Science and religion (culled from "Earth not center" thread)

[Ken G]

Actually, to correct one point, a religious belief is never "in conflict" with a scientific theory. They are just different things, and follow different rules. I can believe, if it is my religion to do so, that all of science is an illusion created by a supreme being to test my faith. No one will drive across a bridge that I build according to that dogma, but there's no "conflict"-- it's just a belief. The only real problem appears when beliefs are used as replacements for knowledge in practical areas (like bridge building), or when beliefs are forcibly imposed on others who feel differently. If geocentrists want to believe that the Earth is at the center, the science can certainly be tweaked to accomodate that belief. It's just that one doesn't "tweak" science if one is doing science-- it has its own rules.

[worzel]

I don't like that namby pamby approach to religion. When someone claims that the earth is only 6000 years old because their religion tells them so then they are in direct conflict with scientific evidence and no amount of philosophising about different modes of thought with different rules is going to change the fact that they are just wrong.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by worzel

I don't like that namby pamby approach to religion. When someone claims that the earth is only 6000 years old because their religion tells them so then they are in direct conflict with scientific evidence and no amount of philosophising about different modes of thought with different rules is going to change the fact that they are just wrong.

Let's not let this devolve into bashing religious people.

[Ken G]

Originally Posted by worzel

I don't like that namby pamby approach to religion. When someone claims that the earth is only 6000 years old because their religion tells them so then they are in direct conflict with scientific evidence and no amount of philosophising about different modes of thought with different rules is going to change the fact that they are just wrong.

Do you mean, when someone makes the scientific claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old? To determine that something is right or wrong requires a prescription of some sort, does it not? All you are doing is specifying your prescription, and the benefits associated with it. I'm sorry if that bothers you somehow.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by Ken G

Do you mean, when someone makes the scientific claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old? To determine that something is right or wrong requires a prescription of some sort, does it not? All you are doing is specifying your prescription, and the benefits associated with it. I'm sorry if that bothers you somehow.

We all, even the religious, subscribe to the same objective reality for most every day mundane purposes. It is pure philosophical masturbation to claim that that one can just opt out when it suits them. If I punched a creationist in the nose he would likely not be very impressed with a defence of "well according to my prescription of determining truth I didn't touch you because you don't actually exist". Scientific evidence may not impinge quite so directly on the senses but that ridiculous defence of mine is no different philosophically to claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old and the creationist should find my defense and the claim that the earth is 6000 years old equally plausible or equally ridiculous.

[George]

Originally Posted by Ken G

Actually, to correct one point, a religious belief is never "in conflict" with a scientific theory. They are just different things, and follow different rules.

But there are times when the rules of a specific religion allow it to overlap a claim made by science which is contradictory to the religious view. If a religion has a prescription that does so, it can be bad medicine.

I can believe, if it is my religion to do so, that all of science is an illusion created by a supreme being to test my faith.

Agreed, but you were referring to all religion not just arbitrary ones.

The only real problem appears when beliefs are used as replacements for knowledge in practical areas (like bridge building), or when beliefs are forcibly imposed on others who feel differently. If geocentrists want to believe that the Earth is at the center, the science can certainly be tweaked to accomodate that belief. It's just that one doesn't "tweak" science if one is doing science-- it has its own rules.

But one of the intrisic rules of most religion is that it must be plausible. Religion does not consider itself equivalent to fantasy and imaginations no matter how they are structured for useful purposes.

This is why the "father of science", Galileo, got into so much trouble. Religion considers science a great subset of rules but subject to the greater set which they hold and help administer and understand.

[Ken G]

Originally Posted by worzel

We all, even the religious, subscribe to the same objective reality for most every day mundane purposes.

Quite so, and that is the proper domain of science. Even time is a scientific concept, so if someone says that the Earth is 6000 years old, it would be natural to assume they are making a scientific statement, and one can then use the methods of science to show that, as a scientific statement, it is incorrect. However, if they clarify that they realize the statement is not consistent with the rest of science, and all its benefits and effectiveness, but that instead they are expressing a belief that it was actually created 6000 years ago, by whatever artifice and for whatever purpose, then this is a religious statement about which science is of course completely moot. I'd like people to understand science, to be better educated about it, but I don't care at all what they choose to believe, and neither should anyone else unless it adversely affects their ability to function productively in our society. And on that latter issue, the burden of proof is very squarely on the accuser.

