How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[athon]

I've stayed out of this discussion so far simply because I think people often enjoy arguing the 'what is science' question much more than actively thinking about it or researching it. Nothing's worse than discussing the demarcation problem with somebody who has never studied anything in HPS and still thinks they have the problem nailed.

First of all, science suffers from being a single word with a dozen meanings. It can refer to a broad practice (he's doing science at school), a body of knowledge (science says...), a method (the scientific method), a body of people (science can't agree on...), a category (the science of cooking) and so on.

Yet when we talk about science as a human endeavour, we need to look back over the history of how humans have sought to escape their biases and limitations on their senses. In that way, science is a set of values that gives rise to a discussion. Indeed, it is a methodology used to evaluate the probability that a given method resulted in something useful. It is the argument that takes place over ideas and the debate over the merits of how observations are related. It is not the conclusion, but the set of shared values that we apply to arrive at a personal, tentative answer.

As such, it deviates from religion in those values. Objectivity is strived for, even if it is never reached. Biases are shunned, even as we all struggle to promote our own. From those competing pet-opinions, some survive in a Darwinian selection of the fittest beliefs, offering us pragmatic answers that can be used to predict the future with some degree of accuracy that is far better than any other system.

Personally, I think it would be great to have other words than just 'science'. It might avoid the confusion, dishonesty and overall messiness of discussions such as these. It might prevent people from stating ridiculous things such as 'science is just another religion' or 'science also relies on blind faith'. Then again, maybe not. Maybe people need science to be the equivalent of their own methodology. By equating their failings, they have nothing to fear and everything to gain by holding onto values that are useless when it comes to a pragmatic way of dealing with reality.

Athon

 

[Rasmus]

I didn't say I thought the answers religions provide to ethical questions are very good, only that religion can answer questions about what we ought to do because religions typically consist of both a way of knowing *and* a set of values,

both of which are typically made up. That doesn't mean religion "can" answer those questions in any meaningful way. Making stuff up is not indicative of any ability whatsoever.

It is equally nor fair to me to say I could give university lectures on nuclear physics. I couldn't, since I don't really know anything about the subject. I *could* however stand in the front of a lecture theatre and make up some ******** and tell it to the students who have a lecture on nuclear physics scheduled.

Or suppose you'd ask a four year old if he could drive to the store and pick up a few bottles wine. No matter how sincerely the kid might want to help or belive in his capabilities, chances are he wouldn't even get the car started let alone manage to move it off the driveway. No, he can't do you the favour you asked.

whereas science is only a way of knowing and can therefore only provide information relevant to ethical decisions (as Rasmus has said).

Religion is not a way of knowing - so it can't do heck about anything. It might well pretend, though. Then, you end up with crusades and jihads and inquisitions as noble and moral endeavours. Or, as the case my be, four year olds attemotiholy ng to buy your booze.

 

[PingOfPong]

The ability to understand the difference between science and religion requires an understanding of evidence. There are essentially two kinds of evidence: circumstantial and direct. Imagine that you put a blueberry pie on a window sill to cool. You leave and come back to discover a boy outside the window with his face covered in blueberry pie. What happened? Obviously we assume that the boy ate the pie. We draw that conclusion from circumstantial evidence. We might be wrong. Maybe a UFO came down and stole the pie then smeared a piece of it on the boy's face in order to trick us. If we had actually witnessed the boy eat the pie then we would have direct evidence. Even then it would be possible that we were witnessing and illusion created by the UFO. We can always default into solipsism and reject all evidence as merely circumstantial. Because of possible doubt, we need a way to judge the merit of evidence. Science offers Occam's razor which seems to work well.

Fundamentally, both science and religion do make metaphysical assertions. Both have a certain kind of evidence.

Science claims that the universe follows objective laws. If that's the case, we can study it and build a great body of knowledge. That's exactly what scientists have done. Every time scientists test the universe they find that it follows predictable laws. However, the evidence is only circumstantial because scientists cannot prove that the universe has always and will always follow predictable objective laws.

Religion has it's own circumstantial evidence. For example: Creators create things, the universe is a thing, I feel my creator God in my heart as he was taught to me from time immemorial, this creator God must have created this universe therefore there is a creator God. Notice that it isn't much different from the pie example above: Boys eat pies, here is a pie that was eaten, a boy is here too, the pie eating boy ate the pie.

And now for the key difference between religion and science. It isn't that religion and science are so philosophically distant at their minimalist level. The real difference exists in the attitudes that practitioners take towards these institutions. Scientific thinkers tend to treat their evidence as being circumstantial. That's how they should do it. Religious observers often point out, I think rightly, that some scientists state the evidence in a dogmatic way. However, the truly religious people always treat their evidence as if it were direct and incontrovertible. It certainly is not. The way that religious people get so defensive about their belief forces us to speculate that they have some ulterior motive for their blinding faith. It can't be for some quest for knowledge. Maybe it's not fair for me to psychoanalyze them but I always thought that their faith is a defense mechanism against the fear of doubt they were taught as children. It may be interesting to compare them but religion, in the way it's truly practiced, doesn't deserve to be considered on the same grounds as science.

