Science: Do we believe or do we accept?

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Yes. All of this is exactly what I teach in my home. I absolutely agree that many of the anecdotes found in the bible, the myths of various cultures have their basis in the need for early humans/human cultures to explain the phenomena around them that could not otherwise be explained. They were insecure and scared - thunder? Lightning? What the hell was going on?! Specific anecdotes from the bible, the burning bush and the parting of the the Red Sea, for example, can now be explained in factual terms.

And, of course, fear of the unknown is an early, and continuing, method of creating a power structure.

Forgive me, I neglected to mention the division of power and all associated repercussions of that! Thank you for being so much more eloquent about it!

[Glenn]

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*

I'd be very interested to know how you would apply scientific methods to a personal experience based on societal constructs such as morality.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*

I'm going to echo ScandalAndy's question and start out asking 'so how would theology help in a scientific discussion'?

Now, I think that we can, in a VERY limited sense, bring a scientific understanding to issues of morality. I will use a couple of examples.

Sexual assault: From an evolutionary point of view, we should expect that women--on average--have a *very* strong preference for choosing who they will be sexual with and under what circumstances. Given the investment any given human woman will make in any given child, she should not want to have sex--with the risk of pregnancy--forced on her under any circumstances. So, we should not expect to find a society that has convinced women that they should *not* resist sexual assault. This does not give us the basis for "don't assault women" it DOES give us the basis for "society should, under no circumstances, tolerate the sexual assault of women".

Slavery: Again, from an evolutionary standpoint we should expect that, all other things being equal, people will see themselves as autonomous agents who have a very strong preference for being able to act as such. Slavery robs people of the ability to act as autonomous agents by making them the property of another person. We should, again, expect anyone in that condition to desire to be free and to take whatever steps are needed to become free. Therefore, we should not expect slavery to be a stable, long-term solution for a society.

Incest taboos: These are, like religion, ubiquitous. Where there are exceptions (almost always amongst nobility) they are notable *because* they are exceptions. Again, we should expect ALL sexually reproducing species to have some built-in mechanism for avoiding sexual contact between close relatives. This may be the closest, of all the examples, to an actual scientific basis for morality but even that doesn't get us quite there. It tells us why human beings have incest taboos it does not tell us that we *must*, just that it is a better deal all around if we do.

Once again, this does NOT get us to "slavery is wrong" it DOES get us to "if your society practices slavery, then it should expect to have a whole host of problems because slavery is not a condition human beings will just accept".

So, the closest science can get us to a moral answer is this: presume that all human beings have a basic human nature. Presume that, left to their own devices, human beings would strongly prefer to be free, to not be subject to violence or violation, and to desire the company of other human beings at least some of the time. We should expect that, on average, parents will prefer their children over some random child they have never met such that if it is a question of giving their child or the random child the last scrap of food the family possess, most parents, most of the time, will give it to their own child. They may feel horrible about doing so, but we should expect that under most circumstances of desperation that is how they will behave.

Now, I've managed to describe a couple of different areas where science can give us insight into the why of a moral rule but it does not tell us how to apply that rule or how to enforce it. Yet, I have not needed, at all, to invoke any kind of theological construct. What could theology add to the *scientific* question? Theology can carry a lot of water of the "if you do X, this or that divine being will be displeased and may punish you" variety but I don't see how it can add anything more than that. Am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

I did a lot of work in teasing apart the relation of religious and scientific discourse when I was a philosophy student back in the 90's. Briefly, I think you hit the nail dead center, AJ, when you said that it is not the job of scientific language to address issues of religious faith. That isn't its function, yes. There is a lot of confusing of one type of concept for another when talk of an intersection occurs.

I am going to come back at some point hopefully soon (it is pride weekend so there's a lot going on) when I can posit my thoughts more elaborately. I also have some book recommendations to make that really do a great job expounding on this topic.

There are lots of great posts in this thread and I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I did a lot of work in teasing apart the relation of religious and scientific discourse when I was a philosophy student back in the 90's. Briefly, I think you hit the nail dead center, AJ, when you said that it is not the job of scientific language to address issues of religious faith. That isn't its function, yes. There is a lot of confusing of one type of concept for another when talk of an intersection occurs.

