Science vs Religion

[welkin]

One of the inherent assumptions in "science" as a belief system is that common truth is knowable and achievable. One concern I've carried in the back of my mind is the possibility that any idea of a single common truth - whether it stems from religion or science - will always marginalize people, create minorities who don't accept or experience that truth, and then potentially become a vehicle for oppression.

Setting the question of whether there is universal truth or not aside, and I am all for diversity... the pragmatic issue of defining one single set of policies to govern a country remains. And science, compared to religions, is the lowest common denominator... alas whatever happened to separation of church and state...?

 

[rida]

One of the inherent assumptions in "science" as a belief system is that common truth is knowable and achievable. One concern I've carried in the back of my mind is the possibility that any idea of a single common truth - whether it stems from religion or science - will always marginalize people, create minorities who don't accept or experience that truth, and then potentially become a vehicle for oppression.

Science and religion were intermingled in ancient times, as it was realized early on that knowledge was power.

But since the modern definition of science and of the scientific method, science separated itself from belief systems and from ethical systems.

The basis of the scientific method is that you test all your theories, and the most you can say is that "it has not been proved wrong so far". It does not say anything about being "true" or "the only truth". Nor there is something inherently right or wrong.

Science simply tries to explain the world, how it works from a physical stand point. It has now reached levels where it deals with such abstract constructs and complicated mathematical models that it has gone far from our daily experiences. But there is a logic to the madness.

All of the above, of course, does not keep people from trying to use science and its finding as faith and dogmas.

 

[teknight]

Eastern sun, a question:
How can there be multiple truths? What's more, how is that it'd seem these truths are at logger heads with one another?

What do you mean by truth? I hold truth to be an absolute thing, not a temporary interpretation on something. What's your definition?

 

[teknight]

Actually, I am thinking of "Science" as a materially bound perception of the universe in which all phenomenon is potentially measurable and quantifiable. I kind of buy the Dalai Lama's argument that it just one more human belief system. As I mentioned above, he distinguishes between the scientific method as a form of analytical reasoning and experimentation and "Science" as a materially bound model of the universe.

Though I totally agree with you that the danger of scientific findings is largely based on its political, economic and social uses, the Dalai Lama also argued (effectively, I thought) that the materialism that is sometimes engendered by a belief in "science" may not always be the best way of interpreting the events of our lives.

I also found his arguments that our ability to create new technologies, specifically in bioengineering, outstrips our ability to make good decisions, both individually and as societies, to be very interesting.

And, you're right. It does give me some comfort to keep biases in mind when I'm engaging in any conversation about religion. I'd be interested in continuing this conversation with you, Stella.

Here's a thought:
The Dalai Lama, who has a vested interest in this argument ('cause he can't argue against his own job, now can he) says that we need spirituality and religion? Why I find that to be oh so human and at the same time, misguided.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I didn't bother listing every single thing I do as a Christian because of my beliefs because I didn't think this was a situation that was calling into question my "worth" as a person of faith. I didn't realize that I had to prove to YOU that I was a good Christian by telling YOU of the things I did do to "show the goodness", especially when your own bias would, in my opinion, make that yet another exercise of futility.

You're the one that brought it up.

I've never run into a person that went to the Westboro Church in order to try and "talk them out of" their misguided actions, and certainly not here on this website so a lack of opportunity does not mean I don't care. I have spoken about it on before, I have called other people that practice my faith out before on their decidedly non-Christian acts, but again, I didn't know you expected me to list those times. It doesn't happen often on this site, but I'm sure if you felt like digging here and on fetlife, and on facebook, youtube, and a number of other forums and sites I'm a part of, you'd find it. But I doubt that would change your mind about the fact that you've apparently convinced yourself of my horribleness.

i don't think you're horrible. I do think you jumped into the impassioned defense of religion. I want to tell you, that defending religion is like defending marriage defend it against the people who abuse it, not against the people who are abused by it.

Be my guest.

I'm not asking you to admire me. What I am asking you to do is stop the pattern of saying things like you know the whole story when you don't. You've got a pattern of doing this since you joined this site, I know for a fact you've done it to me once before.

Everyone does that. Unlike many folk though, I am aware of the cumulative nature of knowledge.

I say things according to everything that I know up to the point. If I learn more, I change what I've said. Nothing is written in stone. I can agree that I don't know your whole story. Here's what I do know: you said that you would not try to change the way other Christians do things because that would be just as bad as they are. [

Just because I use this site for purposes other than complaining about the Pope and the Westboro nutjobs doesn't mean I'm a passive Christian, I don't spend 24/7 on this site nor is it a perfect record of my day to day activities, so you GUESSING about my actions and filling in the blanks with your own preconceived notions, and then trying to imply that I'm some kind of terrible person because of things you've GUESSED AT is pretty cruel.

