Thread: Religion in the way of science?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Some of you say religion provides a moral guide. What mechanisms does it uniquely have for specifically promulgating good ideas? Why should faith result in better behaviour than a rational sort of morality?

Religion provides a moral guide, period. That is to say, one of the attributes of religions is that they provide moral standards for their societies. Mechanisms? All sorts of 'em. Intimidation, bribery, brute force, politics, economics- any and all methods of persuasion have been used by religions. "Good" ideas? What standard are you using to judge the "goodness" of ideas. Which behaviours are "better?"

Well, the Bible in its very first verse describes, not prescribes, the history of the Earth, and thus so do Biblical literalists.

That is far from "seeking all answers to everything."

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

In what way is agnosticism or atheism an extension of science? As for their irrefutability, I beg to differ; if God (or the gods) announced their presence to the world tomorrow, both positions would be soundly refuted.

Science fundamentally values only that which can be corroborated through hypothesis and experiment. So it necessarily holds a monopoly on the objective approach to understanding the universe.

And to refute Science's agnosticism with a hypothetical is to necessarily leak out of the objective approach to understanding (Only the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of Science (evangelists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) will be so bold as to posit a negative and assert the non-existence of something -a disgrace to Science)

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

Science fundamentally values only that which can be corroborated through hypothesis and experiment. So it necessarily holds a monopoly on the objective approach to understanding the universe.

What is the objective approach? And why does science hold a monopoly on it? Is the objective approach that of hypothesis and experiment? Then there are two possibilities: 1) Science is the only discipline which values hypothesis and experiment, in which case the objective approach is merely another name for science, or 2) Science is not the only discipline which values ditto, in which case science does not hold a monopoly on the objective approach.

And to refute Science's agnosticism with a hypothetical is to necessarily leak out of the objective approach to understanding (Only the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of Science (evangelists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) will be so bold as to posit a negative and assert the non-existence of something -a disgrace to Science)

Only I wasn't trying to refute science's agnosticism. The question I was asking was whether agnosticism and atheism are irrefutable, which they are certainly not.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Religion provides a moral guide, period.

What about when it is contradictory... for example, the sixth commandment, and Numbers, chapter 31? And that's obviously not the question I was asking.

That is to say, one of the attributes of religions is that they provide moral standards for their societies. Mechanisms? All sorts of 'em. Intimidation, bribery, brute force, politics, economics- any and all methods of persuasion have been used by religions. "Good" ideas? What standard are you using to judge the "goodness" of ideas. Which behaviours are "better?"

That's part of the problem. Those who say religion provides a good moral guide in life have to define what goodness is. But the big problem is, that if we assume some relatively uncontroversial version of goodness such as courage, benevolence, intelligence, whatever, I still want to know what mechanisms religion has for promoting that, as opposed to Bad Things like taking Egyptian virgins into slavery.

That is far from "seeking all answers to everything."

The Bible comments on a wide range of issues and people who say religion is a useful moral guide ignores its tendency to keep its fingers in a lot of pies, namely the descriptive. IIRC Judaism has 613 commandments. Besides, God is often described as all-knowing or all-wise so it's hardly a leap to link religion with the claim to some supreme knowledge.

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

In general, religion (including Science) moves along a cycle of induction-deduction. Where you may have qualms with the lack of Scientific rigidity by which I found truth in Christianity (Genesis),*

No it doesn't arrive by induction-deduction. From what observable phenomena did Christianity induct the idea that the Earth was created in six days? Or that God created it?

ultimately I arrived at it in likely the same manner which allowed the truth to survive orally for countless generation.

As I said and you ignore, age has really nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of an argument.

Sure, my life is short, my sample experiences are relatively narrow and few in number, but compounded across tribes, cultures, and generations, one can infer that such common subjective conclusions bear a statistical weight whose margin of error is within the limits of respectability, I think.

I remind you that not every tribe, culture and generation across the world believes in Genesis, obviously. Far from it - Hinduism is probably about three times older than Genesis, and Chinese civilisation is some 5,000 years old without it believing in Christianity. In fact, the longevity of these religions and, until the recent population explosion of Europe, their more widespread popularity makes me want to believe in them instead of your Christianity - if I follow your logic of age and popularity = conducive to truth. Of course, I prefer to judge each on their merits.