I am going to come back at some point hopefully soon (it is pride weekend so there's a lot going on) when I can posit my thoughts more elaborately. I also have some book recommendations to make that really do a great job expounding on this topic.

There are lots of great posts in this thread and I am enjoying reading what you all have to say.

Okay, before I really have to get into my workday one more thing:

Ironically, when I am drawing these demarcation lines I am doing my best to both respect AND protect religion. I know the power of the scientific method and I know it's limitations (both imposed from within and from without). The problem I see, for religion, is when it tries to insert itself into scientific discussions. I'm not talking about religious *scientists*, I'm talking about, for example, creationism or New Age interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The minute someone says "my <insert divine being here> created the Universe and all things within it and this explanation supersedes any explanation from biology" then I think it is fair to then evaluate that statement on the scientific merits just like we would any *other* scientific statement. It is not enough to just say "this theory is wrong". That gets you nowhere in the physical sciences. You have to also be able to say "this is WHY it is wrong and here is why this alternative theory better explains the data". This is where sectarians of various stripes get themselves stuck in a morass. In order to justify why the religious explanation is a better explanation, that particular bit of dogma has to go through the meat-grinder of scientific questioning. To take just one example (against staying in biology since that is where I am most comfortable).

In sexually reproducing mammals, the gender ratio is slightly favoring males (e.g. slightly more males are born than females). This is true even for species that have a 'winner take all' or 'winner take most' breeding system. For instance elephant seals have a winner take most system. That means that a bull has near exclusive breeding rights in his colony. He will defend those breeding rights, sometimes risking life and limb. Other males will attempt to best the bull so that they can breed or try to get a little seal sumthin-sumthin on the side taking quite a bit of risk either way. What that means is that the VAST majority of male elephant seals will never breed. Isn't that kind of wasteful? Why would an intelligent entity keep the sex ratio close to 50/50 when most males aren't going to breed?

Now, from a gene's-eye point of view it makes perfect sense to maintain that sex ratio. Why? Because nature doesn't care about 'wasted' genes. Sure, if you are a male elephant seal you may not breed but if you *do* breed boy will your genes spread so from that point of view being a male elephant seal has the potential for a fantastic genetic payoff--if only you can become the bull.

Do religious sectarians really want us asking questions like "why does your deity waste so many male genes" or "why does your deity prefer digger wasps over caterpillars"? I think most likely they would prefer we *not* ask those questions but the moment it is stated that the particular story that religion tells to explain why there are things like digger wasps or caterpillars they open their beliefs to just that kind of questioning.

Cheers
Aj

[Okiebug61]

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

[Andrew, Jr.]

Science comes to a end conclusion after repeated testing. Data can be repeated, and the theories can change. Also, with the new research being done and clinical trials science changes each and every day.

I believe that as human beings we all have common sense to some degree - some more than others (think of those who are mentally ill, have head injuries, or have other health issues). So for the most part, most folks can reason out any decision that needs to be made should the situation come about.

We all also must consider each person has their own perceptions, own belief system, and own priorities. Not everyone will ever answer the same when faced with say a terminal illness.

[Toughy]

secular religion

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

[Okiebug61]

Originally Posted by Toughy

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

I can think of several examples of a secular religion (Ayn Randian Objectivism leaps to mind here as well as American Exceptionalism) but science is not a particularly good example of a secular religion.

Does this help?

No.

I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

You are talking about medical marketing, not science. You may even be talking about the practice of medicine with health as a commodity, but you are still not talking about *science*. Science and technology are not the same things. What you are describing is pharmaceuticals developing a drug for illness A, determining that the drug will actually help people with symptom B even though it is not connected to illness A, and since people expressing symptom B greatly outnumber those with illness A, marketing to those with symptom B (see Viagra, for a canonical example of this).

However, you are still not talking about *science*, you are talking about *marketing*.

How are human beings a guinea pig in, for instance, searching for gravitons (the particle that is hypothesized to carry the force of gravity)?

