally transform into the flesh of Jesus for a ceremony.
Yes or no?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Except to repeat what you already said and make new things up.
It's utterly false that "just about anyone" can do the tests and see the evidence for the electron, or that "just about anyone" can understand those results. The vast, vast majority of people can't do any of that. And what about muons, neutrinos and quarks? How is accepting the existence of those fundamentally different? What percentage of the population must understand the theory and the math behibd the evidence for those particles (NONE of which are observed directly, btw) for your threshold to be met? How much does the equipment for testing them have to cost before accepting their existence becomes a matter of "faith"?
Still waiting for your objective, concrete standards.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)Here's your original claim:
And my response:
It's not even the same as belief in electrons. That should be obvious.
Now you're making new things up, specifically, asking about entities not mentioned in the original argument:
Neither you nor I said anything about muons, neutrinos and quarks as part of our original discussion.
As for anyone being able to run the tests for the existence of electrons, any decent science supply store sells kits that allow you to reproduce Thomson's original experiment.
And, as to your claim that:
Yes, I stand by what I originally said and I have more arguments to support what I originally said - the specific new argument being the words of a particle physicist as to to the difficulty of understanding the nature of the Higgs boson.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that "just about anyone can do the tests and see the evidence" for the existence of electrons. They can't and they don't. How many people would you estimate can understand the equipment, and the math and the theory behind it, when most people don't even know what a sub-atomic particle IS?
As far as muons, quarks and neutrinos, see my post 87. I didn't just make them up out of thin air. But it's obvious you can't even attempt to answer the questions I posed:
How is accepting the existence of those particles fundamentally different from accepting the existence of a Higgs boson? What makes one an act of "faith" and not the others?
What percentage of the population must understand the theory and the math behibd the evidence for those particles for your threshold to be met?
How much does the equipment for testing them have to cost before accepting their existence becomes a matter of "faith"?
If you're just going to duck and dodge those questions again, please don't waste my time replying.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)... to Thomson's CRT experiment. Have you looked at the kits that are available? I'm sure lots of people are not interested. That means they won't run this test. It doesn't mean they can't.
How is accepting the existence of those particles fundamentally different from accepting the existence of a Higgs boson? What makes one an act of "faith" and not the others?
Your original question in post in post 75, only talked about the existence of electrons, antibodies, tsetse flies and Brunei. I answered that question. The game of well then, what about this, what about that is never-ending. And not worth beginning.
As far as particles go, my claim was about electrons. The difference? Well, as noted above, you (or at least most people) can run the test to demonstrate the existence of electrons. And, as particle physiscist Lily Asquith said:
See post 96 for a more complete quote from Asquith.
As far as demonstrating the existence of electrons, I'd say just about anyone who is interested can buy a kit and test. Just about anyone satisfies any threshold that might be set.
To buy the kit to run an equivalent to Thomson's test will run you about $200. That makes it well within the reach of the majority of the population. It means that anyone who is seriously interested can verify at least the rudimentary evidence.
The problem with the Higgs boson, as Asquith pointed out, is that all you can observe are the decay products and they could have come from something other than a decaying Higgs boson.
If you think that I am wasting, or can waste, your time; that is just sloppy thinking on your part.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the fundamental question about muons, quarks and neutrinos, on the basis that, since I didn't bring it up in my very first post of the thread, it wasn't legitimate. Whatever. The bottom line is that scientists conduct experiments and acquire evidence supporting the existence of ALL of those particles (which have analogous characteristics to those Asquith attributes to quarks), by a similar process of inquiry and examination to verify the reliability of data. There is NOTHING that makes the acceptance of the existence of one fundamentally different than any of the others. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Your endless harping on the availability of "home electron testing kits" notwithstanding. Why is it any less a matter of "faith" to accept that those kits actually do what they are purported to do than it is to accept published scientific findings about the existence of sub-atomic particles, since it's just a bunch of scientists telling you that they work and what's happening when you use them, and since you're not observing electrons directly in any case? There is NO difference.
enki23
(7,787 posts)Which is really no more, or less than "faith" in empiricism, and in the existence and efficacy of other people. There isn't much faith needed, though, when that's by far the most likely description of the state in which we actually exist.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)malaria.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...to allow them to experience its beauty.
But I also want to point out that I'm both a scientist and an artist. And of course I'm an unequivocal atheist. Nonetheless I am fully capable of experiencing "a powerful sense of mystery and transcendence, of the fertility of the human imagination and ambition," without any need to invoke "a Universe whose enormity and logic evade comprehension." Comprehending the universe is part of my life's work.