But that's just my opinion.

Likewise, for me. I prefer to speak of other things here. But yes, i have a bone to pick with believers. That happens, as you noted-- atheists are often pretty angry.

You did jump into this topic when you didn't need to. You decided to defend your faith, which --let's face it --needs no defense, it's still passing laws and raking in the cash. And you disregarding my words, that speak of my experiences at the hands of your fellow christians -- no guessing needed-- is pretty cruel.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was called to bed last night, and gave a very truncated response to these questions you asked, teknight.

I believe that science, as we understand it, is part of a progression of human thought systems and spirituality. Historically, there is a clear dialogue - at times downright argumentative - between different world religions as they come in contact with each other. Science is attempting to create a universal language, independent from cultural biases. And it is a worthy attempt.

"believe what science is?" science is, in my theory, an antidote to belief, which is a place marker for "knowledge should go here." You don't have to believe what science is, science is a system for gathering knowledge.

But that doesn't mean that the truths embodied in religious systems are inherently false, and therefore should be wholeheartedly rejected. I would think an advocate of science would take a more scientific approach to the question. And that is why I mention "intelligence."

what truths are embodied in religious systems?

I can think of a few facts-- humans love to congregate together and sing, for instance. And we seem to do very well when we have tribal rituals that reinforce the community. And that community reinforcement sometimes results in some member being scapegoated, which also serves to bind the rest of the tribe together. Those are some of the things I have observed about religion. They are not, however solely the purview of religious groups, i see it happen on forums like this one, or at my local munch.

People operate on "blind faith" all the time. And it's good to look into the question of "faith." What are the assumptions that underlie our decisions and actions? Many times I've discovered that I held beliefs based on our collective cultural consciousness that - on further analysis and investigation - just don't hold true.

One of them - for me - was that the belief that all organized religion were inherently intolerant, oppressive and politically motivated. Though it is definitely true in many circumstances - and I have a deep distrust still of organized religions - it has not proved to be universally true, and therefore demands that I reject it as a fundamental assumption.

That's good. Fundamental assumptions are few and far between, in the scientific method. Newton's law of gravity, maybe.

 

[eastern sun]

We've gotten this far as a species because we've spread all over the place, thus making it unlikely any one event will destroy all of us. That we can spin pretty little tales about...means NOTHING. Our genes are hard at work regardless or the what the gene bearers believe.

I love this image. Unfortunately, I understand the cockroaches are better suited for long-term survival. We haven't figured out how to survive the potential outcome of our own actions yet, like the effects of radiation in the event of nuclear holocaust.

You and I differ significantly in our opinions of the human ability to spin pretty tales. I am deeply fascinated by our capacity for narratives, and much of my perspective on this life is built on an investigation of why we do it.

Because claiming the truth is unknowable will bring us together?
Oh! I see. ONE truth will marginalize people. Many truths bring us together?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me for the sake of the argument. But my point is that any assertion of "one truth" - like the "one true way" that is so despised here on the boards - will start to mobilize factions - for and against.

Maybe there is just one truth. I honestly don't know. I used to think that truth was relative. That what was true for me was not necessarily true for you. But that didn't work as a living principle. I had to look for some fundamental truths in the reality I was experiencing.

Don't you think opening our minds to the possibility that other people's "truths" might have some validity also opens the doors to bring people together?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Eastern Sun, what are truths? What is a truth that you know, or think might be a truth?

What makes truths different from facts?

 

[teknight]

I love this image. Unfortunately, I understand the cockroaches are better suited for long-term survival. We haven't figured out how to survive the potential outcome of our own actions yet, like the effects of radiation in the event of nuclear holocaust.

You and I differ significantly in our opinions of the human ability to spin pretty tales. I am deeply fascinated by our capacity for narratives, and much of my perspective on this life is built on an investigation of why we do it.

Yup. We turn everything to narrative, even pure science... OK, that one won't get told around too many campfires.
I love that we can tell tales- but what are they saying?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me for the sake of the argument. But my point is that any assertion of "one truth" - like the "one true way" that is so despised here on the boards - will start to mobilize factions - for and against.

Maybe there is just one truth. I honestly don't know. I used to think that truth was relative. That what was true for me was not necessarily true for you. But that didn't work as a living principle. I had to look for some fundamental truths in the reality I was experiencing.