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

Actually it does not help based what you said after the definition. I'm with Aj in that I would love for you to clarify this more. I'm not sure talking about western medicine is a useful comparision.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[Okiebug61]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

[ScandalAndy]

I just want to state that I am thoroughly enjoying the responses and how respectful everyone is being although this has the potential to be an incredibly touchy subject. Thank you all for presenting your points respectfully, and taking the time to process what we each have to say.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

[Okiebug61]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

I am just too much of a free thinking hippy to even try to engage my brain in this type of discussion. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person and I think that's cool. Me I'm thinking about retirement and how I can make that happen 17 years early. :-)

[imperfect_cupcake]

However, I see the religious card being used less as a tool to promote community and more as an excuse to hide behind bigotry and ignorance. Unfortunately, science cannot be applied to human morality.

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot. If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse." And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

So while I honour and have a sense of beauty and purpose in science, I'm very aware of people being people with it. It's not different than any other human endeavour.

[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot. If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse." And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

So while I honour and have a sense of beauty and purpose in science, I'm very aware of people being people with it. It's not different than any other human endeavour.

I completely understand and, to a large extent, agree that humans use their own morality (or lack thereof) to justify their use of science. The thing I'm getting at is how would you use science influence your morality? I admit at this point I can only see this as a one way street, since I don't think you can use fact-based reasoning to shape something as nebulous as morality and personal opinion.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

It seems strange to me that people would feel the need to say that scientists are people. People can be amazing bastards. My defense of science is not based upon it being pure or perfect, it is, like democracy, the least *bad* tool we have for understanding the natural world. It works, *well enough*, over time that it is useful in general. But that does not make it pure.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot.

Actually I have to strenuously disagree with your characterization of sociobiology and looking for genetic influences on behavior. Sociobiology does not imply there is nothing we can do to help who we are or what we can and cannot change. Actually, explanations based upon culture are just as deterministic--in fact in many ways more so--than any reasonable sociobiological explanation of that same fact. Look at some of the discussions around race that happen here and you will see determinism at work--we live in a majority white culture, whites have traditionally benefited from race-based constructions in that culture, whites have white privilege, therefore whites will defend white privilege even unconsciously. That is as deterministic as it gets and I have not mentioned genes at all. I actually take a sociobiological view of racism that it is a special case of xenophobia and that xenophobia was adaptive at some point but is maladaptive now. So my construction is not 'humans are xenophobic and therefore we can do nothing about racism'. Rather it is 'humans are xenophobic, racism is just a special case of xenophobia, therefore we are going to have to work hard as both individuals and as a civilization to give racism no haven or quarter in our lives, in our laws, or in our institutions. It will be hard work because we are fighting a somewhat uphill battle but it is doable.'

Also, I will give an example of a gene for behavior--most of us speak one or more languages. Your genes built a brain that is hungry to learn language and boots up the language learning systems in the first year. It then sponges language up for the next 15 - 20 years. After which it becomes a bit more difficult to learn a new language--but not impossible. That is *entirely* genetic. The fact that I speak English is an artifact of culture, the fact that I speak ANY language is an artifact of genes.

If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse."

This is two different things. The statement that members of some group X is a moral statement and has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is genetic or not. I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does. Being black is as genetic as something can be--in fact it is entirely genetic, no cultural experience gave me a black phenotype. Yet, for all but the last half-century blacks were treated, in the West at least, as barely human. In fact, when we were treated as barely human that was an *improvement*! Being Catholic is as non-genetic as something exists and yet we protect Catholics from discrimination. The basis for not discriminating against blacks or against Catholics is predicated on something completely separate from the question of why there are blacks or Catholics.

And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

Again, I think that there's a mixup between explanation and excusing. I want to understand *why* xenophobia happens and it is not just a product of Western culture nor is it a product of white people. If there are multiple lives and you can swing it, go to Japan as either a Korean or a black person. You will be treated to a full measure of xenophobia. That deserves explanation for why it is so widespread. Religion is another behavior I think is biological--not what specific religion someone practices but that religion is practiced in all cultures so far. EVERYONE honors their dead. EVERYONE has a set of stories about how to live. I would call religion species typical behavior. It would be absolutely remarkable if there were a species typical behavior that did not have a genetic component to it. Again, that does not mean that people can't help but be religious, it does mean that it might take a little more work to maintain a naturalistic worldview since our brains seem to favor a supernatural worldview. Again, not deterministic but influential.

Cheers
Aj