We are surrounded by beauty. That does not make it necessary to invoke supernatural explanations. Not at all.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are many scientists who are also very religious, so I don't think that an inability to understand science is what makes one religious.
If you experience the kind of ecstasy described through art, music or scientific discovery, that's great. If others experience through what they would describe as some kind of spirituality, does that make it less valid than your own?
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...makes anyone religious. I responded to the OP's contention that the only appropriate response to the beauty and majesty of the natural world is spirituality and religious experience by noting that atheists and scientists ALSO experience that beauty. It's part of what makes science so compelling for us as individuals.
Of course their personal experience is no less "valid." However, attempting to use that subjective experience to explain the natural world, replacing objective evidence with spiritual notions and unfounded "beliefs" is the polar opposite of what we try to achieve in science. It isn't a question of "validity," it's a matter of right and wrong. Supernatural explanations for the natural world are simply incorrect, and before anyone challenges that statement as a "belief" equivalent to religious belief, I'd ask them to subject their beliefs to the same test of objective evidence that scientists subject theirs to.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religious or spiritual explanations.
Some experiences don't lend themselves easily to scientific exploration. An amazing number of people believe they have seen UFO's or been visited by aliens. Another not insignificant number have reported contact with spirits or ghosts.
While there may be scientifically based explanations for these experiences, they are hard to quantify.
I heard a great explanation of deja vu experiences by a neuropsychologist on the radio yesterday. It made a great deal of sense from a neurological perspective, but it remains theoretical. Hard to catch people at the moment they are having one of these experiences.
Anyway, sometimes it feels good just to hand to over to the unknown and not try to figure out the reason for it.
Nay
(12,051 posts)of it. Most atheists are aware of how humans are wired, and why they respond to and build such a thing as religion. That doesn't make religion factually correct; unfortunately, with human wiring, whether something is factually correct or not is irrelevant. To most people, a "fact" is whatever makes them feel good. Period.
longship
(40,416 posts)It is a common and all too recognizable argument. Blaming science for transgressions on religion is all too familiar as well.
I don't care what the religious believe. As Jefferson wrote:
That last phrase is important. In it, Jefferson expresses the core of this so-called battle.
Science does not deliberately go about picking fights with religion. To portray that as part of this so called battle is yet another straw man. Most working scientists just ignore these issues. They focus on solving the problems in their domain, not what some religious people say. They almost universally ignore religion.
But religion somehow cannot keep from spewing some very unscientific rubbish, like Ken fucking Ham and his Creationism Museum, or the Texas State Board of Education, or Louisiana's attempt to turn its public school system into religious charter school creationism nightmare with texts written by Bob fucking Jones University, or the myriad of other bills being put forth across the country to deny education in science on strictly religious grounds.
That's why the awesome NCSE, PZ Myers, the SGU, the JREF, AU, CSI, and many other secular groups are fighting back against a cabal of religious nut cases who are overtly attempting to dismantle science education.
If the religious kooks succeed, the damage it would do to our country is immeasurable.
That is why scientists are finding themselves fighting back. If the religious nuts weren't doing what they are doing, the scientists would not have to be so vocal.
Note: I, like many, have no problem with religious people. It's the loonies who use their religious authority to spew rubbish like creationism and denial of climate science with whom I have a problem. With those people I have a huge problem.
Without the kooks spewing their anti-science, there would be no battle here. Scientists would remain in the labs and offices doing their science thing. And religious people would grow up respecting both their beliefs and the awesomeness of science.
Sorry. I am biased. But do not think that means I disrespect your beliefs. But if you think humans rode on top of vegetarian theropods, we have a real problem. If you think climate change is driven solely by natural phenomena, likewise.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. In science, she is the final arbiter.
Science is not attempting to replace religion no matter what anybody says. That is a straw man. Scientists just want the right to pursue their discipline without being enjoined by crap like Creationism and other garbage.
Thanks.
Rant off.
SarahM32
(270 posts)"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein
In truth, science and religion are compatible. For example, as most people in the world now agree, evolution is the way God created the world.
It is only misguided religious zealots and spiritually blind scientists who don't see that. People who realize what God is know that science and religion are not in opposition.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom." -- Albert Einstein
onager
(9,356 posts)This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world.
Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
The source appears to be a paper Einstein prepared for the initial meeting of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion In Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life in New York City, September 1940.
Welcome to DU, but I'd respectfully advise you to be very careful of bogus and out-of-context Einstein quotes in this group. Most of them have been posted and debunked many times over.
