Religion, Science, and the unknown

[Prime]

It's pseudoscience, devoid of supporting evidence

What evidence are you saying is incorrect? Can you give specific examples for us?

 

Why else have so many (useless) memetic studies been carried out by so many people?

Because a large part of science is confirming and retesting observations and theories. So when a scientist brings evidence and a theory to the table, other scientists (in this case many due to the "importance" of the topic) seek to test the theory with different experiments and observations as well as try and reproduce the experiments and observations made by the original scientist.

 

The reason for doing so is because science in fact does not trust observations/experiments that can't be reproduced and verified. If the acceptance was as wide as you say, there would be very little experimentation, because everyone would be accepting the results already. If a wide number of scientists support the theory, it is because these efforts have shown the observations to be valid, and the theory to hold up to scrutiny as far as it has been tested so far.

[Jae Onasi]

That's not self-correction, that's the creation of a schism. Would you likewise consider the revival of fundamentalism in the early 1900's a correction?

 

Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic church when he did that, however. He wanted reform, not a major schism. If he had done that with the intention of creating a new denomination, then your theory would hold. However, since Luther simply wanted to clean up, then it falls under the self-correction category, or at least an attempt at that. Since the Catholic church has stopped selling indulgences, I'd call it a successful correction.

 

I haven't looked at the Great Awakening (early mid 1800's) and other revivals since taking US History about 17 years ago, so I'd have to look at that more to address it adequately. My guesstimate is that any revivals in the early 1900's were a reaction to political-social events rather than 'self-corrections' of the church itself.

I think that if "the church" (being just one of a myriad of theological options) were scientific (as some are trying to argue here), then they wouldn't have had to have waited. They could have joined the conversation any time they choose to as members of the scientific community.

 

My objection here is that a few people here want to portray religion as being interested in scientific endeavor of discovery. However this is not what we see. What we do see is religious communities embracing science when it would seem to support their doctrines, rejecting it when it would seem to contradict their doctrines, or attempting to deceive others via pseudo-science into thinking their doctrines have scientific support.

 

You're assuming that theologians have the same scientific acumen and interest as physicists, chemists, and other scientists. We can't be good at/work on _everything_, and the church is more concerned with spiritual needs of man than the actual mechanics of fusion and fission. However, characterizing the church as uniformly uninterested in science until it bites them in the butt isn't really fair. Our youth pastor, for instance, is a storm chaser (which just made my day when I found that out) and would be working at the Storm Prediction Center as a meteorologist if he hadn't gone into ministry.

 

It just sound to me like you're accusing them of not being scientists when that was never their calling in the first place. I don't think that's a fair characterization. It takes non-scientists of any kind (not just theologians) time to absorb, learn, and adapt new scientific theories into their lives. Just because they don't do it as quickly as the scientific community doesn't mean it's wrong--it just means they're slower and need more time.

[Achilles]

Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic church when he did that, however. He wanted reform, not a major schism. If he had done that with the intention of creating a new denomination, then your theory would hold. However, since Luther simply wanted to clean up, then it falls under the self-correction category, or at least an attempt at that. Since the Catholic church has stopped selling indulgences, I'd call it a successful correction.

When science discovers something that is inconsistent with something that was previously accepted, it goes back and starts the process over again. New evidence means that new hypothesis need to be formed, new predictions need to be made, and new tests need to be performed (assuming that the new evidence is inconsistent with the previously accepted theory, rather than something that was predicted and therefore further confirms the theory). This is self-correction.

 

When religion discovers something that is inconsistent with something that was previously accepted, it automatically rejects it unless supports a view that is already held. This is not self correction.

 

If a group of religious people want to follow a different interpretation of holy doctrine, they form a new sect. There is no such thing "commonly accepted" in religion. One god or many gods? Benevolent or malevolent? Messiah or no messiah? New testament, old testament, or quran? So on and so on and so on. If religion were self-correcting, we would have one set of beliefs that was commonly accepted amongst most believers and when new evidence was produced regarding the nature of religion it would follow a process similar to that outline in the science example above.

 

Pointing out how one guy got really fed up with corruption and decided to do something about it is not a strong case for religion being self-correcting.