I personally feel that it is pointless to intersect religious statements with scientific concepts like numbers of years, and that religious beliefs function better as allegorical descriptions for some purpose other than establishing the chronology of the Earth's history, but that is my choice to make. We don't choose what science is, but we do choose what we use it for. We need to educate people about what science has proven good at, and encourage them to recognize the things it is good at so that it can work for them, but it may not work for them in the same way it does for us, and that is still a personal choice that should be respected by more scientists. It would actually improve relations, rather than open the door for religious beliefs to start supplanting the domain of science. In a competitive world, science is not going away, but I wager, neither is religion.

It is pure philosophical masturbation to claim that that one can just opt out when it suits them. If I punched a creationist in the nose he would likely not be very impressed with a defence of "well according to my prescription of determining truth I didn't touch you because you don't actually exist".

Actually, the problem with that scenario is that your action is against the law, and would bring you into the consequences of the law, not because it's untrue-- maybe they really don't exist. What we do is we educate, we teach people what science is and what it is useful for, and why it has become so important in the modern world. We don't force it down their throats, that's no better than what closedminded members of certain outspoken religious factions do. Science is the way we've learned to interact with objective reality so that we accomplish what we need to accomplish, it's like learning how to drive. But if the Amish don't want to drive, even after being educated about what driving is, then hey, it's still a free country.

Scientific evidence may not impinge quite so directly on the senses but that ridiculous defence of mine is no different philosophically to claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old and the creationist should find my defense and the claim that the earth is 6000 years old equally plausible or equally ridiculous.

The "impinging on the senses" piece is actually a very significant flaw in the analogy you're making-- you hurt the other person. As I said before, the only real problem appears when beliefs are used as replacements for knowledge in practical areas (like bridge building), or when beliefs are forcibly imposed on others who feel differently (and a fist in the face might be viewed as something of an imposition).

[worzel]

Originally Posted by Ken G

The "impinging on the senses" piece is actually a very significant flaw in the analogy you're making-- you hurt the other person. As I said before, the only real problem appears when beliefs are used as replacements for knowledge in practical areas (like bridge building), or when beliefs are forcibly imposed on others who feel differently (and a fist in the face might be viewed as something of an imposition).

You're missing the point. Everyone subscribes to the same objective reality for most purposes, and science is just an extension of that. Anyone who trusts in medicine, flies in aeroplanes, or uses computers etc. , who denies this shared reality when it suits them is being a hypocrite.

Anyone who claims they believe the world is 6000 years old is as wrong as someone who believe they are 6000 years old themselves. No one would start throwing around relativism and bending over backwards to avoid saying "no, actually, you're not 6000 years old", so why be so squeamish about the truth just because someone has an irrational belief that contradicts it?

If I truly believed that Thor made all the lightning in the world with his hammer would you be so squeamish about telling me I was wrong?

This whole non overlapping magisteria attitude that seems very popular in America these days is just plain wrong in my opinion. Religious beliefs are invariably scientific claims that are invariably demonstrably wrong and it's about time people started to say so.

Sure, people have the right to believe whatever they want, but we have the right to say "wrong" and "mentally deluded" in response.

[George]

Originally Posted by worzel

Anyone who claims they believe the world is 6000 years old is as wrong as someone who believe they are 6000 years old themselves.

Are you sure the two claims are exactly the same and equally argued? There is far greater evidence I am not 6000 years old, than there is the universe isn't. [a joke here would be too easy. ]

Lord Kelvin was adamant about Darwin's age estimation given in Darwin's first Origin of the Species edition. [I think it was 350 or so million years (and to the very year in estimation) for a certain local geological formation. He withdrew it in the later editions.] Kelvin used temperature gradients found in deep mines and he originally calculated the Earth could not be older than 100 million years, IIRC. Later, has mines became deeper, he had improved data and revised it to about 20 million years, thus the Earth was getting younger. He did not have a clue about radioactivity but was later informed of it.

Perhaps neutrions, or something else, reacts with the weak force that would cause accelerated decay of radioisotopes. If so, this should reduce the age of the Earth and solar system, though not be much, no doubt. [Added: assumes nearby sn in the past.]

