|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2002 : 07:08:34
|
Poll Question:
How do you stand on the relationship between science and religion? I'm lifting the three main models from Shermer (WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS, pp. 137-138). I already note that the difference between one and three is a matter of emphasis; one could conceivably hold bothe positions consistently.
Shermer himself, and other skeptics such as Sagan, Gould and Martin Gardner seem to have no problem with position number two. Is this a convenient cop-out, or a sober-minded truce?
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov
|
| Results: |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 0 counted »» |
Last Vote:
never |
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 07:51:20 [Permalink]
|
That depends on what kind of Religion and what kind of believer we are talking about.
If your religion is a bunch of fables illustrating a particular philosophy that you use to guide you through live, then there is little conflict between it and science.
If your religion starts using logic or historic events to justify it's philosophy you start getting into a conflict.
If your religion is that of a creationist or a Taliban, then you have an unresolveable conflict. You have to give up at least either Science or Religion.
Edited by - Lars_h on 04/28/2002 07:55:05 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 13:07:23 [Permalink]
|
Seperate worlds certainly, but I see no reason why a dedicated scientist can't hold a religous belief and still do proper science. Those that do, and I've read that there are some, simply take their religous texts as a sort of a metaphore, rather than the literal truth.
f
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 13:32:37 [Permalink]
|
Creationist attacks on science, not withstanding, I have to say that "Science and religion deal with different subjects and can peacefully coexist." Weed out the nut cases and you find few problems. Religious fundamentalism probably makes it appear that there are far more objections to particulars of science from religion then there really are.
There are many religions. Most take no position at all with regard to what goes on in the world of science. Consider Buddhism, for example.
Pope John Paul has amply demonstrated that even some Christian faiths are cool with evolution. A friend of mine who happens to be a Methodist minister gave me the book "Lucy." The subject of our origins was as fascinating to him as it was to me. He knew I would love the book. He, like many Christians, does not see genesis as something to be taken literally. We may disagree on the God thing, but in the long run, it doesn't matter. He completely understands that evolution happens. There are people of faith who actively argue that only science should be taught in science classrooms.
Science, for it's part, takes no position on religion. It is not the job of science to blow religion away. Science attempts to understand the natural world, and that's that. And while some scientist have had to take time out from doing science to argue with those pesky fundies over one thing or another, that should not be confused with the doing of science itself.
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 16:28:55 [Permalink]
|
First, I didn't really have the space to adequately describe each position, which is OK. For those of you without Shermer's book, I can provide elaborations if you'd like.
I suppose that, of course, the validity of each position would depend on how "religion" is defined. If it makes claims that directly counter scientifically established facts, views one (which says that science can eventually provide everything that religion, including answers to questions of value and meaning) or three (which, to be sure, might also be held by the religious--religion is right and science is wrong) might be appropriate. If one's "religious" convictions are little more than "what gets you through the day," then I can see validity in position #2. (Of course, the atheist might rightfully state that if you have dilutted religion this much, then why bother?).
Another question that I hoped would be raised is how the "worlds" are conceived. On the basic political level, where we would state that "believe what you want to, just don't violate me with your beliefs," position #2 seems to be the most defensible. However, for the skeptic who is devoted to a materialist ontology and who, epistemologically speaking, counts as valid only the most rigorous forms of inquiry, position number two seems to be a bit disingenous. Either god(s), souls, spirits, etc., exist or they don't, and spurious claims to "different ways of knowing" either count as knowledge or they don't. As much as I love Shermer, this type of waffling sometimes puts me in a funk.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 17:39:53 [Permalink]
|
Since I first read about it, I've been extremely disappointed in Gould and his NOMA. Religion at it's core makes claims about the nature of reality that will forever and always conflict with science. This cannot and should not be brushed over and/or overlooked in some silly desire to "coexist peacefully".
The claims of religion are baseless and ridiculous and conflict with science and reason.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 18:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Tokyo: This is basically where I'm coming from, and I'm surprised that more skeptics seem afraid to make this type of stand. Is it a desire not to seem TOO anti-religious?
Again, I defend anyone's right to be religious, as ridiculous as religion seems to me, as long as their beliefs don't infringe on mine. This is a philosophically defensible tenent of liberal democracy. To allow religion its own, though epistemologically less certain, "world" is taking the "I'm OK, you're OK" outlook a bit too far, I think, dangerously approaching some sort of de facto metaphysical dualism (which is entirely undefensible).