 

I haven't looked at the Great Awakening (early mid 1800's) and other revivals since taking US History about 17 years ago, so I'd have to look at that more to address it adequately. My guesstimate is that any revivals in the early 1900's were a reaction to political-social events rather than 'self-corrections' of the church itself.

I'm not sure how that would apply. There was a change in belief. That was either a self-corrective measure (which means that almost all religious people should be fundamentalists now) or it was the creation of a new sect. Based on the factors that you have provided, I would tend to agree that it's the latter, thereby strengthening the argument that there is no self-correction in religion.

 

 

You're assuming that theologians have the same scientific acumen and interest as physicists, chemists, and other scientists.

No, I'm simply holding religion to the standards that a few contributors in this thread have suggested that we use. If religion is scientific, as both you and Darth Insidious have suggested, then it's perfectly reasonable to hold them accountable to the same standards.

 

Religion is either scientific or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

 

We can't be good at/work on _everything_, and the church is more concerned with spiritual needs of man than the actual mechanics of fusion and fission.

But religion does make unsupportable claims about the creation of the universe, the world, and it's inhabitants all of which conflict with explanations offered by astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology. It also makes claims about the nature of morality which conflict with explanations offered by neurology and behavioral science. Again, the idea that these two groups play in different school yards just isn't true.

 

However, characterizing the church as uniformly uninterested in science until it bites them in the butt isn't really fair.

I'd be more than happy to reconsider my position based on any sufficiently persuasive counter-argument that you would like to present.

 

Our youth pastor, for instance, is a storm chaser (which just made my day when I found that out) and would be working at the Storm Prediction Center as a meteorologist if he hadn't gone into ministry.

Individual, not an institution. I would be curious to know how he thinks the weather system came to be, how it is controlled, etc.

 

It just sound to me like you're accusing them of not being scientists when that was never their calling in the first place.

I believe that it was arguments presented by yourself and Darth Insidious that suggested that religion was scientific. I believe my argument has been that it is not. Therefore you seem to be arguing against your own position, not one that I have imposed.

 

I don't think that's a fair characterization. It takes non-scientists of any kind (not just theologians) time to absorb, learn, and adapt new scientific theories into their lives. Just because they don't do it as quickly as the scientific community doesn't mean it's wrong--it just means they're slower and need more time.

I notice that you completely failed to mention the part where they have to wait for their church to stop denouncing the scientific discoveries long enough to do the mental gymnastics necessary to make the evidence somehow fit with their worldview, etc etc.

 

Case in point: Evolution has been around for ~150 years. According to the info provided by DI, the catholic church gave a tentative thumbs up in 1950. Yet 55% of americans still think that god created humans in present form and 27% accept theistic evolution (evolution guided by a creator). In the mean time, christian groups under the guise of pseudo-science, work to get creationism into the public school curricula.

 

I think it's dishonest to present this as a case of "they need more time" when the reality is that they are actively rejecting sound scientific evidence because it doesn't fit with the existing religious views about creation.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Jae Onasi]

No, I'm simply holding religion to the standards that a few contributors in this thread have suggested that we use. If religion is scientific, as both you and Darth Insidious have suggested, then it's perfectly reasonable to hold them accountable to the same standards.

 

Religion is either scientific or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

 

I never said, nor implied, it was a science. This was my original comment:

I disagree completely that 'religion' never investigates or seeks deeper understanding. That's a blanket statement that is patently false. If that were the case, there would never be any people of faith in any of the science fields, and church leaders would never address the changes in science. Since we obviously have scientists who also are religious studying in all the science fields (genetics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, etc.) who seek a deeper understanding of this amazing universe we share, then it's patently obvious that these people do not simply 'chalk it up to God and move on'. The Catholic Church has embraced evolution as part of its universe-origin doctrine. That doesn't sound to me like religion just shrugged its shoulders and decided to move on to other theological things at the expense of science.

 

I was disagreeing with your statement that religious people just 'chalk it up to God and move on.' That is entirely different from saying religion is science.

 

But religion does make unsupportable claims about the creation of the universe, the world, and it's inhabitants all of which conflict with explanations offered by astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology.

I don't think the Bible itself addresses anything on molecular biology, organic chemistry, or astrophysics, so how could there be a conflict?