The point that I would like to make is that it does not have to be about absolutes. Science need not have to take that podium. But, it is about plausibility. It is far, far more likely that we are seeing a 4.5 billion year Earth and solar system than any 6000 year creation. Therefore, like the Catholic church did after Galileo, they engaged in something they had not done in hundreds of years, they took a closer look at the source of conflict - the scriptures. These same scriptures do not require a 6000 year universe, but it does tickle the ears of those who want the simplest interpretation.

If I truly believed that Thor made all the lightning in the world with his hammer would you be so squeamish about telling me I was wrong?

It is possible, I have seen him on t.v. Of course, it is extremely unlikely to the point of silliness.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by George

Are you sure the two claims are exactly the same and equally argued? There is far greater evidence I am not 6000 years old, than there is the universe isn't. [a joke here would be too easy. ]

To deny the evidence that the earth is well over 6,000 years old takes enough self delusion to be only a tiny leap of faith from believing that you're 6,000 years old as well.

The point that I would like to make is that it does not have to be about absolutes. Science need not have to take that podium. But, it is about plausibility. It is far, far more likely that we are seeing a 4.5 billion year Earth and solar system than any 6000 year creation.

Fine, if you want to put it like that. It is implausible in the extreme that the earth is only 6,000 years old and there is not one jot of evidence or one half decent reason for thinking it is. It is also extremely unlikely that it is 12,000 years old, 24,000 years old, used to be orbited by singing chocolate teapots, etc. Santa Claus is pretty improbably too. There is an infinity of stupid ideas that can't be proved wrong and are therefore just extremely implausible - must we torture ourselves with all these philosophical caveats for every single one?

[George]

Originally Posted by worzel

... must we torture ourselves with all these philosophical caveats for every single one?

Nope, no more than we should have to with pseudoscience kooks. But when mainstream says something that looks erroneous, it does deserve attention. This is true with much of mainstream religion, IMO. There really aren't that many claims from mainstream religion that would offer exposure to the claims of mainstream science. The 6000 year age for our universe claim, however, is one that does fall into "The Overlap" between science and religion as science has solid evidence that justifiably says "baloney".

Any solid scientific claim that contradicts a religious view should be regarded by religion as enlightenment and added to the context used to interpret their historical views or scriptures. Be sure to tell them I said so, though St. Augustine warned them first.

[Surprisingly, there is one religious theory that does this and is compatabile with astronomy and Genesis.]

[worzel]

Originally Posted by George

Nope, no more than we should have to with pseudoscience kooks. But when mainstream says something that looks erroneous, it does deserve attention. This is true with much of mainstream religion, IMO. There really aren't that many claims from mainstream religion that would offer exposure to the claims of mainstream science. The 6000 year age for our universe claim, however, is one that does fall into "The Overlap" between science and religion as science has solid evidence that justifiably says "baloney".

Absolutely every claim made by any religion that there is a God who has interfered with the universe in any way whatsoever since the big bang is open to scientific scrutiny. Mainstream religions do not believe in a God that has just sat back and watched it all happen for the last 13 billion years while ignoring prayers, failing to give people strength, failing to instill faith in people, etc.

Any solid scientific claim that contradicts a religious view should be regarded by religion as enlightenment and added to the context used to interpret their historical views or scriptures. Be sure to tell them I said so, though St. Augustine warned them first.

But then they'd be admitting that any part of their scriptures could be wrong and would need good reasons other than "scripture say so" to believe things. If they're not too careful they might inadvertently start to think rationally.

[Swordfish]

Originally Posted by worzel

But then they'd be admitting that any part of their scriptures could be wrong and would need good reasons other than "scripture say so" to believe things. If they're not too careful they might inadvertently start to think rationally.

God forbid! (Har har)

Originally Posted by George

Ah, but color comes in many forms. Is there not new sunshine with my every post?

Well since you're agreeing with me, I guess I can't say no to that.

This person that Tacitus is dealing with seems to have an interesting mix of what they embrace. They look to red-shifting for proof of their claim, but they make a claim that we're pretty darn sure isn't true.

[Ken G]

Originally Posted by worzel

You're missing the point. Everyone subscribes to the same objective reality for most purposes, and science is just an extension of that. Anyone who trusts in medicine, flies in aeroplanes, or uses computers etc. , who denies this shared reality when it suits them is being a hypocrite.