 

[Tubbythin]

When I look in the mirror I can honestly state that electricity empirically exists in nature, it regularly heats plasma to millions of degrees in nature, it emits gamma and x-rays galore and does exactly what I expect it to do in the lab.

You have a pretty novel mirror.

Compare and contrast that with the fact that inflation doesn't even presumably exist anymore. The mystical dark energy label turns out to be nothing more than a bizarre euphemism for "acceleration", and the term "dark matter" turns out to be "mass our useless galaxy mass estimates cannot account for with our limited technologies".

As I said in my previous post (I'll assume you missed it rather than chose to ignore), the mass estimates agree even when completely different methods are used. If you cannot explain why this would be the case then it is you that has no legs to stand on.

I suggest the mainstream look in the mirror again and ask yourselves when was the last time you saw a useful product that ran on "dark energy" or mythical inflation genies?

I've never seen a useful product run on lithium-11 or positronium. Are you saying they don't exist too?

Please, you don't have a leg to stand on IMO.

I'm sorry Michalel, you're the one that makes wild claims about scientists and then is completely incapable of supporting them (instead just resorting to talking about Gods and myths etc etc). Its get very boring now. So please just answer the above - why do measurement methods agree when using completely different techniques? And do it in the right thread.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The problem I am having with this argument is the underlying assumption that religion actually has the right answer as to what we ought to do.

Does it really matter that religion has an answer? I can just as easily toss a coin or consult my ouija board.

There are many different ethical systems which each provide different answers to the question 'what should we ought to do?' I'm unaware if any have been shown to give the right answer, which is dependent on the values we have.

Science can help us achieve our goals and predict the outcome of our actions, but it doesn't say if are goals or actions are morally right or wrong, good or bad.

 

[Rasmus]

There are many different ethical systems which each provide different answers to the question 'what should we ought to do?' I'm unaware if any have been shown to give the right answer, which is dependent on the values we have.

Science can help us achieve our goals and predict the outcome of our actions, but it doesn't say if are goals or actions are morally right or wrong, good or bad.

But neither can religions. If there is no method to assure that an answer is in some way "right" or !"wrong" then whatever answer religion - otr any other systems gives - must necessarily be meaningless.

And I think it is.

No, religions do not give answers to questions. They make stuff up and pretend they are answers.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

both of which are typically made up. That doesn't mean religion "can" answer those questions in any meaningful way. Making stuff up is not indicative of any ability whatsoever.

<snip>

What font of absolute knowledge do you get your values from?

I don't think pointing out the values in religion are made up is a particular weakness of religion. It would be valid to point out that the values a religion espouses are inconsistent.

Religion is not a way of knowing - so it can't do heck about anything. It might well pretend, though. Then, you end up with crusades and jihads and inquisitions as noble and moral endeavours. Or, as the case my be, four year olds attemotiholy ng to buy your booze.

As a way of knowing, goddidit does not have a great deal of utility. But it is still a model of reality that people use to some greater or lesser extent.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But neither can religions. If there is no method to assure that an answer is in some way "right" or !"wrong" then whatever answer religion - otr any other systems gives - must necessarily be meaningless.

And I think it is.

No, religions do not give answers to questions. They make stuff up and pretend they are answers.

Is the Golden Rule meaningless?

 

[Rasmus]

Is the Golden Rule meaningless?

Beats me. Maybe we should pray for insight?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Beats me. Maybe we should pray for insight?

Or we could use the next best thing to god: Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)

 

[geni]

Your premise is wrong. Einstein assumed an eternal universe when he formulated GR. He introduced his Λ to avoid an unstable collapsing universe.
It was after Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion that the universe appeared to be younger than some astronomical objects. The problem was resolved as better measures of astronomical distances and the expansion rate were developed.

I am aware that the problem was resolved. That doesn't change the fact that despite there being evidence against it scientists didn't reject the theory. There other examples but falsificationism does not provide a realistic description of how science really works.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem I am having with this argument is the underlying assumption that religion actually has the right answer as to what we ought to do.

Does it really matter that religion has an answer? I can just as easily toss a coin or consult my ouija board.

Good point. The religious like to trot out false dichotomies at every chance. "You have to BELIEVE in God or you have to BELIEVE in science." Actually, I don't believe in God and I rely on science while being aware it will bite me on the butt if I'm not careful with it.

 

[Dancing David]

I've stayed out of this discussion so far simply because I think people often enjoy arguing the 'what is science' question much more than actively thinking about it or researching it. Nothing's worse than discussing the demarcation problem with somebody who has never studied anything in HPS and still thinks they have the problem nailed.

First of all, science suffers from being a single word with a dozen meanings. It can refer to a broad practice (he's doing science at school), a body of knowledge (science says...), a method (the scientific method), a body of people (science can't agree on...), a category (the science of cooking) and so on.