It also makes claims about the nature of morality which conflict with explanations offered by neurology and behavioral science. Again, the idea that these two groups play in different school yards just isn't true.

The Bible doesn't address neurology either. You could make a rough argument about behavioral science, but until I know what you're thinking about specifically as examples where they're at odds, I'm not able to give you an answer.

 

I'd be more than happy to reconsider my position based on any sufficiently persuasive counter-argument that you would like to present.

Islam and astronomy prior to about 1500 or so.

 

Individual, not an institution. I would be curious to know how he thinks the weather system came to be, how it is controlled, etc.

Well, his individual thoughts aren't relevant since he's not an institution, I guess, and I imagine speculation wouldn't be relevant to this thread in that case.

 

believe that it was arguments presented by yourself and Darth Insidious that suggested that religion was scientific. I believe my argument has been that it is not. Therefore you seem to be arguing against your own position, not one that I have imposed.

If I had said religion was scientific, that would be the case. However, I never said that. I said that the blanket accusation that religion does not seek deeper understanding was false. It has used science to obtain a deeper understanding of our universe and God's working in it, but that does not make it a science.

 

I notice that you completely failed to mention the part where they have to wait for their church to stop denouncing the scientific discoveries long enough to do the mental gymnastics necessary to make the evidence somehow fit with their worldview, etc etc.

I knew you had that covered.

 

Case in point: Evolution has been around for ~150 years. According to the info provided by DI, the catholic church gave a tentative thumbs up in 1950. Yet 55% of americans still think that god created humans in present form and 27% accept theistic evolution (evolution guided by a creator). In the mean time, christian groups under the guise of pseudo-science, work to get creationism into the public school curricula.

 

History of theory of evolution from wiki (as a convenient starting point--I'm sure there's a history of evolution by some historian out there somewhere).

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and set out in detail in Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species.[5] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[3] in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[6]

 

The Origins of Species was released in 1859, and given the technology of the time, I'm sure it took several years to filter not only through the scientific community but also the theological community. Scientists needed to examine Darwin's theories, investigate, form their own hypotheses and test them, and so forth--that took a lot of time and effort. Since modern evolutionary synthesis didn't occur until the 1930's, stating that the church didn't address it for 150 years is inaccurate. It was 90 years from Darwin's 'Origins', and only 15-20 years from the modern theories, and given the lack of computers at the time and the slower speeds of communication (not all places even had phones in the '30's and 40's), it should be absolutely no surprise that theories didn't get adopted immediately. Furthermore, other scientists disputed evolutionary theory at the time, so the idea that only theologians were disputing evolutionary theory is not accurate. There are some aspects of evolution that would likely be investigated further (and should be) if it weren't considered career suicide for scientists to do so--e.g. lack of fossils that are clearly macro-evolutionary transformations between 1 species to another, stasis of species over millions of years despite the fact that there should be evolutionary pressure to change, and so forth, but that's going off on a tangent.

 

I think it's dishonest to present this as a case of "they need more time" when the reality is that they are actively rejecting sound scientific evidence because it doesn't fit with the existing religious views about creation.

I wasn't speaking about the current group of literal 6-day creationists, which is limited to a small (albeit vocal) set of individual fundamentalists. They are individuals who don't represent the entire church as an institution. You had brought up evolution theory and its acceptance by the Catholic church, and I was addressing just that.

[Achilles]

I never said, nor implied, it was a science. This was my original comment:

<snip>

I was disagreeing with your statement that religious people just 'chalk it up to God and move on.' That is entirely different from saying religion is science.

I didn't say that you said "religion is science". I said that you said religion was scientific (i.e. of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science or "systematic search for answers").

 

I don't think the Bible itself addresses anything on molecular biology, organic chemistry, or astrophysics, so how could there be a conflict?

Err...the book of Genesis?

 

The Bible doesn't address neurology either. You could make a rough argument about behavioral science, but until I know what you're thinking about specifically as examples where they're at odds, I'm not able to give you an answer.

Existence of a soul as well as the argument that god is the source of morality.

 

Islam and astronomy prior to about 1500 or so.