No, it is you who are missing the point. It is very obvious to everyone that science has an important place in our world. How stupid do you think these people are? The real issue is, what is the proper domain of science, and are there profound questions that science is moot on, that people want to believe have answers. What I'm saying is that science and religion don't come into conflict the same way Muhammed Ali and Gary Kasparov never come into conflict. On a chess board, Ali is toast, and in the ring, Gary is a punching bag. So there is only "conflict" when Ali says "my opening will rock your world" or Kasparov says "I'll have you on the canvass in two rounds". If a religious person enters the domain of science and says "I can prove objectively that the world is only 6000 years old", they are gonna get spanked by the evidence. But if they say "I realize there is no solid objective evidence in favor of this position, and to the extent that I must interact in a world community I must stick with the objective evidence, still I choose to believe the world is 6000 years old and this belief affects my view of my place in creation, but it does not alter or disadvantage my interactions with anyone else," then the only answer is a free society is "fine with me". As I said, this does not compromise science education-- it is the job of the educator to demonstrate the value of science, and the job of the religious leader to demonstrate their own value. So it has always been.

If I truly believed that Thor made all the lightning in the world with his hammer would you be so squeamish about telling me I was wrong?

If you were educated in science, yet still chose to believe that, and were not harming anyone else by your beliefs, I would have zero "squeamishness" in letting you hold your belief.

This whole non overlapping magisteria attitude that seems very popular in America these days is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Very popular? You must be joking. I see it almost nowhere, to be quite frank, and so I feel a duty to advocate for it, even on a science forum, because this is the only position that is true to the axiomatic structure of science.

Sure, people have the right to believe whatever they want, but we have the right to say "wrong" and "mentally deluded" in response.

.

[worzel]

Oh come off Ken, if I were to argue that Thor actually makes the lightning by banging his big hammer you may be polite enough not to say what you really think, and you may well think I have the right to delude myself to whatever degree I wish, but you sure would think that I was just plain wrong, not merely wrong in the context of science, and you sure would think that I was deluded. And I doubt you'd be jumping through so many philosophical hoops to avoid telling me I'm wrong and deluded as you are prepared to do for the modern day popular fantasies and delusions.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by Ken G

The real issue is, what is the proper domain of science, and are there profound questions that science is moot on, that people want to believe have answers.

It doesn't make any difference what people want to believe. Where science is moot religion is equally moot. Just because we can't figure something out doesn't mean that someone dressed in silly clothes chanting silly rhymes has any better idea - whatever they'd like to have you think.

What I'm saying is that science and religion don't come into conflict the same way Muhammed Ali and Gary Kasparov never come into conflict. On a chess board, Ali is toast, and in the ring, Gary is a punching bag. So there is only "conflict" when Ali says "my opening will rock your world" or Kasparov says "I'll have you on the canvass in two rounds". If a religious person enters the domain of science and says "I can prove objectively that the world is only 6000 years old", they are gonna get spanked by the evidence. But if they say "I realize there is no solid objective evidence in favor of this position, and to the extent that I must interact in a world community I must stick with the objective evidence, still I choose to believe the world is 6000 years old and this belief affects my view of my place in creation, but it does not alter or disadvantage my interactions with anyone else," then the only answer is a free society is "fine with me". As I said, this does not compromise science education-- it is the job of the educator to demonstrate the value of science, and the job of the religious leader to demonstrate their own value. So it has always been.

And what I'm saying is that that is a totally unrealistic picture of what religion is about. Religious peopel regularly assert things which are scientifically scrutinizable, and they are regularly wrong. It is fine with me if people want to delude themselves but I will not let people like you delude me into thinking that they are not deluded.

If you were educated in science, yet still chose to believe that, and were not harming anyone else by your beliefs, I would have zero "squeamishness" in letting you hold your belief.

But you'd still think I was wrong, right? And you'd say so, right?

Very popular? You must be joking. I see it almost nowhere, to be quite frank, and so I feel a duty to advocate for it, even on a science forum, because this is the only position that is true to the axiomatic structure of science.

Equally, then, you don't think children are mistaken when they believe in the tooth fairy or father christmas unless they are explicitly making a scientific claim about their existence?