For example, as most people in the world now agree, evolution is the way God created the world.
"Most people in the world?" I spent 6 years living in Muslim countries, and I can guarantee you a bunch of those people wouldn't agree with that. Neither would many of my Fundamentalist Xian relatives. Nor would many scientists.
SarahM32
(270 posts)Einstein did not contradict himself. He was right in the quote I cited, and yours.
He recognized the actual purpose of religions, but he realized that Man had wrongly created concepts of God in Man's image, and he had a much deeper understanding.
Einstein said: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself as something separated from the rest... [but it's] a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."
This is consistent with what Jesus said according to the ignored Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which Jesus is quoted as saying that "All natures, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone."
This is very similar to the Taoist concept of Oneness which states that "All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them."
It is also why the great Meher Baba said: "There is no creature which is not destined for the supreme goal, as there is no river which is not winding its way toward the sea. But only in the human form can consciousness be so developed that it is capable of expressing the True Self, which is the Self of All."
God is One, and we are One. And God is the omnipresent Supreme Consciousness. That's why the great Maharishi Mahesh Yogi taught that: "All life emerges from, and is sustained in, consciousness. The whole universe is the expression of consciousness. The reality of the universe is one unbounded ocean of consciousness in motion."
Those quotes are from the home page of the author of the article I cited.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)They cherrypick from the bible, repeatedly quoting the parts that please them while ignoring context. They ignore the parts that don't please them - declaring them metaphor or only applying for their time. Cherries are sorted from the Tao or from the Analects or the Sutra or from the hundreds of more petty faiths to sooth their worries, whilst the vast contradictions between these words are ignored
The cherrypick from Darwin as well as Einstein. They ignore the fact that Newton was trying to be a magician and his faith subverted his life into pamphleteering.
The Tao is not about "oneness" it is about a path. It is not even one path but many leading towards a complete and peaceful soul or consciousness. The Tao makes few claims about an "afterlife" except that there are Gods and "Saints" (Exemplars) and that these can aid humans - if the mood takes them.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I'm sure you can convince us that most people in the world agree on that, too..right?
Come on..impress us. We've been debunking the same crap here for years..give us something original.
SarahM32
(270 posts)My reply to Onager above is also relevant in answering you, but here I'll give you a description of the God I believe in -- because by any other name God is One, and as Moses wrote, God is not a man, nor a son of man.
"God is the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, The Supreme (Cosmic) Consciousness, the Great Spirit-Parent of us all, the unspeakable, primordial vibration or "Word" that is made flesh in all of us." -- http://messenger.cjcmp.org
enki23
(7,787 posts)That's why we don't try to fucking drive demons out of epileptics anymore. It's why we don't sacrifice children to bring the fucking rain. So people get all gooey over bullshit sometimes. It's true science will never completely replace bullshit for people who really like their bullshit. But that's the real NOMA. Some people like to eat bullshit. Lots of them. And some, like me, don't.
I'll agree with one aspect, though. Science doesn't "replace" religion for me. There's nothing there to replace.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)minuscule amount of what is knowable.
I think calling those with religious beliefs people who like to eat bullshit is pretty harsh. If it helps them understand things that no one yet understands or comforts them during inexplicably hard times or guides them in making decisions about how to treat others in a positive ways, what's the problem?
Because there is nothing there for you, doesn't mean that it's not valid and meaningful for others, no matter how harshly you say it's not.
enki23
(7,787 posts)It helps them "feel" like they understand things when they don't. There's no recourse. Some understand, for instance, that god "hates fags." With a religious worldview, there is no possible reply to this but "nuh uh!". If you get to have revelations *of any kind* without recourse to reality, there is nothing whatsoever to gainsay anything at all. No. The right answer isn't "wrong god, buddy. Here's mine." The right answer is "there is no effing god, and your belief excuses you from nothing at all".
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to emotionally and psychologically weak people has nothing to do with increasing what is known. Religion may have done the former, but it has never done the latter.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Daniel Sarewitz is awed by what he assumes id religious imagery. What if that culture was, in fact, far more scientific than anything else.
Don't assume other cultures are religious because your own is! That is a false premise.
enki23
(7,787 posts)Angels and demons recede with understanding, and never grow. They explain ever less, and never more. Spirits become more thin. The divine recedes into the furthest reaches of space and time and need, ever converging upon its final state: an infinitely distant solution for infinitely distant problems. And no more.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and can state them with so much confidence.