You're moving my goal post, but I'll give you partial credit (for the record you said "the church" and then offered pre-reformation islam as an example).

 

Well, his individual thoughts aren't relevant since he's not an institution, I guess, and I imagine speculation wouldn't be relevant to this thread in that case.

Exactly my point.

 

If I had said religion was scientific, that would be the case. However, I never said that. I said that the blanket accusation that religion does not seek deeper understanding was false. It has used science to obtain a deeper understanding of our universe and God's working in it, but that does not make it a science.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point.

 

Does religion use a systematic study of the natural world to offer explanations or does it not?

 

I knew you had that covered.

Doesn't change that you tried to portray the facts as something that isn't true.

 

History of theory of evolution from wiki (as a convenient starting point--I'm sure there's a history of evolution by some historian out there somewhere).

<snip>

I'm trying to understand the relevance of this part of your response.

 

Was religion (we'll limit religion to "christianity" here just to keep things simple, if you would like) actively engaged in the discussion of the theory from a scientific (i.e. non-theological) standpoint?

 

You seem to want to portray religion as being very interested in finding the truth and in support of science, but somehow hesitant to accept scientific discovery until all the dust has settled. Unfortunately, the reality just doesn't reflect this.

 

If scientists published a study tomorrow that showed that prayer was 95% effective in medical recovery, do you think religion would sit on the fence until the results could be verified or do you think that the religious community would uniformily shout, "See!? Told ya!"? If a month later, we found out that the methodology was flawed and the results had been faked, do you think the religous community would acknowledge the error and disown the study or do you think that creationist websites would continue to reference the study as evidence that religion is right and science consipres against it?

 

150 years later, nearly 80 years after evolutionary synthesis, we still have 55% of americans that think that god created humans in current form and many religious groups actively work to undermine the theory of evolution. Sorry Jae, your arugment just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

I wasn't speaking about the current group of literal 6-day creationists, which is limited to a small (albeit vocal) set of individual fundamentalists.

Neither was I. You seem to think that evolution deniers are limited to YECs. Unless YECs make up 55% of the american public, your assumption would appear to be wrong.

 

They are individuals who don't represent the entire church as an institution. You had brought up evolution theory and its acceptance by the Catholic church, and I was addressing just that.

Actually, you did in post 10.

[mimartin]

Reading this thread I have to agree with most of Achilles arguments. Science does indeed deal with the unknown better than any religious institution I know of. Science openly seeks the unknown, while religious institutions do not. Some if not most religious institution teaches scientifically unsound messages, mine still believes completely in the story of Genesis.

 

That said I believe the question this thread address is flawed. Religious institutions are not in existence to be scientific places of learning, so why hold Religious institutions to same standard as an institution for scientific learning?

 

As to holding the Bible to being a book of scientific knowledge, well I would not want to use a 3000 year medical book to diagnose an illness or 3000 year old chemistry book to study for a chemistry exam, so I don’t see the relevance even if the Bible has some ancient scientific knowledge in it. How relevant would a 3000 year old geography book be today? Seems that scientific book would be just a flawed in science fact as people say the Bible is today in Scientific fact.

 

The Bible is what it is a book of comfort and spiritual guidance to those of faith or a collection of ancient legends and literature to others.

[Achilles]

That said I believe the question this thread address is flawed. Religious institutions are not in existence to be scientific places of learning, so why hold Religious institutions to same standard as an institution for scientific learning?

Hi mimartin,

I agree with your points, however I'm not sure that your characterization of the topic is 100% correct (which could be misinterpretation of your point on my part).

 

The gist of the topic is this: which institution deals better with the unknown? In the YouTube clip (which I hope everyone is watching because it provides context for the thread), a religiously-motivated scientist argues that science needs to accept that many things are unknown (i.e. an argument that I interpret as being a barely veiled plea for science to accept the god hypothesis without evidence or testing). Another scientist counters that science not only accepts the unknown but embraces it in ways that religion does not.

 

So which is it: Is religion more open to the unknown or is science? My argument has been that science clearly is, because religion simply fills the gaps with god and calls it a day. Therefore, they haven't actually accepted the unknown, they've just replaced it with mysticism.