Don't you think opening our minds to the possibility that other people's "truths" might have some validity also opens the doors to bring people together?

OK. So we should be circumspect of TRUTH- which is what every religion bears. Science offers facts...fuck facts it offers verifiability.

Other peoples' truths aren't true 'cause they belong to the other people. That's not what gives them value. They either stand on their own two feet (or x feet) or they don't, in which case they for sure aren't truth.

 

[eastern sun]

But, religion gets it wrong on one teeny little point:
IT SHOUTS AT THE TOP OF ITS LUNGS THAT IT'S PERFECT KNOWLEDGE WHICH SHOULD NEVER BE QUESTIONED. Now, mind you, even the religious do this, frequently resulting in schisms, divisions, new branches of truth (funny- there is more than one truth, and it's opposed to the others. Hmm... doesn't that mean that the rest of it... is all lies?) How about it strips the pretenses of absoluteness (and thus power) if it wants a fair trial? What? That'd destroy it? So, it is founded on a lie (my words).

I haven't had a formal religious education, so I've never felt a victim of it. I've never believed that I had access to the absolute truth. I've never thought anyone else did either, except in very limited circumstances.

Which is really the riskiest part of all of this. We're talking about the construction of group think. How do we build consensus?

Most frequently, it's done by identifying a threat and rallying force against it.

But the other way, equally insidious, is through culture. Religion. Art. Media. Education. The experience we all share of a collective consciousness.

That's why I am fascinated by the pretty tales we tell each other. It is the ground on which our social network is built.

Really? You know of major apolitical instances of religion? Where? Who? How big are they? In making moral pronouncements (especially the kind that are painted in bright absolute colors) religion gets political without even having to go to the polls.

Here's the other stupid thing about religion- the insistence that it teaches morality, and is, in fact, the sole holder of morality of any sort. Ummm....no. Human beings are not inherently evil, to need chokers and muzzles, lest their EVIL come out and infect the world. We learn "morality" by the examples of those around us, not their words.

Romanian has a very apt saying: "Do as priest says, not as he does." It points out the inherent hypocrisy in being scholastic about morals.

I agree with you about the political nature of most religions. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just expanding the argument to include the political nature of science, as well.

 

[eastern sun]

Eastern Sun, what are truths? What is a truth that you know, or think might be a truth?

What makes truths different from facts?

How can truth be different from facts? I think facts are the best truths we can identify. And usually agree about.

 

[teknight]

How can truth be different from facts? I think facts are the best truths we can identify. And usually agree about.

But...you speak of different truths.

This convo, has, predictably, gone off the rails.

 

[eastern sun]

Setting the question of whether there is universal truth or not aside, and I am all for diversity... the pragmatic issue of defining one single set of policies to govern a country remains. And science, compared to religions, is the lowest common denominator... alas whatever happened to separation of church and state...?

Very true. The political debate in the United States is obviously fraught with buzzwords that are meant to trigger people's biases in order to mobilize group action.

 

[eastern sun]

But...you speak of different truths.

This convo, has, predictably, gone off the rails.

Your facts and my facts do not seem to be in accord.

 

[eastern sun]

Eastern sun, a question:
How can there be multiple truths? What's more, how is that it'd seem these truths are at logger heads with one another?

What do you mean by truth? I hold truth to be an absolute thing, not a temporary interpretation on something. What's your definition?

During this conversation, I have used the word "truth" to mean statements that people believe to be true based on their experience.

The only thing I know is "true" is the reality I'm experiencing, which doesn't even include my interpretation of it which may be accurate and may not be, so I tend to focus on the facts I can perceive when I have to identify what's true in any given moment.

How do you define absolute truth?

 

[DVS]

Believing there is a God or some higher power controlling things is largely based on faith. But, you can't prove your faith to another person. Believing there is no God or some higher power controlling things is a much easier argument. You just counter every other argument by saying it doesn't exist.

The three different beliefs of how we got where we are (in no specific order):
Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'll try to break each down to the basics. Of course, chime in, if you feel there is a need to clarify or even change something. Keep in mind...these are just the basics so don't get pissed if you don't think I gave your belief enough clout.

Evolution is the belief that we evolved though time, from apes. It was a natural evolution, without any assistance from a higher power, who some people might call God. Science says the planets and our solar system were created by the big bang theory and then over "billions and billions of years" (thank you, Carl) and the process of evolution, here we are.

Intelligent Design is a kind of parallel to evolution, with the assistance from God or some higher power to get the ball rolling. Where the assistance occurred might still be up for discussion, but those who believe in intelligent design believe we had help getting where we are, today. *And no, aliens aren't seen as a possibility of being the higher power.