We can probably just shut this group down now.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that you haven't stopped resorting to just making shit up and lying about what other people have said when you know the facts aren't on your side. The question is, why? What are you afraid of? What scares you so much about letting the truth be true? Can you name anything about which religion has gotten closer to the truth over time, while science has gotten progressive farther from the truth? ANYTHING??
LTX
(1,020 posts)science doesn't deal with "truth."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)of semantic arguments you want to get into about what "truth" is. I consider it to be the truth that evolution is how life got to be the way it is, and that masses attract one another. Maybe you choose to reserve that term for something less certain.
LTX
(1,020 posts)but semantic niceties have the advantage of relative precision. The following is pretty good discussion of the point:
http://dharma-haven.org/science/terrible-truth.htm
trotsky
(49,533 posts)They merely stated what is obvious to anyone who chooses to look at history: there is not a single phenomenon for which we once had a scientific answer but have now found a religious answer to be more correct/complete.
If you know of one, name it. But I suspect you will be able to respond with nothing but silence.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)That pretty much wraps up this thread.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Bull.
And this is bull, too: “Our brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring.” (So why are 60% of Scots and almost all Chinese people non-believers?"
Little brains and bodies that have been RAISED to believe that fairy tales and myths are TRUE will continue to believe in them, because it gives them a feeling of security, which humans definitely DO like.
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."
tama
(9,137 posts)Most interesting for me in that article was the link to the Navajo myth. An excerpt:
"Hakʼaz Asdzą́ą́, the Cold Woman, still lives," whispered Níłchʼi The Wind to Monster Slayer. "Each year she freezes the earth. She covers the streams with ice. She kills the plants so that the vines bear no melons and the stalks bear no corn." "Mother," demanded Naayééʼ Neizghání, tell me where I might find the dwelling of Hakʼaz Asdzą́ą́." Changing Woman refused to answer. But Níłchʼi, The Wind, whispered, "She lives high on the summet of Dibé Nitsaa, where the mountain sheep are." Monster Slayer traveled to Dibé Nitsaa and found a lean old woman sitting above the tree line without clothing, on the snow. No roof sheltered her. Her skin was pale as the snow. "Grandmother," said Monster Slayer," I am here to kill you." "You may kill me," said Cold Woman. "But once I am dead, it will always be hot on the earth. The land will dry up. The springs will cease to flow. Over the years the people will perish." Listening to her words, Naayééʼ Neizghání said, "I will spare you." And he returned without a trophy.
"Téʼéʼį́ Dineʼé, the Poverty Creatures, still live," whispered Níłchʼi into his ear. They destroy people by gradually using up possessions. They will leave no tools for anyone to use, and no clothing to wear." Monster Slayer asked Changing Woman where the Poverty Creatures dwelled, but she refused to tell him. "They live at Dził dah Neeztínii, the Roof Butte Mountain," said Níłchʼi. Naayééʼ Neizghání traveled there, and found a tattered old man and a filthy old woman. Their garments were in shreds, and in their house they had no goods. They had no food, no baskets, no bowls. "Grandmother, Grandfather," said Monster Slayer, "It gives me no pleasure, but I have come to kill you. Then people will not suffer from want." "Think a moment," they said. "If we were to die, people would not replace anything, or improve on their tools. By causing things to wear out, we lead people to invent new things. Garments become more beautiful. Tools become more useful. People appreciate what they have." Monster Slayer said, "What you say is true. I will spare you." And he returned without a trophy.
"Dichin Hastiin, Hunger Man, still exists," whispered Níłchʼi. "He lives at Tłʼoh adaasgaii, White Spot of Grass." When he arrived there, Naayééʼ Neizghání found twelve ravenous creatures who ate anything that grew. The largest of them was Dichin Hastiin. "I have come here to kill you," said Naayééʼ Neizghání. "Then people will not feel the pangs of hunger and they will not starve for want of food." "I do not blame you for wanting me dead," said Dichin Hastiin. "But if you kill us, people will lose their taste for food. They will never know the pleasure of cooking and eating. But if we live, they will continue to plant seeds and harvest crops, and they will remain skilled hunters." After hearing these words, Monster Slayer returned without a trophy.
How many DUers does it take to recreate the mythical battle between science and spirituality? Which twin is the Monster Slayer Hero and which the Monster, does that really matter? If the Monster - either science or spirituality, take your pick - were to die, what would be the trophy?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)science was in conflict with mythology, that would be pretty silly. As silly as claiming that science was in conflict with sculpture or poetry. But no one is saying that. When religions make truth claims about the physical world, when religious adherents claim that their mythologies, or certain aspects of them, are literally, factually true, that's where conflict can and does occur.