As such, I may approach consequent experiences from something like a deductive path, having previously found sufficient* empirical corroboration

Empirical corroboration, at least in my sense, comprises extremely rigorous testing.

-its a handy short-cut which Science obviously does not enjoy so much.

It is also a deceptive shortcut so long as you want to make publicly scrutinisable beliefs.

Because with Science, as you said, its fundamental truths tend to be reviewed more frequently than those of a religion like Christianity

I can only think of one major reformation in Christianity's 2,000-year-old history, Protestantism, and even then that's not as fundamental as the transition from Newton to relativity/QM. Still use the same Bible, same core beliefs, etc.

(even still, wasn't a significant Scientific body of knowledge built upon Newtonian laws?or the Ptolemic solar system? if only to be thrown in the bin later).

Pre-Baconian science such as the Ptolemaic model is not really a science, but more of a religion; it relies on deductive principles, such as the Earth being the seat of humanity and therefore the centre of the universe. And Newton's laws have been immensely useful and continue to be, far more than relativity or QM. However, in terms of fundamentally describing the universe, they have indeed been discarded from fundamental physics, but are very useful in the engineering sphere. Our engineering skills are, at their core, 350 years old and they have been used to construct previously impossible achievements, unlike the reformations of religion.

No doubt these reviews occur most frequently in those places where Science relies heavily on a subjective medium, language, as well as the folly of our own senses in perceiving and interpreting natural phenomena.

No. Science's greatest reviews have occured in the fundamental descriptions of the universe. Language doesn't really enter into it, but you're right about empiricism. We're constantly building more and more accurate clocks, more and more powerful particle accelerators, etc.

And the most reverent of Scientists do hold a Science-based morality that proceeds from the Objective Will. Science's faithful have evangelized the goodness of Free-market capitalism, nuclear capacities, colonialism, eugenics, democracy, involuntary electro-shock therapy, and capital punishment.

Please expand on each point. It's hardly fair to deluge me with a tide of nonsense which requires far greater effort in refutation than in promulgation.

Free-market capitalism was defended first by Aristotle 2,500 years ago. Eugenics was practised by the Spartans. Democracy, ditto by the Greeks albeit in a hampered form. The Greeks (damn they seem to crop up everywhere) did colonialism 2,500 years ago (or even before) as well, trying to conquer each other.

And capital punishment? Are you seriously telling me that science's faithful have evangelised capital punishment? Because IIRC, capital punishment existed well before science. To use the Greeks again, did they not execute Socrates? See, half of your examples are provided pre-science in a single civilisation.

ROFFLES. But you have a point about nuclear weapons and electro-shock therapy, even though the latter is an extremely odd example. Science did discover the nuclear weapon, extrapolating theoretically. However, I'm not sure who you consider 'science's faithful', but you can hardly accuse Einstein of being a nuclear warmonger, nor Oppenheimer - "I have become Death..." - nor Teller, an anti-nuclear activist...

It was the military who evangelised nuclear weapons... obviously. And, Muslim fundamentalists over the Pakistani "Islamic Bomb."

The duality between Science and religion, if we must characterize it as such, is between the objective and subjective (I'm talking out of turn here; I realize many Christians appeal to Genesis only for its descriptions of creation and completely miss the truth of the story. Similarly, Scientists may mistakenly seek personal truths through analysis or dissection, where an inside-out, subjective "religious" approach is more appropriate -again, with a scriptural short-cut available).

Fantastic. Change the rules of the game to suit your evidence.

*Science arrogantly assumes that the objective realm is the limit of reality, when in fact nothing exists except within a context.

The whole point of rigorous experimentation of theory is to try to eliminate the bias of our limited context and viewpoint.

It is arrogant to assume that there IS the supernatural, and it is doubly arrogant to then pronounce a long stream of description concerning it. Ref the entire Bible.

As such, subjective approaches are as valid as the objective approach.

Only when you want to believe in the supernatural's existence without evidence. Who is arrogant now?

What truths I find through my own subjective experiences (which may accord with scriptural conclusions expounded for millenia... further, conclusions which Science may have only arrived at recently -that gluttony is to be avoided, for example), its as immediately true and viable as it needs to be.