Creationism is the belief that we were created by God, in His image. It's in the Bible and taught in Christian education. God is the supreme power and He created the world. Read "The Book of Genesis".

*There is also a fourth possibility that we came from aliens. This belief is based on the idea we came from another planet or aliens from another planet came here and started a colony, for whatever reason. There are different theories about this. Some people believe that we were visited by aliens at some time in the past and they assisted or guided the evolutionary path. Others feel we are the descendants of an alien existence on the planet, maybe a co-mingling of human and alien species.

 

[Stella_Omega]

How can truth be different from facts? I think facts are the best truths we can identify. And usually agree about.

Well, when my fact-- that churches have harmed me and mine-- collides with SD's truth-- that religion is a force for good-- and my facts are considered the words of a bully because they contradict her truth-- then I think it shows that there's a definite difference between truths and facts.

For instance.

 

[eastern sun]

"believe what science is?" science is, in my theory, an antidote to belief, which is a place marker for "knowledge should go here." You don't have to believe what science is, science is a system for gathering knowledge.

We may have a significant difference of opinion here, Stella. I understand how science is posited as an antidote to belief, and it genuinely is when compared with mythic explanations of natural phenomenon.

I also accept and have tremendous faith in the validity of the scientific method as a means for gathering accurate information about our world.

But I personally hold the belief that there are still elements of faith included in our cultural belief in science's objectivity. I also personally believe that our modern culture, largely influenced by scientific and technological progress, is overly materialistic.

I accept that those are my personal beliefs.

what truths are embodied in religious systems?

I think religion gets it right when it stresses service, love, charity and meditation as paths to a "better" life for both the individual and the group. Many religions include these ideas in their basic tenets. The fact that so few adherents follow those tenets has more to do with the influence of politics and economics.

 

[eastern sun]

Well, when my fact-- that churches have harmed me and mine-- collides with SD's truth-- that religion is a force for good-- and my facts are considered the words of a bully because they contradict her truth-- then I think it shows that there's a definite difference between truths and facts.

For instance.

See, my interpretation (which may not be fact ) is that your fact - that churches have harmed you and yours - and that SD's fact - that religion has been a force of good - are both true in different contexts.

Instead of moving into conflict with each other, why can't you both accept the truth of each other's experiences? That way you can more effectively diagnose the cause of the disagreement.

 

[teknight]

During this conversation, I have used the word "truth" to mean statements that people believe to be true based on their experience.

The only thing I know is "true" is the reality I'm experiencing, which doesn't even include my interpretation of it which may be accurate and may not be, so I tend to focus on the facts I can perceive when I have to identify what's true in any given moment.

How do you define absolute truth?

Absolute truth? Well, that'd be the sum total of experience, not just that of the individual, but all that's going on, everywhere, at all times. I know, I know, it's so large as to be absurd.
Subjective interpretations of xyz might be held as true by someone, but that doesn't make them truth.

I prefer to deal in verifiable fact.

As for your take on truth, as subjective statements: even if their beliefs are true, they're not true because the people have those beliefs. That's what I'm saying (might not be what you're saying). Your experience aren't true because they're yours....that just makes them your experiences and nothing more. Their value should be verifiable.
Does that make sense?

I'm making that point because I see it cropping up a lot: "DEF is my belief." is the only argument offered in many exchanges. "It's what I believe in." Kudos to you, hypothetical interlocutor, but:
a) why do you believe in DEF? Mind you, "I dunno" and "I'm not sure" are actually valid answers.
b) It seems to me like making statements like the ones I've exemplified is a mechanism meant to cease all dialog. The person won't be questioned (which, again, is fine. You needn't put up with my crazy questions), but, instead of saying "Fuck you and your questions" or some variation thereof all I hear is "That's just my belief." That, in and of itself, bears no merit and doesn't serve as an explanation. It's a dodge, as far as I'm concerned.
The whole "you're entitled to your opinion" thing is cutesy, but it results in poor reasoning, and frustration on both sides of the discussion.

Mind you, in all that, I'm in no way implying that I'm some sort of faultless logical automaton, or purveyor of absolute knowledge. I (sometimes) ask questions when things don't make sense to me. Hell, as someone pointed on this very forum within the past 6 months, I make a ton of mistakes of logic. But that doesn't make the questions any less valid.

 

[teknight]

Believing there is a God or some higher power controlling things is largely based on faith. But, you can't prove your faith to another person. Believing there is no God or some higher power controlling things is a much easier argument. You just counter every other argument by saying it doesn't exist.