While on the topic, the two-worlds model does not seemt to leave much room for philosophical ethics and value theory. This non-religious approach to values has been around for almost 3,000 years and has produced some of the most important revolutions in political and ethical thought and practice. However, many rank and file Skeptics (Shermer especially) throw value theory beyond the realm of reason, taking essentially relativistic approaches, seemingly to throw religion a bone to uphold this "two worlds" model.
Again, I love Shermer; he won me over to Skepticism to begin with. But here's my last bitchfest for the evening: Is he orgasmically in love with Frank Sulloway or what? I tend to see the whole project of evaluating responses to scientific theories in terms of birth order to be an example of the genetic fallacy at its worst. Yes, this is another topic, if anyone is interested, let's start another thread here.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2002 : 19:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, for the skeptic who is devoted to a materialist ontology and who, epistemologically speaking, counts as valid only the most rigorous forms of inquiry, position number two seems to be a bit disingenous. Either god(s), souls, spirits, etc., exist or they don't, and spurious claims to "different ways of knowing" either count as knowledge or they don't.
While in the long run there may be only one truth, I do think it would be jumping the gun to proclaim that we have arrived at that truth. It could be that we will never know for certain whether "god(s), souls, and spirits" exist. Certainly, there is reason to doubt their existence. Will science ever prove that these things simply can't exist? I doubt it. Those things are simply outside the realm of that which science concerns itself with. That the claims of Gods existence may fly in the face of how we may see things, does it also follow that those claims trample all over science? If so, I would like to know how? Remember that we are talking about that which is outside of nature. It may seem silly to us, it may seem impossible to us, but there it is. So why not just get along?
quote:
I've been extremely disappointed in Gould and his NOMA. Religion at it's core makes claims about the nature of reality that will forever and always conflict with science. This cannot and should not be brushed over and/or overlooked in some silly desire to "coexist peacefully".
The claims of religion are baseless and ridiculous and conflict with science and reason.
Perhaps I missed the article in "Nature" that proved all that all religions claims are baseless. Could it be that science has better things to do than try to falsify those things that cant be falsified?
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 04:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. IF the separate worlds model is simply an example of enlightened toleration, I have no problem with it. As silly as religious ideas may seem to me, most people hold religious beliefs, and yes, being militantly anti-religious doesn't achieve anything constructive.
Granting idividual scientists the right to "god of the gaps" beliefs then, is the civil thing to do. But I have a feeling that things aren't so simple. The gaps are indeed narrowing, and the history of science is replete with examples of brilliant theorists who have come close to discovering great breakthroughs, only to turn away from a conclusion that would contradict their religious beliefs. Religion and science are too often at odds to make an arbitrary distinction between the "world of science" and the "world of religion" and pretend that this solve such dilemmas. Again, when the "worlds" begin to take on significance beyond that of simple toleration, such irreconciliable differences come to light.
As to the question regarding whether science can "prove" that god(s), etc., don't exist: Of course, it can't. Science is primarily a finely-tuned inductive endeavor; "proofs" are the product of deductive models. Science also cannot prove that Santa Claus, the Tooth fairy, alien abductions, zombies and leprechans don't exist. Science can't even prove that, under certain circumstances, pigs can't fly. You can't prove a negative. However, extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence; the burden of proof in these cases is on the claimant, and so I can't think of any respectable scientist who would seriously consider the above even remotely believable. Why is god any different?
Again, I could sum up my position as follows: if we are simply letting people believe what they choose to believe, no problem. However, when we start to grant the religious realm any type of status as anything more meaningful than "what people believe in," conflicts will, and do, arise. Deeper questions won't go away just because someone has made a convenient distinction.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." --Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 05:40:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Remember that we are talking about that which is outside of nature.
There is no "outside of nature", which is the core of religious claims about the nature of reality.
quote:
Perhaps I missed the article in "Nature" that proved all that all religions claims are baseless.
Religious claims are based on the so-called "supernatural". Since there is no "super" natural, I'm quite confident in stated that all religious claims are baseless, despite what Nature says.
Can you site an example of a religious or spiritual claim that has been shown to have any basis in reality (and not simply a misunderstanding of natural physical laws)?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 05:45:42 [Permalink]
|
People can believe whatever they feel like believing.
But when religions make a claim about what happens when we die, or how old the earth and universe are, or that praying makes people heal faster or recover better than people who aren't prayed for, or that we all have some sort of separate "soul" that makes up who we really are, these claims need to be challenged. We cannot and should not try to coexist with this kind of nonsense.
It is ignorance, and ignorance needs to be stamped out, for the betterment of everyone.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 07:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People can believe whatever they feel like believing.