 

By way of comparison, science seeks to explore the unknown and make it knowable using verifiable tests, experiments, and observations. At some point, the argument was made that religion also does this, which eventually led to your attempt to clarify the argument.

 

If religion wants to be considered scientific, then it should be held to the same standards as science. If it should not be considered scientific, then it is clearly free of these standards, but then finds itself in contradiction to science once again.

 

While you're post does encapsulate the tack of the discussion, I'm not sure how well is summarizes the original topic. I hope this helps.

 

Thanks!

[mimartin]

The gist of the topic is this: which institution deals better with the unknown? [/Quote]

The institution of science is by design and necessity more open to the unknown than Religion institution. Without human’s openly seeking information and answers about their environment, surroundings and even ourselves there would be no science. So in my humble opinion by design the institution of science deals better with the unknown.

 

So which is it: Is religion more open to the unknown or is science? My argument has been that science clearly is, because religion simply fills the gaps with god and calls it a day. Therefore, they haven't actually accepted the unknown, they've just replaced it with mysticism.

Obviously the institution design to search for and investigate the unknown will be more open to the unknown. I also agree with your point that as an institution Religion many times fills in the gaps with your favorite “goddidit.” Religion is slow to adapt to new scientific evidence and sometimes even hinders scientific research (it could be argued for good or bad reasons, but that is a moral issue and may not be appropriate for this topic.)

So as a individual I’d say Science is far better and more open to the unknown than Religion.

If religion wants to be considered scientific, then it should be held to the same standards as science. If it should not be considered scientific, then it is clearly free of these standards, but then finds itself in contradiction to science once again.[/Quote]

This is where I see the flaw. In post 11 and 15 you said we are dealing in this tread with the institutions and not individuals. So who decided that Religious Institutions want to be considered scientific? If you want to compare Religious Scientific Institution to non-religious scientific institutions then that might be a fair comparison. Perhaps Baylor College of Medicine to Harvard University (MA), according to USNews Harvard wins, but the Baptist school is in the top 10.

 

Perhaps I’m just misguided because to me religion is an individual experiences and has little to nothing to do with the institution. As you know I think about as much of Religious Institutions as you do.

While you're post does encapsulate the tack of the discussion, I'm not sure how well is summarizes the original topic. I hope this helps.

I actually agreed with most if not all of Ann Druyan discussion and disagree with original speaker. He might be a very religious person, but as I see it he lacks the desire to be very good at his chosen profession. I also disagree with his interruption of the scripture. To me it says do not fear the unknown, accept that there are things that may not be defined at any given time, but it does not say anything about not seeking the knowledge of the unknown.

 

I’m sorry I thought I commented earlier on what my opinion of the clip was. My mistake:)

[Achilles]

This is where I see the flaw. In post 11 and 15 you said we are dealing in this tread with the institutions and not individuals. So who decided that Religious Institutions want to be considered scientific?

That is what I took away from Jae Onasi and Darth InSidious' posts (posts 10 and 17 respectively). I was intrigued by the assertion and was interested in its support.

 

Perhaps I’m just misguided because to me religion is an individual experiences and has little to nothing to do with the institution. As you know I think about as much of Religious Institutions as you do.

Even individualized religious beliefs have their root in religious institution. The fact that you believe in the christian god is evidence of the christian institution's influence in your life. It may be a tenuous relationship, but it is there nonetheless.

 

I’m sorry I thought I commented earlier on what my opinion of the clip was. My mistake:)

It really is no problem. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page.

[Jvstice]

Achilles: As institutions, I'd agree that scientific institutions are better equipped to deal with these questions by far. I'd say a lot of that has to do with their intended role in society, as opposed to their intended role they have in an individual's lifes, though both roles push religious institutions to being more inherently conservative.

 

Religious institutions throughout history have been used to be a source of societal stability as the source of their political influence in whatever society they are in. As such, they oppose change much of the time, unless they think they can control the direction of the changes. Their authority comes to an appeal to an individual authority based on an intrinsic office they hold within the church, ecclesia, etc, not necessarily on a greater knowledge of what they are talking about.

 

Scientific institutions gain their political influence by being sure of what they are talking about when they give advice. That means that for them to ever expand their base of power, they have to constantly be looking for new truth.