Gluttony? This is probably the most trivially obvious 'truth' you can provide. Eat a lot, put a lot on. Hardly an achievement for religion.

Again, what good stuff do you see in Genesis?

David, no one here is a Biblical literalist. My point is not to suggest that the creation story should be read scientifically. Anyone who does is probably missing the point. If I came off as a crusading for Christianity, then I failed completely, because my initial intention was only to defend religion, and religious truths. My continuing use of Christianity (Genesis) as an example was primarily to point out a subjective truth contained in it, and because I'm most familiar with Christianity, as opposed to Buddhism or any other religion. I did not mean to imply that the Bible or Christianity was somehow better than any other religion or text.

In fact, I've been quietly trying to reject the whole idea of finding the "best" approach to morality, as though one should ever allow himself to arrive at a place where he believes singularly in the way to understand the world and his place in it. When tribes or societies or even a few elites allow their heads to get monopolized by one religion, people assume their subjective interpretations of texts and ideas to be absolutes, then naturally they shove them down each other's throats. When Science isn't held in check, you end up with a similar kind of fascism.

Arguments about religion (not theological arguments, but the kind we're having now, about religious ideas) seem to occur particularly often between those defending the validity of the subjective ("religious" people) and Scientists, who believe truth to be only absolute in nature. As such, I suppose I can't convince you of anything by arguing. Only you can validate the subjective.

But don't be so quick to conclude that subjective truths are produced haphazardly. They endure, and are enshrined in literature simply because they speak to universal human sentiments. Personal validation, especially for intimate moral decisions and relationships and things, is, on one scale, all the validation that's required.

And the avoidance of gluttony was cited because it so obviously overlaps, literally, into the observable natural world. Less obvious examples include behavioral genetics, where Science is finally starting to realize that behavioral tendency is not simply a consequence of culture and environment, but that an individual's fundamental (genetic) uniqueness is also important. In medicine, the placebo effect is a coefficient that will remain forever so long as individuals have the willpower and self-faith to influence the severity of their symptoms. Science has recently discovered the social benefits of something so ancient and common to just about all religions as marriage. We can all make fairly accurate judgments of the intelligence, introversion, religiosity, depression, disposition, trustworthiness, physical ability, etc without having to view the results of a personality inventory, physical examination, and clinical diagnosis. Democratic peace theory fits nicely into my proposition that societies operate best when a diversity of ideas and approaches are represented.

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

David, no one here is a Biblical literalist.

That is incorrect. Take me, for example.

Originally Posted by FibrillatorD

David, no one here is a Biblical literalist.

Ref above.

My point is not to suggest that the creation story should be read scientifically. Anyone who does is probably missing the point.

The Bible makes no disclaimers of this sort, IIRC, and in general doesn't give any indication of an allegorical account.

If I came off as a crusading for Christianity, then I failed completely, because my initial intention was only to defend religion, and religious truths. My continuing use of Christianity (Genesis) as an example was primarily to point out a subjective truth contained in it,

Such as? I've asked for this thrice now.

and because I'm most familiar with Christianity, as opposed to Buddhism or any other religion. I did not mean to imply that the Bible or Christianity was somehow better than any other religion or text.

I see.

In fact, I've been quietly trying to reject the whole idea of finding the "best" approach to morality, as though one should ever allow himself to arrive at a place where he believes singularly in the way to understand the world and his place in it. When tribes or societies or even a few elites allow their heads to get monopolized by one religion, people assume their subjective interpretations of texts and ideas to be absolutes, then naturally they shove them down each other's throats. When Science isn't held in check, you end up with a similar kind of fascism.

Science holds itself in check constantly through ceaseless critical inquiry, the refinement

Arguments about religion (not theological arguments, but the kind we're having now, about religious ideas) seem to occur particularly often between those defending the validity of the subjective ("religious" people) and Scientists, who believe truth to be only absolute in nature.

Absolute truth does not exist in science either, but it does say the final authority is empirical observation... on descriptive theories.

As such, I suppose I can't convince you of anything by arguing. Only you can validate the subjective.

But don't be so quick to conclude that subjective truths are produced haphazardly. They endure, and are enshrined in literature simply because they speak to universal human sentiments.