The three different beliefs of how we got where we are (in no specific order):
Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'll try to break each down to the basics. Of course, chime in, if you feel there is a need to clarify or even change something. Keep in mind...these are just the basics so don't get pissed if you don't think I gave your belief enough clout.

Evolution is the belief that we evolved though time, from apes. It was a natural evolution, without any assistance from a higher power, who some people might call God. Science says the planets and our solar system were created by the big bang theory and then over "billions and billions of years" (thank you, Carl) and the process of evolution, here we are.

Intelligent Design is a kind of parallel to evolution, with the assistance from God or some higher power to get the ball rolling. Where the assistance occurred might still be up for discussion, but those who believe in intelligent design believe we had help getting where we are, today. *And no, aliens aren't seen as a possibility of being the higher power.

Creationism is the belief that we were created by God, in His image. It's in the Bible and taught in Christian education. God is the supreme power and He created the world. Read "The Book of Genesis".

*There is also a fourth possibility that we came from aliens. This belief is based on the idea we came from another planet or aliens from another planet came here and started a colony, for whatever reason. There are different theories about this. Some people believe that we were visited by aliens at some time in the past and they assisted or guided the evolutionary path. Others feel we are the descendants of an alien existence on the planet, maybe a co-mingling of human and alien species.

I thought ID was pretend science covering up for creationism.

And, no spaghetti monster?

 

[DVS]

I thought ID was pretend science covering up for creationism.

And, no spaghetti monster?

Nope. ID is ID and creationism is creationism. Also no, I don't believe there is/was a spaghetti monster. That's an old chef's tale.

 

[Stella_Omega]

See, my interpretation (which may not be fact ) is that your fact - that churches have harmed you and yours - and that SD's fact - that religion has been a force of good - are both true in different contexts.

Instead of moving into conflict with each other, why can't you both accept the truth of each other's experiences? That way you can more effectively diagnose the cause of the disagreement.

Ah, well-- that's the difference between facts and truths, you see. Facts can always be altered and moderated by other facts.

Truths seem to cancel everything else out.

My truth is-- the harm I have experienced from the Christian religion pretty much overwhelms the good she claims for it-- especially since she isn't offering facts to support her claim. Hers is that I'm a whiner and a bully who won't accept her truth. Like i say, that's what truths, in my experience, do.

And I think teknight has stated my position along with his.

 

[eastern sun]

Absolute truth? Well, that'd be the sum total of experience, not just that of the individual, but all that's going on, everywhere, at all times. I know, I know, it's so large as to be absurd.

I believe we agree on this point! And I find such a vast and complicated thing to be unknowable by my limited human brain.

Ok. So, we both might agree that absolute truth is potentially unknowable.

Here's where we disagree. . . .

Subjective interpretations of xyz might be held as true by someone, but that doesn't make them truth.

I prefer to deal in verifiable fact.

I think the vastness of absolute truth has to include subjective experiences, even if - like the schizophrenic's paranoid delusions - those experiences are limited to a single individual. Those delusions are no less "real" for that individual than my own experience of reality.

True, for social purposes, we have to find points of agreement. To create policy. To get the job done.

But as soon as we do that, we are beginning to engage in political and economic activity.

And I think this is a great question -

I'm making that point because I see it cropping up a lot: "DEF is my belief." is the only argument offered in many exchanges. "It's what I believe in." Kudos to you, hypothetical interlocutor, but:
a) why do you believe in DEF? Mind you, "I dunno" and "I'm not sure" are actually valid answers.

It promotes dialogue. Which is the only way people with differing world views are ever going to understand each other.

 

[teknight]

Nope. ID is ID and creationism is creationism. Also no, I don't believe there is/was a spaghetti monster. That's an old chef's tale.

It could just be really old pasta.

Also, and this is from the wiki article on ID:

Intelligent design avoids identifying or naming the agent of creation—it merely states that one (or more) must exist—but leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.[n 2][n 3][32][n 8][n 9] Whether this lack of specificity about the designer's identity in public discussions is a genuine feature of the concept, or just a posture taken to avoid alienating those who would separate religion from the teaching of science, has been a matter of great debate between supporters and critics of intelligent design. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court ruling held the latter to be the case.

See? It's a dodge.
They're gonna ban me from lit for say dodge too often. I'll start saying Ram instead.

But, OK. They're kinda separate as concepts. However, ID today, in the US, is creationism with a patina of science...or a pseudo science patina, meant to poke holes in science.