Yet when we talk about science as a human endeavour, we need to look back over the history of how humans have sought to escape their biases and limitations on their senses. In that way, science is a set of values that gives rise to a discussion. Indeed, it is a methodology used to evaluate the probability that a given method resulted in something useful. It is the argument that takes place over ideas and the debate over the merits of how observations are related. It is not the conclusion, but the set of shared values that we apply to arrive at a personal, tentative answer.

As such, it deviates from religion in those values. Objectivity is strived for, even if it is never reached. Biases are shunned, even as we all struggle to promote our own. From those competing pet-opinions, some survive in a Darwinian selection of the fittest beliefs, offering us pragmatic answers that can be used to predict the future with some degree of accuracy that is far better than any other system.

Personally, I think it would be great to have other words than just 'science'. It might avoid the confusion, dishonesty and overall messiness of discussions such as these. It might prevent people from stating ridiculous things such as 'science is just another religion' or 'science also relies on blind faith'. Then again, maybe not. Maybe people need science to be the equivalent of their own methodology. By equating their failings, they have nothing to fear and everything to gain by holding onto values that are useless when it comes to a pragmatic way of dealing with reality.

Athon

Nominated!

 

[Dancing David]

Or we could use the next best thing to god: Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)

I think game theory would give a better answer.

 

[Robert Oz]

General relativity. Orginaly it gave an age of the universe of around 100K years. Since we were pretty sure the earth was older than that this presented something of a problem. Still stuck with general relativity and latter better measurements of hubble's constant gave a more reasonable age for the universe. Still as recently as the late 90s there appeared to be stars that were older than general relativity said the universe was.

Your premise is wrong. Einstein assumed an eternal universe when he formulated GR. He introduced his Λ to avoid an unstable collapsing universe.
It was after Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion that the universe appeared to be younger than some astronomical objects. The problem was resolved as better measures of astronomical distances and the expansion rate were developed.

I am aware that the problem was resolved. That doesn't change the fact that despite there being evidence against it scientists didn't reject the theory. There other examples but falsificationism does not provide a realistic description of how science really works.

So, in other words, general relativity worked well to explain many phenomena. One particular problem it had was it incorrectly calculated the age of the universe. Because it still worked to explain many phenomena, scientists acknowledged that there were problems with the theory, but, since it appeared to explain so much, they concluded that, rather than tossing the whole thing out, they needed to review and develop it further.

Granted, there could probably be a few more steps in the scientific method that I missed. If a theory can explain A to Y, but fails on Z, it might not be wise to throw the entire alphabet out.

By the way, the problems with the theory were highlighted by the scientific method, through debate, further observation and development of the theory. This works, because the theory of relativity is not a holy book and Einstein is not a god.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think game theory would give a better answer.

If combined with bounded rationality, I agree.

 

[Rasmus]

Or we could use the next best thing to god: Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)

I somehow doubt that that would be helpful.

You asked of the golden rule was moral or good.

How would you determine that, though? Either the god one belives in says one thing or another. That's the only answer you can ever get out of religion.

If you want a different answer, religion is no longer allowed to play - in which case we might conclude that this is a good rule. but it would no longer be religious. (Or do you burn witches as well? That is also a religious rule, after all. The output of religion is random at best.)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

We fill in or ignore the gaps in our knowledge all the time to allow us to reach decisions and justify our actions. Religion is just an extreme example of this behaviour, IMO.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have often heard this "argument" that science is something that we just chose to believe; and it's just as much of a faith as religion. I'm sure you've heard it too. How do you deal with it?

I'd answer somewhat as follows.

Please feel free to defy the tenets of my "religion" by jumping off the top of a twenty-story building ... or swallowing cyanide ... or infecting yourself with HIV ... no? Meanwhile I'll defy the tenets of your religion by not keeping the Sabbath holy, or by eating bacon, or whatever it is your religion says is taboo, and we'll see how I get on. Alternatively, let's see you put a man on the moon by praying to the god of your choice. If science is a religion then it seems that my religion kicks the **** out of yours --- because it works.

However, it strikes me that if science was a religion, then there would be no scientists with actual, y'know, religions, in the sense in which that word is normally used in English. You can't have an Orthodox Jew who is also a Hindu, or a Roman Catholic who is also a Sikh, or an Evangelical Christian who is also a Muslim --- but you can have a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh who is also a scientist. And that which is compatible with all religions, whether it be science, glassblowing, or golf, cannot itself be a rival religion.

 

[AvalonXQ]

However, it strikes me that if science was a religion, then there would be no scientists with actual, y'know, religions, in the sense in which that word is normally used in English. You can't have an Orthodox Jew who is also a Hindu, or a Roman Catholic who is also a Sikh, or an Evangelical Christian who is also a Muslim --- but you can have a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh who is also a scientist. And that which is compatible with all religions, whether it be science, glassblowing, or golf, cannot itself be a rival religion.

Sorry, but actually people do claim to believe in and follow more than one religion. There are individuals who claim each of the combinations you mentioned.
I like your first argument a lot better.