Subjective observations do endure and they are enshrined in culture, but this does not make them rigorously true.

Personal validation, especially for intimate moral decisions and relationships and things, is, on one scale, all the validation that's required.

Intimate moral decisions and relationships are inherently personal things, and yes, subjective validation is sufficient. But, it is not sufficient for the fundamentals of the universe.

[quote]And the avoidance of gluttony was cited because it so obviously overlaps, literally, into the observable natural world.

Less obvious examples include behavioral genetics, where Science is finally starting to realize that behavioral tendency is not simply a consequence of culture and environment, but that an individual's fundamental (genetic) uniqueness is also important.

Since when did religion identify that so early and so accurately as to void the scientific

In medicine, the placebo effect is a coefficient that will remain forever so long as individuals have the willpower and self-faith to influence the severity of their symptoms. Science has recently discovered the social benefits of something so ancient and common to just about all religions as marriage.

Again, hardly descriptive, non-normative fundamentals of the universe, which is what science discusses.

The field under which your poor example of marriage falls are hardly in the pale of rigorous science; sociology.

We can all make fairly accurate judgments of the intelligence, introversion, religiosity, depression, disposition, trustworthiness, physical ability, etc without having to view the results of a personality inventory, physical examination, and clinical diagnosis.

Again, this answers neither my original question of how religion produces good normative morals to a greater degree than non-religious morality, or my off-shoot challenge of how religion has accurately trumped science in the fundamentals of the universe.

Fairly accurate judgment Democratic peace theory fits nicely into my proposition that societies operate best when a diversity of ideas and approaches are represented.

Democratic peace theory doesn't say much about diversity IIRC. It does say 'no wars between democracies' but more due to popular control of government.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

What about when it is contradictory... for example, the sixth commandment, and Numbers, chapter 31? And that's obviously not the question I was asking.

The word translated "kill," according to most scholars, is similar in meaning to "murder." Thus, just wars, self defence, manslaughter, executions, etc. would not be included, except in the sense of a general sanctity of life.

And yes, that is obvious. But it allows me to make the point I desire to make.

That's part of the problem. Those who say religion provides a good moral guide in life have to define what goodness is.

Not exactly. Anyone who makes any claim of absolute morality, religious or not, must define what is good and bad. And they must provide a compelling reason to believe that they are right, whether it is "God said so," or "I'll kill you if you don't obey."

But the big problem is, that if we assume some relatively uncontroversial version of goodness such as courage, benevolence, intelligence, whatever, I still want to know what mechanisms religion has for promoting that, as opposed to Bad Things like taking Egyptian virgins into slavery.

While I do believe that there is a general moral code which is present in the conscience of all humans, I am at a loss as to why you would consider such a moral code a good thing, other than personal preference.

That said, I do not believe that religions in general have a tendency toward promoting good over evil, let alone a specific mechanism. However, I think the question is irrelevant, for there are no true alternatives. The only possible alternative to religion is non-religion; the problem is, people will have their religion, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Thus, whenever a society approaches an areligious state, some new system (or systems) practically indistinguishable from religion arises, most often some form of statism.

While I see no reason why such an ideology could never be equal to or superior to most religions in promoting good behavior, they have a poor track record. The major openly areligious societies of the past- Revolutionary France, Nazi Germany, and the communist countries- are hardly examples to follow. Much of modern Europe is both areligious and reasonable civilized, of course, and I watch its course with interest. At present, there seem to be some statist tendencies, and Islam is making a strong showing as well. I don't know whether the present mix of relativism and mild socialism will persist for long as the dominant worldview or not. We'll see.

The Bible comments on a wide range of issues and people who say religion is a useful moral guide ignores its tendency to keep its fingers in a lot of pies, namely the descriptive. IIRC Judaism has 613 commandments. Besides, God is often described as all-knowing or all-wise so it's hardly a leap to link religion with the claim to some supreme knowledge.

Again, none of the above comes close to seeking "all answers to everything." I seek to apply Biblical principles throughout my life, and where the Bible speaks explicitly on a subject, I consider it authoritative. However, the Bible could not hold all knowledge, or it would be unreadable. It would also make life incredible boring.