But when religions make a claim about what happens when we die, or how old the earth and universe are, or that praying makes people heal faster or recover better than people who aren't prayed for, or that we all have some sort of separate "soul" that makes up who we really are, these claims need to be challenged. We cannot and should not try to coexist with this kind of nonsense.
It is ignorance, and ignorance needs to be stamped out, for the betterment of everyone.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
If we take away everything that can be verified with scientific investigation or logical thinking, is that what is left really still a religion or a believe?
No statements about how the world works, no explanations, no claims about souls or reincarnation, no myths taken at face value; would this still be a religion?
If you make such demand from a religion in order to peacefully coexist with it, then you won't find much.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 07:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
People can believe whatever they feel like believing.
But when religions make a claim about what happens when we die, or how old the earth and universe are, or that praying makes people heal faster or recover better than people who aren't prayed for, or that we all have some sort of separate "soul" that makes up who we really are, these claims need to be challenged. We cannot and should not try to coexist with this kind of nonsense.
It is ignorance, and ignorance needs to be stamped out, for the betterment of everyone.
Well said, TD. This is a very important distinction. There's no immediate need to picket the First Reformed Baptist Church of Slum Hollow, but when they start to politicize their religion, we must counter with the only real method of pursuing truth. James Randi walks the line between criticizing belief and criticizing politics as well as anyone.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 09:47:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm firmly behind TD and Lars on this one.
I've had the pleasure of meeting both Shermer and Gould and was surprised at how, in conversation, each differed so from their writing. In his "Rocks of Ages" I got the impression that Gould was paying lip service to "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" because he seemed to take a hard line on facts and truth. In conversation (I should point out that he was quite ill when I talked to him and that may or may not have some bearing) he was quite adamant about science and religion being two valid ways of viewing the world. The impression that I walked away with was that this attitude was one born mostly of political liberalism. Shermer, on the other hand, has always struck me in his writing as being too "wishy-washy" on the subject. In person, however, he left the same impression as an intellectual that a naval destroyer cruising at high speed does. Beautiful, elegant, but get in it's way at your own peril. No nonsense allowed.
Kil ---While in the long run there may be only one truth, I do think it would be jumping the gun to proclaim that we have arrived at that truth. It could be that we will never know for certain whether "god(s), souls, and spirits" exist. Certainly, there is reason to doubt their existence. Will science ever prove that these things simply can't exist? I doubt it.
This seems to be the boundary of where Agnostics and Atheists separate. Agnostics have always seemed to me to be more pleasant people that we Atheists are. They are more concerned of peoples feelings.
When presented with god(s), souls and spirits as facts, not metaphor or art, it somewhat angers me because I don't like being lied to. It doesn't concern me half so much that "science" has no proof of these things as the person claiming them has absolutely no proof.
Those things are simply outside the realm of that which science concerns itself with. That is not precisely true. The part that isn't true is labeling them as "things". They aren't "things" at all, but simply the subjects of stories. The branch of science that covers these stories is called Mythology.
That is one of the bugaboos that always comes up with theists. 'How," they ask, "can you-a finite being-judge an infinite being? You would have to be all knowing yourself, and then you would be god." It is, of course, just silly. You aren't judging an infinite being nor an all knowing one. What you are judging is a story being told by someone just as human as you are.
Remember that we are talking about that which is outside of nature. It may seem silly to us, it may seem impossible to us, but there it is. But we aren't doing that at all. We are talking about stories that people tell that they claim are "outside of nature" what ever that is supposed to mean. We are talking about lies. We've never been presented with a god, a soul or a sprit--only with stories about them told by people who claim they are facts but themselves have no way of knowing they are facts.
By custom and by law this practice is tolerated. BUT it is only tolerated in stories concerning this one subject matter. If these same claims are made for any other subject the story-teller is taken to task (and sometimes to court) for this same behavior.
The difference between a "Reverend" and a "Scoundrel" is the product they are selling. Sell an invisible mansion in heaven and you are lauded. Sell an invisible mansion in Florida and you'll be arrested.
Personally I believe that the same laws and rules should apply to everyone and those who make their livings in the religion business be held up to the same standards of honesty the rest of us are.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 10:50:48 [Permalink]
|
Religion is based on a set of beliefs which state that reality doesn't matter on some level. This is what makes it dangerous.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 11:36:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is ignorance, and ignorance needs to be stamped out, for the betterment of everyone.
Condemning ideas and beliefs that seem archaic or irrational without tempering your attitudes with life's experiences is the worst kind of ignorance. It is the ignorance of how other people truely live.
You're not going to stamp out THEM, and they're not going to stamp out YOU. But you can get down with some real funky moves. Or you can go barefoot. 
(:raig
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
